Wedding Day
David Miles and David Higgins
Sunday 29 June 2008
Tony Freeman, officiating


CEREMONY

Tony to All
Dear Family and Friends, we are gathered here today to recognize and celebrate the union of two lives. We have come so that David and David, who already have been sharing their lives together for many years, may be legally united in marriage. This hallowed tradition is not to be entered into lightly, but with certainty, mutual respect, and a sense of reverence and richest happiness.

Tony to David and David
David and David, as you know I am performing this Wedding today. But, only by a mutual commitment to love each other, to work towards creating an atmosphere of care, consideration, and respect, and by a willingness to face the tensions and anxieties that underlie human life, can you continue to make your united lives thrive.
Your love for one another and your willingness to accept each other’s strong points and weaknesses with understanding and respect already has built the foundation for your already strong long-term partnership. Continue to respect your individual outlooks. Share your thoughts, experiences and dreams with one another. Cherish the intimacy and understanding that comes with the passage of time. As you enter this marriage your belief is that it symbolizes to you both a partnership between equal individuals with common goals, hopes, and dreams that will continue to give your lives special meaning and fulfillment.
Today, as there is a long history behind you of a joyful and full life together, there is also a vast unknown future stretching out before you. That future, with its hopes and disappointments, its joys and its sorrows, is hidden from your eyes. But it is a great tribute to your faith in each other that you are willing to face these uncertainties together. May the love with which you celebrate today with joined hearts and hands never fail, but grow deeper and surer with every year you spend together.

Tony to Guests
We gather today at an historic moment for California and a hopeful time for the country. Friends and family who are here today bear witness to both. Change is coming; change brought us here today. What better way to mark new beginnings than with this celebration.
It would be naïve to ignore the significance of today’s event. We are here to witness the marriage of David and David, who you already know as loving partners, but for whom this simple and traditional expression of commitment has been unavailable - until now.
Today as we celebrate this union we celebrate a political landmark and social victory, but we also celebrate our friends and family. David and David have specifically asked me to acknowledge that those of you present today are here for a reason – you are the family and friends who have supported them, loved them, embraced them and helped define their relationship as meaningful even before our laws did.
Look around, be proud; appreciate yourselves for your courage and forward thinking and the example you set by the lives you lead. Take with you today a renewed sense of what the power of love means and how it can truly transform lives and change the world we live in.

Reading (Jerral Miles)

To My Friend (author unknown)
I love you not only for what you are, but for what I am when I am with you. I love you not only for what you have made of yourself, but also for what you are making of me. I love you because you have done more than any creed could have done to make me good, and more than any fate could have done to make me happy. You have done it without a touch, without a word, without a sign. You have done it by being yourself. Perhaps that is what being a friend means, after all.


Excerpt from The Bridge Across Forever (Richard Bach)
A soul mate is someone who has locks that fit our keys, and keys to fit our locks. When we feel safe enough to open the locks, our truest selves step out and we can be completely and honestly who we are; we can be loved for who we are and not for who we're pretending to be. Each unveils the best part of the other. No matter what else goes wrong around us, with that one person we're safe in our own paradise. Our soul mate is someone who shares our deepest longings, our sense of direction. When we're two balloons, and together our direction is up, chances are we've found the right person. Our soul mate is the one who makes life come to life.


Vows [Tony to David and David]
David Jerral, take David’s hand and repeat this vow to him after me:
I David, Jerral take you David Robert, / to be my partner in life. / As I always have I will cherish our friendship and love / today, / tomorrow, / and forever. / I will trust you / and honor you. / I will love you faithfully / through the best / and the worst, / through the difficult / and the easy / with good dogs and bad dogs. / Whatever may come / I will always be there. / As I have given you my hand to hold, / so I continue to give you my life to keep. / So help me God.

David Robert, take David’s hand and repeat this vow to him after me:
I David Robert, take you David Jerral, / to be my partner in life. / As I always have I will cherish our friendship and love / today, / tomorrow, / and forever. / I will trust you / and honor you. / I will love you faithfully / through the best / and the worst, / through the difficult / and the easy / with good dogs and bad dogs. / Whatever may come / I will always be there. / As I have given you my hand to hold, / so I continue to give you my life to keep. / So help me God.


Proclamation [Tony]
Now that David and David, by these solemn vows, have affirmed their relationship publicly and legally, I pronounce that these two are partners in marriage!
You may now kiss.
Go in peace and may God bless.

Tony to All
Please join us now for a champagne toast before the food is served. David and David will be pouring and passing out glasses of champagne.

----------------------------------------
ANOTHER CONVERSATION WITH MYSELF...

from Labor Law Talk Web site: www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=6231

"Overall "official" divorce rate is approximately 57% ... those figures
are manipulated by excluding high divorce rate states like California
from the statistics, so the real national divorce rate is more likely in
the 65 to 75 % range . Why get married when there is a two-thirds chance that marriage will end in divorce?"

WITH THE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF MANY WEDDINGS PLANNED BETWEEN NOW AND THE FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER, I’VE BEEN WANTING TO TALK ABOUT SAME GENDER MARRIAGES THAT ARE BEING ESTABLISHED IN CALIFORNIA THIS MONTH. I WAS “WEDDING COMMISSIONER” FOR DAVE ANDREWS AND CLYDE YOSHIDA IN JUNE. OF COURSE, I ENJOYED THE WEDDING OF MY SON DAVID AND HIS PARTNER, ALSO DAVID, ON THE SAME DAY. BOTH COUPLES HAD LIVED TOGETHER AS DOMESTIC PARTNERS FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE THEY WERE MARRIED. SINCE JUNE 29 THEY ARE LIVING TOGETHER AS SPOUSES. THEY ARE LAWFULLY MARRIED. THE BIG QUESTION IS THIS: “IN WHAT WAYS DO THEY NOW AS LAWFULLY MARRIED COUPLES ENDANGER THE MARRIAGES OF HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES ANY MORE THAN DID THEIR COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS AS DOMESTIC PARTNERS? THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS SANCTIONED REGISTERED DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY HARM THAT HAS COME TO OPPOSITE GENDER MARRIAGES BECAUSE OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS OF PERSONS OF THE SAME GENDER. WHERE IS THE NEW DANGER?

Whether or not couples of the same gender are allowed to be married, marriages of straight couples are obviously very fragile. More than fifty percent of them end in divorce. If over half of the marriages in the United States end in divorce, it’s a pretty safe bet than many of those couples who stay together don’t consider their marriages to be happy. Many would probably describe their marriages as satisfactory relationships but not particularly happy ones. Everybody knows couples who stay married even if they are no longer happy. Divorce is inconvenient and usually complicated. The fact that two people of the same gender have been living together in the same city or the same neighborhood probably has nothing at all to do with the stability of the marriages of straight people.

THIS IS A BIT OF AN ASIDE, BUT I MUST SAY THAT I DON’T LIKE THE TERM “STRAIGHT” TO IDENTIFY PERSONS AS HETEROSEXUAL. THE TERM IMPLIES THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE “CROOKED.” I THINK I’LL TRY TO STOP USING “STRAIGHT” IN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS.

O.K., but what does that have to do with same gender marriages and whether or not they threaten the institution of marriage as it has been defined by state and federal laws? You have a habit of moving off the subject into hair splitting tangents.

RIGHT. IT’S WAS JUST AN ASIDE; SO LET’S GET BACK TO THE ISSUE. WHY SHOULD A WOMAN WHO LIVES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD OBJECT TO MY SON’S MARRIAGE? ALL OF HER CHILDREN ARE MARRIED. WE CELEBRATED WITH HER THE MARRIAGES OF HER CHILDREN. HOW DOES MY SON’S MARRIAGE TO A GOOD, HONORABLE MAN THREATEN OR DENIGRATE OR WEAKEN THE BONDS OF MARRIAGE THAT HOLD HER CHILDREN’S MARRIAGES TOGETHER? I DON’T GET IT.

You’re not being honest, or perhaps you’re being coy., Of course you get it. You're suspicious when people say they are simply interested in preserving traditional values in our society by insisting that laws be enacted to bring everybody into line with their own private belief systems. For more than a century religious groups infiltrated into a major political party provided the “reasons” for keeping women from voting and for disallowing marriage between people of different races. They also provided the arguments used to justify separate drinking fountains for “colored” and “white” people. I remember seeing those separate drinking fountains and separate restrooms in the South when I was a boy. People who deny civil rights to any citizen are bigots. Don’t try to make it nice. Bigotry isn’t nice. Bigots hurt people. Bigotry hurts people. It’s the result of blind but willful ignorance.

MAYBE WE’VE STRAYED FROM THE SUBJECT. YOU’RE PAINTING WITH A BROAD BRUSH. WE ARE TALKING HERE ABOUT A SPECIFIC CIVIL INSTITUTION THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ESTABLISH WHILE OTHERS ARE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. WHAT CONCEIVABLY COULD BE THE DANGER IN ALLOWING SAME GENDER COUPLES TO ESTABLISH MARRIAGES? PERHAPS WE SHOULD REDEFINE MARRIAGE, MAKE A NEW MEANING FOR THE WORD. WE COULD RESERVE “MARRIAGE” FOR USE IN RELIGIOUS CONTEXTS; LET THE PHRASE “DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP” BE THE TERM WE USE TO DESCRIBE CIVIL UNIONS OF ALL COUPLES WHO ARE MARRIED WITHOUT BLESSING OR ANY INVOLVEMENT BY A CHURCH OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF A CHURCH. PERHAPS “MARRIAGE” SHOULD NO LONGER BE USED TO DESCRIBE THE CIVIL RELATIONSHIP EVEN OF PERSONS OF OPPOSITE SEX. THEY WOULD BE DOMESTIC PARTNERS IF THEIR UNION IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY A CHURCH. LET THE CHURCH HAVE "MARRIAGE" FOR ITS EXCLUSIVE ECCLESIASTICAL USE. UNDER SUCH A SYSTEM WE WOULD NEVER USE THE WORD “MARRIAGE” TO DESCRIBE A COUPLE OF OPPOSITE GENDER OR SAME SEX WHO WISH TO LIVE TOGETHER IN DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP. A LEGAL PRECIDENT HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP IS THE ONLY DESIGNATION ALLOWED FOR UNIONS OF SAME SEX COUPLES IN MOST STATES, AND BEFORE JUNE OF THIS YEAR IT WAS THE ONLY DESIGNATION ALLOWED SAME SEX COUPLES IN CALIFORNIA.

You’re suggesting that the word “marriage” to be stricken from all legal civil documents? I get it. The principal argument for keeping same gender couples from “marriage” seems to be based on religious scriptures. You’re saying the word “marriage,” like the word “sacrament,” could be limited strictly to religious contexts. You're saying states should discontinue altogether their use of “marriage” and substitute “domestic partnership” for both same gender and opposite gender couples in all legal documents referring to civil unions that we have traditionally called “marriages,” Maybe that would satisfy bigots.

I DOUBT IT. I MADE THE ARGUMENT, AND NOW I’M BACKING OUT. ANY COUPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO SO SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE "MARRIAGE" TO DESCRIBE THEIR LEGAL, CIVIL RELATIONSHIP. COMPROMISING WITH BIGOTS DOESN'T SOLVE PROBLEMS. BIGOTS ARE NEVER SATISFIED BY COMPROMISE. IGNORANCE IS DISPELLED ONLY BY ENLIGHTENMENT, AND ENLIGHTENMENT CAN’T BE FORCED. CHANGING THE USE OF THE WORD “MARRIAGE” FROM SECULAR TO EXCLUSIVELY RELIGIOUS USES WOULD SURELY NOT SATISFY BIGOTS. BIGOTS WHO WANT TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AREN’T SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND OR TO BE ENLIGHTENED. A NATION OF LAWS IS ESTABLISHED, OR CONSTITUTED, UNDER A SECULAR CONSTITUTION NOT UNDER A SET OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. IN MOST ISLAMIC COUNTRIES SHARIA, OR ISLAMIC LAW, INFLUENCES THE LEGAL CODE. I DON'T KNOW ANY AMERICANS WHO WANT SHARIA LAW AS A BASIS OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO INSIST THAT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS BE THE BASIS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. LET’S HOPE THE MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS ARE NOT BIGOTS.David Miles and David Higgins