The Vine: March 7, 2012
Long-time reader, first-time writer for the Vine, and I have a new-to-me etiquette question.
I belong to a church that is very open to GLBT folks and we get involved in GLBT rights events on a regular basis. One of these events is the annual Pride Day march and festival in our town — we get a pretty large number of people for the march and also conduct a special service that week around GLBT issues and civil rights, including marriage equality. This year at that service, during a time we have as part of every service where people in the congregation share what’s going on in our lives (sick family members to pray for, etc.), a good friend of mine announced that she and another (male) member were engaged to be married. I was not at the service but heard about it later and was supremely happy for both of them, and said so, not giving it another thought (other than to make a mental note to look for a gift and keep the date open on my calendar).
A little while later I spoke to a (straight) member of the congregation about it (“Isn’t it great about…?”) and he was rather upset about the announcement, saying something along the lines of “Did they have to make the announcement at the Pride service?” The implication was that it was rude and insensitive because only heterosexual couples are currently allowed to marry in our state, and it kind of rubbed the noses of homosexual couples (of who there are several in our congregation) in that fact. I have to say it kind of surprised me because I hadn’t thought it might be taken that way. I am pretty sure the engaged couple, who are very sensitive to these kinds of things and are definitely all for marriage equality, did not think of it either — they simply took the next opportunity to share their good news, which happened to be that service (they got engaged the week before while on vacation).
I’m not going to repeat it to the couple because 1) I don’t see how it will do anything other than further stress them out in the middle of wedding planning, and 2) I try not to pass stuff on second-hand like that. But it made me wonder if there is an etiquette for this kind of thing, for use in the future. Did they commit a faux pas, or is my fellow congregant out of line? I don’t know what the general reaction of the congregation was at the time of the announcement as I wasn’t there, but my guess would be that most people would have just been happy for them.
Thanks!
Yet Another Reason To Allow Everyone To Marry
Dear Reason,
The church I grew up in had a similar “cares and concerns” time in the Sunday service — which I seem to recall my parents, God bless them, once using to announce that the TWoP book had come out. Which, ha ha, and it’s a fairly mellow congregation in any case, but I can’t imagine they got up directly after someone else had shared about a parent’s terminal illness and plugged my jokey TV book. It’s about reading the room, and if there’s a general etiquette about that sort of good-news sharing, I’d say it’s…that. Try not to give the listener whiplash, basically, or stray off-topic. (Good advice generally. Heh.)
So, unless the rest of that section of the service was 1) entirely worries and illnesses up to that point, or 2) clearly focused exclusively on Pride and Pride-related news and events, I think your fellow congregant needs not to look for reasons to be offended. And you can always find those, when it comes to either etiquette or, Lord knows, institutionalized discrimination against the GLBTQ community, but there are so many bigger and more legit issues to take exception to that I’m not sure why he’s focusing on this one. Maybe because he feels he can control/explain it. I can’t really say.
But I don’t know what the rest of the announcements had to do with, or the tone of the service, or any of that — and neither do you. Maybe it was really jarring in comparison to other sharing, who knows. I have a feeling that you’re right and the couple just shared it the next time they had a chance, but even if it was a little bit flat-footed, it’s not a big deal. I wouldn’t give it much further thought, and neither should your fellow congregant, whose energy is probably more productively spent raising money for the local AIDS Walk or something…just saying.
Tags: etiquette
I would have waited a week to make the announcement. I mean, it’s a week. Probably not a big deal, but they could have been a little more sensitive.
I agree with Sars that this probably doesn’t amount to that big of a deal, although it certainly was tone deaf in the context of a Pride service. Marriage equality is a bit national fight and too many states are refusing to acknowledge that same-sex couples should have marriage rights. It stings for those without said rights to confront that bigotry.
I also think that while your friends are, I’m sure, not prejudiced against equal marriage rights and were just sharing their happy news, this is a perfect example of how the privileged in society don’t always think about discrimination because it doesn’t affect them in the same way as it does the oppressed. Of course they “thought nothing” of announcing their engagement at the first opportunity because they are automatically allowed the right to get married. They benefit from the prejudices of society, even if they don’t intend to benefit and even though they don’t promote those prejudices themselves.
So, I don’t think it’s wrong or overly sensitive for your critical friend to point out this insensitive gaffe. Raising awareness is not just about engaging in traditional political efforts (like petition drives, Pride marches, etc.), but it also means fighting these battles in everyday life.
this is a perfect example of how the privileged in society don’t always think about discrimination because it doesn’t affect them in the same way as it does the oppressed
You know, I think that’s true — or at least eminently possible that some het privilege was happening there. (And in my response. I try my best not to let that happen but it sometimes does.)
But the couple was aware that it was a Pride weekend/Pride-focused service, I assume, and they still shared their news, which can mean one of two things: 1) the roar of straight privilege was so loud in their ears that it struck them tone-deaf (snark aside, this is totally possible); or 2) they felt in the context of other things that had been shared that it was okay and that the space is about love and support (also possible).
In other words, given the focus of the service, that they announced their engagement anyway leads me to believe that they must have thought it was fine/encouraged. But sometimes I’m naive about these situations as far as assuming that, if it were that obviously a dick move, they wouldn’t have pulled it.
Gay here, and when I need to find things to be offended about, I can just google Newt Gingrich and listen to him of all people prattle on about the sanctity of marriage. I do not expect the other 90% of the world to tiptoe around me and not mention their own happiness. That’s not productive either, and only serves to further push gays and straights apart, when we should be coming together. Same thing with Brad and Angie-appreciate the support, but if you want to get married, GET MARRIED and stick a “fuck you, NOM” in your wedding vows somewhere. If I had been attending that service, I would have applauded (or whatever gesture is appropriate for acknowledging good news)and sincerely congratulated them in person afterwords with a big smile on my face.
I also find it telling that your offended friend is straight. Might he be the kind of person who gets off a little on being The Most Politically Correct Person in the Room? I suspect that might be some of the dynamic in play here.
When you have good news and want to share it, it’s easy to forget that other people might have a reaction other than happiness. I think they simply didn’t consider the possibility of offending anyone – I doubt most straight engaged couples think their happiness will offend anyone.
Maybe they just wanted everyone to share their happiness with them. I’m willing to bet that they didn’t intend any harm at all; my guess is that their fellow congregants leaned toward happiness for them rather than thinking, “Well thanks for rubbing THAT in our faces.”
”The church I grew up in had a similar “cares and concerns” time in the Sunday service — which I seem to recall my parents, God bless them, once using to announce that the TWoP book had come out.”
Awww, man. Parents are the best.
Whenever you do anything in a public forum, there’ll be someone who disagrees with either what you’re doing or how you’re doing it. If the overwhelming response was positive, it’s not a big deal and it’s one person who overanalyzed or whatever. If there have been more murmurs that it wasn’t the correct time or place, the couple might have been a little bit tone deaf, but it’s nothing terrible and will largely be something that people forgive.
In all honesty it does strike me as a little insensitive, but nothing unforgivable. It’s been my experience that the newly-engaged are so happy about what’s going on in their life that they’re not necessarily thinking how that announcement comes across in every situation. There’s no malicious intent, and it’s a completely understandable thing unless you don’t know the couple all that well. It’s a bit of a faux pas, not some major mistake.
I’m a straight married female, (White, too! I’m a hat trick of privlege!) and while I think 90% of the aggrieved congregant’s heart was in the right place, that remaining 10% was a blend of self-concern (if I don’t say something am I wallowing in my own no-problem-zone?) and a dab or three of self-righteous (look at me, blinders off and hands extended to my trampled brethen!)
I mean, Sars is right, it’s all about reading the room, and if someone had just told an awful story about the consequences of not being able to legal bind themselves to their loved one, that’s one thing. But if all the couple in question did was announce to their fellow, presumably loved congregants that they were engaged, well, you really have to love your sore spots a LOT not to spare some congratulations.
I’m presuming one of the reasons this couple attends this church in the first place is its loving and inclusive attitude. To decide on behalf of other adult, rational members that they can’t be happy for a couple because they’re hetero seems to smack of the same “privlege” the congregant was rattling on about.
I tend to agree with Ang and Dawn. As a bisexual woman, I wouldn’t read this as an attempt on your friend’s part to make the Pride service All About the Straight People, and even if they were trying that (which I highly doubt), well, they clearly didn’t succeed.
On the other hand, it is a bit tin-eared – not enough to prompt years of “can you believe they did that” retellings, but waiting a week probably would have been better, and your fellow congregant doesn’t sound like he’s totally out of line for commenting on that.
TL;DR: Your friend didn’t commit a major offense, just a blunder, and I’d still be happy for them and everything.
Also, this church sounds amazing.
@ferretrick Thank you to the vocal gay because as a straight-y over here it could have come off as being rude and further offend the Nation.
Let’s hold hands and sing kumbaya!
Straight engaged girl here. My family goes to a simliar church and I am have joined that congregation in the city I just moved to (I moved from Oregon to Washington, which made gay marriage legal a few weeks after I moved here. Yay!) There aren’t any pride-themed services at my parents’ church, but gay couples attend and the church is very open. I’m sure that the weekend after I got engaged, my parents (who are the ministers) probably shared our news in church. If that weekend had been pride-themed, they still would have shared it. I agree that it’s about reading the room, but I think it’s OK for straight people to be excited about their news and want to share. Without knowing what else was going on in the room that day, it’s hard to say if their timing could have been better, but I also think that it’s a little unfair to expect them to not be happy and want to share their news with their friends. As long as it wasn’t “Oh, John, I’m so sorry you can’t marry Steve, but guess what?” they shouldn’t have to feel bad about it.
Having relatively recently gotten 1) married and 2) pregnant, I can sympathize with the blinding joy and logistical issues of sharing the good news. With today’s online social networking, it can be a bit of a juggling act telling all of the important people in person/via phone/whatever, before someone inevitably congratulates you on Facebook and puts it out there for everyone to see.
I honestly believe that the couple was simply so happy to share their good news that they didn’t give the timing a second thought. However, if they HAD thought about pushing back the announcement, they may have been concerned about getting scooped by social media.
In the grand scheme of Things To Get Offended About, I think this is a big to-do about nothing.
I don’t really understand what the fellow congregant was hoping to accomplish by bringing it up with Reason (unless he was dying to tell someone else “shh, I’m listening to Reason!” Heh). If he thought the announcement was truly out of line, he needed to bring it up with the couple privately. Talking about it with third parties just seems like stirring the turd to me.
Nobody’s saying they can’t be happy and share their news. We’re saying that it’s possible that right then, when the focus was not on straight people, wasn’t the exact right time to redirect the focus on to straight people – no matter how well-intended they may be.
If they needed to announce it that day due to social media issues or other considerations, many church congregations circulate and chat amongst themselves after the service is over.
Much ado about nothing!
“…it kind of rubbed the noses of homosexual couples (of who there are several in our congregation)..”
This is the part that would, to me, clear up whether they were being tone deaf or not. I don’t know if Reason’s friend was pointing out that some of the LGBT members of the congregation did in fact think it was tasteless, or just that he felt they should think that.
4th-hand social sleuthing…never not fascinating.
Straight, married, white, pregnant female here, for what my view is worth. But also from Canada, i.e. land where gay marriage has been legal for several years now. My perspective tends to be: “I still have to remind myself that there are huge huge parts of the so-called developed world where this basic civil right is not extended to all.” So I guess that colours my experience with the marriage issue.
I agree with the basic message from most folks: at worst, this was a blunder, and at best it was a non-issue, depending on the tone of the service.
But I also tend to agree with those who suggest that the fellow congregant comes across as being a bit “holier than thou”. I would take it a step further. It seems a bit patronizing to the GLBT members of the church, kind of like they can’t speak for themselves, and he thinks he has to be the the hetero crusader for them. If any GLBT members were offended by the announcement, I would assume they would feel comfortable speaking up for themselves, considering the church is such a supportive and loving environment.
One hand I agree that the timing lacks a little sensitivity to the issue of marriage equality — I would have waited a week, I think. But I would also assume that someone who belongs to such an open and inclusive church community is not intentionally being rude, but simply sharing their good news with both their straight and gay friends at the time where they’re most likely to see them all together.
The person who is being really rude is the one who is talking behind the couple’s back, in my view. I can understand speaking out to raise awareness of what straight privilege means, but I don’t think that’s what was being accomplished. Seems more catty to me.
“On one hand, I agree…” argh, typos!
I’m gay and engaged to be married (also Canadian). I don’t think the couple did anything wrong —- the fact that they were at a pride-themed service in the first place shows where their hearts are. Presumably they would have been equally happy to hear about the impending (non legally sanctioned) wedding of gay co-congregants.
Expecting a group of people to stay silent about their love because of their sexual orientation (even for a week) seems eminently against the spirit of pride, in my opinion.
I agree completely with @ferretrick and @john. And those who say the catty, gossipy congregant was much more of a problem than the happy couple. I completely missed the fact that that person was STRAIGHT, and this, I think, really hit the nail on the head: “I also find it telling that your offended friend is straight. Might he be the kind of person who gets off a little on being The Most Politically Correct Person in the Room? I suspect that might be some of the dynamic in play here.”
@John – “Expecting a group of people to stay silent about their love because of their sexual orientation (even for a week) seems eminently against the spirit of pride, in my opinion.”
Beautifully put, John.
Lulu: “he thinks he has to be the the hetero crusader for them.”
Sort of a Pink Knight?
Homogay here! I certainly don’t think this is anything to get all heated-up about. Would’ve been cool if they’d hung onto their news for a week, but they didn’t. It’s impossible to know what was in their hearts, but I’d bet on cluelessness. If they’re homophobes, they’ve probably signaled this in other ways to their gay co-congregants. My brother goes to a church like that in NYC, and I was visiting the city when gay marriage was legalized, hanging out with a lot of straighties from his church (playing Celebrity – is that an NYC house party thing?). They all jumped up and down and got really excited and every single one of them was more excited than I was. It was cute.
Here’s what DOES annoy me: I live in a little town with one gay bar. We have drag shows there four nights a week. Sometimes I perform, sometimes I just hang out, but I hate hate hate hate H.A.T.E. it when bachelorette parties come through to be cute and flirt with the queens or whatever. They are, almost without exception, rude to the gay patrons for whom this is the only “queer space” in town, they never tip the performers, and… gay marriage has a snowball’s chance of being legalized here before some federal law mandates it. It’s gross. I sometimes feel like they’re treating us like circus freaks, or thinking it’s just darling to hang out with gay men (I’m a dyke, and they often treat me like I’m in their way or something, or they don’t like that I wear boy jeans, blah blah blah). So keep your bachelorette parties to the straight bars, please, but if you MUST: Tip the performers, tip the bartenders, and don’t ask the queer people in the bar to rearrange themselves so the bride can sit on your barstool. Okay? Okay.