Campus

Two men get married in a demonstration wedding

Story Image

Alex Benson | IDS

Juniors Matthew 'Sully' Sullivan and Nick Ready say their vows as Doug Bauder, GLBT Support Services Office coordinator, officiates Thursday in the Whittenberger Auditorium during a mock wedding. A reception followed in the Frangipani Room.

POSTED AT 12:08 AM ON Nov. 6, 2009 | PRINT | Email | SHARE | COMMENTS (11)

Juniors Matthew Sullivan and Nick Ready have been a gay couple on campus for more than two years, but they tested IU’s acceptance further Thursday when they were unofficially wed.

The ceremony took place in the Whittenberger Auditorium in front of a crowd of more than 150 friends and strangers.

“The gay community is pretty much accepted on the IU campus, but it is not seen very much,” Sullivan said. “Even I still stare when I see two guys holding hands. We wanted to do something to break the ice.”

The ceremony was organized by the Union Board to promote a healthy discourse about the controversial issue of same-sex marriage.

“Our purpose was to make the campus more aware. The more you know, the less you will judge and the more you will accept,” said Jasmine Starks, director of international and cultural events for the Indiana Memorial Union Board. “A wedding is something people will relate to and it’s an issue.”

The ceremony was performed by Doug Bauder, Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Support Services Office coordinator and ordained Moravian minster. The fairly traditional service involved prayer, vow exchanges and the always-anticipated wedding kiss.

“Though I have had the privilege to officiate over a number of gay and lesbian weddings, I am excited to be a part of something that is a first here on IU’s campus,” Bauder said.

He welcomed an audience of all backgrounds, faiths and beliefs to celebrate what he described as a serious event symbolizing both love and diversity education.

Though the ceremony was not official, it was based off a service Bauder performed for a former IU student in Washington. That ceremony was not legal, though he said it might be in a month when a bill allowing same-sex marriages in Washington is put to a vote.

The dramatization was followed by a panel discussion on same-sex marriage and other gay and lesbian issues that are sometimes ignored.

“If you don’t know about it, don’t be afraid to ask,” said Joshua Sutton, president of the Out GLBT Student Union. “You don’t want to go around the community in an ignorant way.”

Panel members shared opinions on why same-sex marriage should be recognized by the government. They acknowledged significant differences between a marriage and a civil union, including the lack of benefits received by same-sex couples in unions.

“Civil rights are civil rights,” said Eric Love, director of the Office of Diversity Education. “Everyone deserves the same rights and that includes marriage.”

Panel member Vicki Pierce, director of the Community Kitchen of Monroe County, Inc. and member of the GLBT community, agreed with Sullivan and Ready that
Bloomington is an increasingly accepting area.

“Bloomington has been a gay-friendly place for a long time,” Pierce said. “I don’t think twice about holding hands with my wife as I walk down the street. That is not the case if I go out of town.”

While Bloomington might be ahead of the curve as far as gay acceptance, it is not free from discrimination and cruelty.

“Be nice,” Sullivan said, “and have a gay friend.”

PRINT | Email | SHARE | COMMENTS (11)





Name: *
Email: *
E-mail address will not be published.
Comments:
Verify image: Security Text
  *
 
 
All Comments  (11)

Posted by Mary Gosling at 12:40 PM on Nov 09, 2009 | Report this comment

I am Nick Ready's grandmother. Many years ago I was a happily married woman blessed with five beautiful children. The only thing I knew about gays was that they were the butt of jokes that were told by my husband's friends - - & probably my husband, too. Two of these children turned out to be cay, & so my education began. As they became adults, it pained & frightened me to see them threatened in so many ways by some segments of society as well as denied their basic civil rights. And now, i see my oldest grandson, perhaps a little safer, but still being denied the advantages straights take for granted when they marry the person of their choice. My grandson is part of supportive church community where he could have a wedding, but that can't give him rights to insurance, hospital visitation, & all of the rest. I know a day will come in this country when this state of affairs will seem as wrong as slavery does to us now. but people of good will must work to make that day come more quickly. Those opposing equal rights for all should step into the shoes of those who do not have them & feel how that shoe pinches.

Posted by mandyAmanda at 4:12 PM on Nov 07, 2009 | Report this comment

Indiana - I totally agree with you that I am making up my definition of marriage based on what I believe as is everyone else. I also agree that those who support only straight marriage can point to history -- gay marriage, as proposed by gay rights activists, is a newer and lesser tried idea. And history is important, and that's why I don't just recommend changing the definition of marriage at the drop of a hat. But I think the gay rights advocates have made a strong enough case that their form of marriage deserves to be tried. Now, would I recommend that the Supreme Court tomorrow declared that anti-gay marriage laws violate the 14th Amendment? No! Rather, I think gay marriage should be tried in states willing to do so (obviously the minority). As we see what happens, we can decide what should go on nationally. I do disagree with those gay advocates who say stuff like "any delay is too long." While I believe gay marriage is the right thing to do, I certainly accept that gay marriage might have bad consequences that I don't know of. So we should tread carefully. Additionally, more people oppose gay marriage than support it. In a democracy, that is a serious issue. Gay marriage supporters have to get the support of more straight people before gay marriage becomes feasible. We should move relatively slow with the gay marriage experiment -- I am a conservative and I dislike radical change -- but we should move in the direction of gay marriage because it appears that the benefits will significantly outweigh the harms.

Posted by indiana at 11:40 AM on Nov 07, 2009 | Report this comment

mandyAmanda, So you don't want to change the current definition of marriage too much too quickly? Does marriage even mean anything? Could we change the definition of marriage to just being 2 friends? Or is being in love an important part of marriage? In many peoples opinions a marriage needs 2 people including a man and a woman in love in order to constitute a marriage. In yours it is just two people in love. You still don't want to change the current definition too much, but the question is what is too much? Polygamists want it between 3 or more people, and people who practice bestiality want it between people and animals. You are making up your own definition of marriage based on what you believe, which is no different than what proponents of only straight marriage do, except they have history on their side.

Posted by mandyAmanda at 4:17 AM on Nov 07, 2009 | Report this comment

Indiana - If i was to have to come up with a legal definition today, I would say 2 people, regardless of sex or gender. As for 3 or 4 or more: if there comes a time when there is such demand for that kind of a marriage, and if it seemed that such relationships were beneficial, and without serious drawbacks to society, then I would permit such marriages as well. At some point of course the concept of marriage starts to make no sense -- a marriage of 40 people? But there are societies in which we have seen a person with 2 or 3 or whatnot spouses, so if that was something people wanted, I would look to those societies to see how they did it. Anyhow, whether 3 or more should be allowed to marry is not on the political agenda right now, so there's no need to worry about it. Gay marriage is an issue right now, however, so we do have to think about it seriously. I think at this time more Americans still oppose gay marriage and I don't expect widespread gay marriage in the next few years. But I think it is quite likely that in 10 years gay marriage will be a reality in many, many states. We shall see.

Posted by Rufus at 10:36 PM on Nov 06, 2009 | Report this comment

Goodness, what a pair of nincompoops. When will this moronic political fad end? 30 state plebiscites have rejected same sex marriage now. Even California. The only place it's legal is where it's been imposed by fascist regimes in the face of public opposition. A message to gays: you can't marry each other. Make up some nice arrangement for yourselves. Give it a name. Invite your friends and family. Take pictures. Frolic and mince. But it's not a marriage.

Posted by indiana at 9:32 PM on Nov 06, 2009 | Report this comment

mandyAmanda, how bout 4 people? How bout 5? How bout 100? The question is what should the legal definition of marriage be? So if you got to come up with the legal definition of marriage, what would it be?

Posted by mandyAmanda at 9:5 PM on Nov 06, 2009 | Report this comment

Indiana - I don't know what a marriage between three people would look like, and I don't know if our society is set up to handle that. I would say this: if the three people believe that their marriage would make them happier than no marriage, and if such a marriage doesn't cause any major widespread problems then, sure, why not let the three people get married? I do think that progress can only happen if we experiment with different forms of social organization. So, yeah, if people think there might be good reason for a 3 person marriage, I say let them go ahead and try it! If it turns out to be a really bad idea, then we can ban it. But I think we should at least give it a try. It might be better than a 2 person marriage. Think about it: you could have sex with 2 people instead of one and not be cheating! Pretty cool. It might work well for bisexual people, too. I think its a good idea.

Posted by indiana at 7:56 PM on Nov 06, 2009 | Report this comment

why do you say that mandyAmanda? What is marriage? Who should be allowed to get married? Is marriage just between 2 people? Can 3 people get married?

Posted by mandyAmanda at 5:33 PM on Nov 06, 2009 | Report this comment

People who oppose gay marriage are evil and are going to hell.

Posted by judyGlees at 11:19 AM on Nov 06, 2009 | Report this comment

I agree with Separate Church and State... the government should get out of the marriage business altogether

Posted by Separate church & state at 10:23 AM on Nov 06, 2009 | Report this comment

Most people who disapprove of gay marriage do so on religious grounds. I really think the government should abandon "marriage" and adopt civil unions for both gay and straight couples. The civil union should encompass all the legal rights and obligations currently given to "marriage". Marriage could be defined in any way by anyone. Many people might want a marriage ceremony for religious/spiritual or social reasons so let them and the various groups they affiliate themselves with define that.


Email

Your Name: *
Your Email: *  
To Email: *  
Subject: IDSnews.com | Two men get married in a demonstration wedding
Comments:
Verify image: Security Text



*