The Personal is Political

So as many in the wedding blog community (and beyond!) have heard, popular wedding blog Weddingbee has been sold to eHarmony. And now there's a lot of arguing going on about whether this was a good decision, and what this means for the website and its community.

I posted my two cents on Weddingbee when I first saw the news (for me, it was a no brainer that I wouldn't continue to read a site supported by eHarmony), and wanted to leave it at that, at least over there. I've kept the page open in a tab, however, so I can follow along with the debate and so I can find the blogs of anyone else who's leaving.

But it's getting pretty ugly over there. I posted on Feministing (the above link) when they mentioned the Weddingbee sale that I was happy the level of discourse was being kept at a mature level. People were being passionate about their beliefs, but when you're discussing deeply held moral convictions, you should be passionate. Now, however, it's devolving into a disgusting display of some of the worst behaviors possible in humanity. No, I'm being serious: using religion to preach hate is one of the most morally repugnant things a person can do.

But that's not why I wanted to make this post. I wanted to make this post to explain why the sale of a wedding community to a non-LGBTQ friendly company matters to me in the slightest.

As a life long feminist, I've long been familiar with the phrase "the personal is political," popularized by second wave (60s-70s) feminists. What it means is that what affects our personal lives is part of the political sphere as well. At the time this was often used to try to garner legal support for women's reproductive health rights, or the right for women to retain their own individual identity even after getting married. And while some of the fights of our mothers' generation have been won, there are still a lot of battlefronts that remain. Including the rights of LGBTQ-identifying people.

I think I've mentioned this before, but in case I haven't: I'm bisexual. Yes, I'm marrying a man, but to me that's just a quirk of genetics. I fell in love with Billy because of who he is as a person, not as a male. I am acutely aware that if I had fallen in love with a woman I wouldn't be planning a wedding like mine right now.

We currently live in a country that is governed more by hate and fear than reason and compassion. A country where our government seems to believe that just because some interpretations of some religions refuse to acknowledge the love between people of the same sex, that is reason enough to bar a supposedly-secular government from also recognizing these unions. At a governmental level, there isn't much I can do about that right now. I diligently vote for the person that I believe will do the least amount of harm (because there is no current candidate who is as radical as I am about social justice issues), and vote down hateful proposals, but while these are some of the most public actions, in some ways they are the least powerful. Government is a huge machine, and as such it takes a long time for huge changes to be made.

So I focus a lot of my political activism on a personal level. I blog in my personal blog about political issues to raise awareness among my readers. I support companies that have progressive policies, and refuse to support companies that don't. In planning my wedding, I am doing a lot of it myself so I don't contribute financially to the wedding industrial complex that encourages women to hate their bodies, continue misogynist traditions, and go into debt, all in search for a "perfect day." Billy and I are also acknowledging our passion for marriage equality by opening our ceremony with a reading from the Massachusetts's historic supreme court decision legalizing gay marriage, read by a former professor, mentor and friend of ours who happens to be a gay man.

If anyone tries to say that weddings are not political acts, they are kidding themselves, because getting married is one of the most personal decisions a couple can make, and the personal is political.

To sign off, here's the reading from the Massachusetts's supreme court ruling we're using. It perfectly sums up our feelings on marriage, and seems very appropriate today:
Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other ... brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their [family], marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return, it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations....Without question, civil marriage enhances the "welfare of the community" and is a "social institution of the highest importance." ... Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family... Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and [a] connection [to] our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition