No wait, don’t cry! I know you’ve been waiting for a long time, but this is a time to celebrate!

Ahh yes, much better. Carry on!

See the entire set on Flickr.

And to all of the amazing people who contributed to our honeymoon fund, you will soon be receiving some pretty awesome (and incredibly belated) postcards. Now that you don’t have to sit by your computer waiting for our wedding pictures, you can now get out a lawn chair and sit by your mailbox. Happy waiting!

We promise there will be updates in the future!

Hello friends and family! I would like to point your attention to this video of our beagle, Rosie, trying to walk in dog slippers (these were special dog slippers; not only were they made for dogs but they also had stuffed animal dog heads sewn on the top of them):

Here are some things you should know about this video:

1. These were given to me by a coworker. Her mother had bought them from Goodwill for her own dog but they were too big. The idea was that maybe Mogwai could wear them. I accepted the slippers with the full knowledge that I would never seriously put my dog in slippers and that, at best, they would make for a cute picture (or VIDEO!)
2. These were much too big for Mogwai. But they fit Rosie. She let me put them on her without a problem. Have any of you ever hung out with Rosie? Aside from pretty much HATING all other dogs, Rosie is totally chill. She’ll let you do anything to her. Just ask Anna and Asa. How many “haircuts” have those two given her? [sidenote: In Asa's world, giving your pet a haircut consists of contorting the pets ears any and every way the animal will let you. My preferred haircut for Rosie is her Princess Leia look. I'm sure there is a picture somewhere but I am at work and I cannot find one]
3. The slippers stayed on with a velcro strap. It took Rosie all of 3 minutes to figure out how to undo the velcro and shake her paw until the slipper came off. I was actually quite proud of her.

So, this video was posted on June 2nd, 2009. You can imagine my surprise when I got an email notification that someone had posted a comment on this video:

Wait, what?! Who is this person and how do they know I live in a shitty little house?!

I have no answers to these questions because this is what this person’s Youtube page looks like:

Obviously s/he has no joy in their life and nothing better to do than troll around Youtube looking for videos of dogs in slippers and then posting rude messages on said videos. I wonder if s/he has seen this one:

Animal abuse AND child abuse, all rolled into one!

A bigger person than me would have deleted the comment from their page, blocked the user and moved on with her life. However, I find the whole situation hysterical. In terms of what I have to do to Rosie on a daily basis to keep her safe, happy and in good health, this seems incredibly mild. Plus, I’m really funny. So I had to respond. Here you go:

Youtube has a character limit on comments. So I had to make 3 comments to get my point across. I’m giggling now just thinking about it.

Of course, Crazytown couldn’t leave it be so s/he had to respond:

In contrast, the ONLY OTHER comment I’ve ever received on this video was made one year ago:

So, what is it? A video of me clearly abusing my dog or a video full of “so many giggles to be had”? It seems that the 2 strangers who have viewed this video just can’t come to agreement on that. Honestly, I think this video is more humiliating to me than it is to the dog. Do I really talk like that? Or is that just a special voice I reserve for Rosie? And I love how Aimee Mann’s cover of “One is the Loneliest Number” is playing in the background. Poor Rosie; she’s so lonely.

I probably won’t respond again but, if I do, what do you think I should say? The best I can come up with is “You are a lunatic and should be in a mental hospital” but it’s missing the wit and the charm that I am looking for. I am open to suggestions.

PS-If Anna’s Aunt Janet is reading this, I apologize for the use of bad language, especially the C word. However, I hope you can agree with me that my use of that word was warranted in this situation.

As most of you know, we went to Maui for our honeymoon. It was absolutely breathtaking, and a welcome change from our midwest, landlocked state. Since I’m sure you want every single detail, I’ll give you a run-down of our days exploring Maui. If you’re not ready to read a long post about our adventures, click here. If you are, then continue…

Day 1

When we arrived in Maui, we picked up our super sexy silver Ford Mustang (we totally didn’t look like tourists at all!) and checked into the Maui Sunseeker. Then we drove up to Lahaina to eat dinner and watch the sunset. It was so ugly that we closed our eyes most of the time. Just disgusting.

When walking back to our car, someone started talking to us about tattoos, and gave us a business card for a nearby tattoo shop. This may or may not have been the point in which we decided what we’d be doing on the last night of our vacation.

Day 2

We went on a swinging bridges hike, which was challenging but awesome. There were 2 swinging bridges, both of which were frightening (at least to me). I imagined they’d be more like the Capilano Suspension Bridge that we went across in Vancouver.

Recently, we had to have an intervention for Jim to stop wearing his Capilano Suspension Bridge t-shirt in favor of wearing a new shirt from Hawaii.

But the bridges were actually a bit less safe than that.

I sense a lawsuit coming on!

But we braved the scary bridges and rugged terrain, and made it to the waterfall at the end of the trail. Win!

After braving the bridges one more time on our hike back to the car, we drove to Iao Valley Park, where we saw some chickens, roosters, and the Iao Needle.

Afterwards, we checked out a gay clothing-optional beach that had been recommended to us by our gay clothing-optional hotel. It was called Little Beach, but was only accessible by going to Big Beach and climbing (loosely speaking) over a wall of lava rock. We wanted to check the spot out before Sunday, because we heard that Sunday evenings are when a bunch of homos, hippies, locals, and weirdos hang out on the beach and partake in libations and form drum circles and dance with fire, among other things. The beach was pretty barren on this particular afternoon. We tried to take a swim in the ocean, but the waves were too big for my midwest sensibilities, because we both got completely knocked down. Baby steps.

Day 3

We wanted to have a lazy morning and afternoon lounging on pretty beaches and swimming in a not-so-hostile ocean. Someone recommended we drive up the west coast of Maui, but it was so packed with touristy resorts that there were barely any public swimming beaches. We called our hotel, and they recommended a nearby beach that was mostly just known to locals. We went, and it was exactly what we were looking for. Not crowded, calm waves, and no sharp things to cut our feet, which would surely lead to getting eaten by sharks.

We then drove back to Lahaina to make tattoo appointments, and our tattoo artist, Jason, recommended a local restaurant nearby. It was delightful, despite the fact that a drunk guy at the table next to us asked if I wanted to get drunk with him. I felt morally obligated to order fresh, local seafood at least once during the trip, so that’s what I did. And it was deeee-licious.

Day 4

This was an incredibly exciting day for Vanderpants, because she got to spend some quality time with her favorite non-Mogwai animals. Yep, that’s right, we went to the Surfing Goat Dairy. We got to take a tour, feed some goats, and sample some goat cheese. I will let the pictures speak for themselves.

This dog's name was Trottel, which is German for "moron". I dunno, he looks smart to me.

I think Vanderzee likes goats so much because they're always smiling.

Okay, enough with the goats.

After the goat dairy, we went to the Maui Ocean Center, which was a totally rad aquarium showcasing gorgeous Maui ocean life. Vanderzee made some new friends!

Oh hey, Mr. Stingray wants to tell you a secret!

The turtle wants to know Mr. Stingray's secret.

That night, we went to Whaler’s Village in Kaanapali, which is a super classy outdoor mall. We had dinner at a restaurant overlooking the beach. The views were beautiful, but the food was expensive and not great. I guess that’s what we get for going to a beach-front restaurant in a super touristy part of Maui, eh?

Day 5

We decided to make the drive to the top of Haleakala, a 10,000 foot volcanic mountain. We both tend to get carsick, so the incredibly windy 1.5 hour drive to the top left me feeling a little cranky by the time we got to the summit. It was insane to drive through clouds on our way up, and then be above clouds at the top of the mountain.

After we got back from Haleakala, it was time to check out Sunday evening madness at Little Beach. It was absolutely packed with people! And I will just say that the people-watching was some of the best we’d ever seen. We put our towel down, and just sat and took in the surroundings. We even (unwillingly) made a new friend. An old, semi-toothless man wearing nothing but a straw hat came over to talk to us. He broke the ice by saying that he met us last week (not true), and he gave us a business card for some gem shop. He said a lot of things, including:

• He’s friends with B.B. King and has known him for many years (I heard 45 years, and Vanderzee heard 25 years).
• He studied “opticals”, and has Prada sunglasses.
• He has 50 cats.
• He used to train race horses.
• He built the whale statue in Kihei. He asked if we new of a way to save the whales, and he suggested that to save the whales, we need to not throw rocks at them.
• He knows half the people in Indiana, but has never been here.
• He offered Vanderzee a massage.
• He took a piece of driftwood and told us he loved us as he touched the driftwood to our big toes.
• He gave us each a marble. Vanderzee pointed out that she didn’t think he had any to spare.

He finally put on shorts and went on his merry way. For obvious reasons, we did not take any pictures at Little Beach…

That night we got delicious pizza and relaxed in our hotel room. We realized we’d been doing a lot of running around in the first part of our trip, so we made the executive decision to book a room at a super fancy resort, the Grand Wailea. We’d heard awesome things about their pools, and we thought that a honeymoon was a great opportunity to spend a night in a ridiculously fancy hotel.

Day 6

We spent the morning browsing around local shops and stands, and had an amazing brunch. We checked into the Grand Wailea as soon as we could, went to our room, and then went straight to the pools. They were absolutely fantastic. It was a series of little pools, all of which were connected with mini water slides and “rapids” (which weren’t all that rapid). The pools were right by the beach, so when we felt like swimming in the ocean (i.e., when we had to pee), we could just walk over to the beach and jump in the ocean. We swam all afternoon, then got dinner (which again, was too expensive and not all that good), then swam a little longer, then got DELICIOUS desserts and took them up to our room.

Day 7

We got up in the morning and went back down to the pools. We even stood in line for the “world’s only water elevator” (which ended up being totally lame). Some punk kids tried to butt in line, and Anna laid down the law (“Hey kid, we have been waiting in line for 20 minutes”). We played in the pools and went down the water slides until we decided we’d officially gotten our money’s worth out of the fancy hotel experience.

The hotel was so fancy that guests are required to use valet parking. When the valet pulled our car up, the rear driver’s-side tire was completely flat. But good thing it happened at the Grand Wailea, because Anna and I don’t know how to change a tire (how did this happen? Jim, why don’t I know how to do this?), and the valet did it in just a few minutes. Luckily, the airport wasn’t far away, so we drove the car to the rental place and exchanged it for a dark grey Mustang.

It was our last night in town, so you know what that means! Tattoo night! Our appointment was for 5 pm, and we thought we’d be out by 10, but between many versions of our tattoo designs and the inability of our tattoo artist to stop talking and telling us stories, we were there past 1 am. They were the most painful tattoos we got (I even shed some tears, which I’ve never done while getting tattooed before), but we are SO happy with how they turned out.

Anna got a goat tattoo because, well, she loves goats and has very fond memories of the goat farm we visited. I got a rooster tattoo because I loved all of the chickens and roosters we saw hanging out in Maui. And my mother loves both tattoos equally!

Day 8

Packed up, bought a ukelele, ate lunch at the beach, temporarily lost the car keys in the post office, drove to the airport, said our last goodbye to Maui, and boarded our plane back home.

Whew. Congrats if you made it through this whole post. Thanks again to everybody who helped make our trip so awesome! To see all of our pictures, you can look at the whole set on Flickr.

There were a lot of things we wanted to do on Maui and didn’t get around to, but that just means we need to go back ASAP, right?

But, since these individuals have such faulty logic and are complete whackadoos, sometimes I can find it in myself to let go of my anger, and instead laugh at their crazy antics. Please, gentle readers, follow me in my journey to laugh at the whackadoos.

First, let’s talk about everybody’s favorite J. Crew ad. For those of you who have been living under a rock (i.e., for those of you who don’t troll the innienets all day), J. Crew published the following ad, featuring a designer having a loving moment with her son, who has freshly-painted pink toenails:

Do you feel gender-confused? I sure do!! And so does FoxNews.com Health columnist Dr. Keith Albrow, who said:

This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity.

Not only is Beckett likely to change his favorite color as early as tomorrow, Jenna’s indulgence (or encouragement) could make life hard for the boy in the future. J.CREW, known for its tasteful and modest clothing, apparently does not mind exploiting Beckett behind the façade of liberal, transgendered identity politics. One has to wonder what young boys in pink nail polish has to do with selling women’s clothing.

It wasn't until the publication of this ad that the American public found out that gay male fashion designers exist.

This Senator is certainly gender-confused. His mother gave him a girl's name!

In defense of the bill, Stacey cited examples of past cases from other states, in which parents were up in arms about things like children’s books that feature gay families, story tales about two princes falling in love, information about same-sex relationships and health in sex ed classes, and perhaps the worst part, teachers discussing homophobia and bullying with their students. How these schools in question didn’t turn into homosexual kid factories is beyond me.

Our friends over at FCKH8 made an amazing video in response to this batshit loco legislation:

Haha! Those kids cussed!

I’d like to end this post with a few recent non-whackadoo videos that have really touched me. First, here’s a Representative who asks, “How many gay people must God create before we accept that he wants them around?”

And last, here is the Google Chrome commercial that brought me to tears:

Absolutely beautiful.

Why do you want to ruin my wedding?

I bet  you didn’t know this but at least 0.5% of the reason why Anna and I wanted to have a wedding is just so we could meet you. You wouldn’t want to crush our delicate lesbian hearts just because you couldn’t be bothered to buy a suit, do you?

I have lots of brilliant reasons why it’s so important that you be present for me and Anna’s wedding. Want to hear them? Well, too bad. Here we go:

First of all, we’re beginning to think you don’t exist. I’ve known Vernon since I started working in the Office of Admissions in 2002. It’s 2011, Rob. You do the math. Did you do it? So now you know that Vernon and I have known each other for 9 years and I have never met you. NINE years, Rob. 9 years. I’m beginning to think you are some sort of mythical creature like the Easter Bunny…

Or Samsquanch…

Rob, you can tell everyone what a "Samsquanch" is when you come to the wedding.

Or Marriage Equality.

Secondly, I think you and I would be great friends. Vernon and Anna Saraceno are great friends. Vernon even has a shrine to Anna in his office. Do you have a shrine to me in your office, Rob? I didn’t think so. If we were friends, we could talk about all sorts of stuff like… well, I don’t know what. But I know you could help me figure out more ways to pester Vernon. For example, I didn’t know your refusal to buy a suit would annoy him so much. I’m sure I can get some mileage out of that one!

Some might call this "creepy"; I just call it "love".

And finally, I have no idea what you look like. I hear you and Vernon look alike. Anna and I have the same name but we look nothing alike. You and Vernon have completely different names, but look like each other. Rob, don’t you see how these are the makings of the most awesome, queerest friendship quartet that the world has ever seen?! Why are you foresaking our destiny?!

This is the only picture of Rob I have ever seen.

 So, Rob, yesterday Vernon told me that he might not let you come to the wedding if you don’t buy a suit.  This troubles me, Rob. The wedding is in 22 days. 22 days, Rob. That means you have THREE WEEKS to find the suit of your dreams and get it altered so that it fits you like a glove. Do you really want me and Anna to only be 99.5% happy on our wedding day? This doesn’t bode well for the future of our non-existent friendship, Rob. Your refusal to buy the appropriate apparrel for the happiest day of my life makes me feel like this:

You don’t really want me to feel that way, do you Rob?

To aid in your search for the perfect suit, I have done some internet searching for you. You can even buy a suit on Amazon.com, Rob. Who doesn’t love shopping on Amazon? I know my future BFF likes shopping on Amazon (in case you haven’t realized it yet, my future BFF is you Rob. It’s always been you.)

In conclusion, I hope my honest and heartfelt confessions have inspired you to go out there and find the perfect suit for what will surely be the most fun, least legal wedding you attend all year. You’d better be there Rob. I want to be 100% happy on my wedding day and only YOU can make that happen.

One more thing, Rob. No Texas Tuxedo, okay? It might have worked for Justin and Britney but it ain’t gonna work for you.

What's their excuse? "It was the late 90's"?

Sincerely-

Your dearest friend that you just haven’t met yet

[To the rest of our friends and family: By now I'm sure you agree with me that Rob just needs to get off his duff and buy a suit for our wedding. Rob, get it together man.]

I cannot stop looking at these two. I think they are so perfect:

I want to thank Beth Droste-Glowinski and her wife, Anna, again for helping us make sure we got some pictures that we really love.  Yay!

We didn’t necessarily set out to make this a political blog, but you can’t really have a big lesbian wedding in the middle of Indiana without discussing politics and law. A few weeks ago, I attended a mini-symposium on DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and the future of same-sex marriage, hosted by the IU Maurer School of Law.

Bear with me. This is gonna be a long one.

Note: After writing this post, I’ve realized that I have trouble being witty and to-the-point like Anna V. If you are limited on time or just want me to get to the point, please scroll down to “Hey, get to the point!”

For those who’d like to brave the novel I wrote, I’ve inserted pictures of our pets to break up all of the “blah blah blah politics blah blah blah laws blah blah blah homos blah blah blah” talk.

Thanks for reading my ramblings! -Anna S.

Defense of Marriage Act

First, let’s talk DOMA. Because I have no kind of political or law background, I find it difficult to read the wording in DOMA and understand the implications. However, from what I gather, DOMA establishes two main policies:

1. States are not obligated to recognize same-sex marriages, even if they were performed legally in a different state.
2. The federal government may not recognize any same-sex marriage, even if it was performed in a state where same-sex marriage is legal.

There are various rationales the federal government had behind implementing DOMA, and here are a few:

• Responsible procreation (haha!)
• Defending and nurturing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage (hahaha!)
• Protecting state sovereignty (This is actually the opposite of what DOMA does, which I will explain soon.)
• Preserving scarce government resources (Congress offered to do a financial analysis on the impact of DOMA, and the committee said no. Later when the analysis was done, it was shown that DOMA is actually costing more money)
• Collecting and honoring morality in human sexuality (Oh man, these jokes are so funny!)

As the keynote speaker, Maura Healey, commented, “If you just scratch the surface of some of these rationales, you will see that they’re irrational”.

Massachusetts vs. DOMA

Maura is the Chief of the Civil Rights Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. She is leading Massachusetts’ constitutional challenge to section 3 of DOMA (the 2nd of the items listed above; apparently there are 3 sections of DOMA, but I can only find explanations for 2 of them). Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts. However, because DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, Massachusetts is in a tough situation.

Maura discussed the fact that there are over 1100 places in state and federal law where marriage is used to determine policies, benefits, and statuses, from birth to beyond death. This number really puts into perspective the implications of denying legal marriage rights to a large group of people.

She also said that since legalizing same-sex marriage in 2004, the marriage rate in Massachusetts is as high as it’s been in the recent past, and continues to increase. Massachusetts continues to have the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Additionally, studies have shown that in Massachusetts, same-sex couples and their families are now mentally and financially better off.

With the establishment of DOMA, the federal government is imposing the national definition of marriage over each state’s definition of marriage. DOMA requires Massachusetts to discriminate against same-sex couples, even though as a state, Massachusetts chose to not discriminate against same-sex couples.

One of the more serious implications of this situation is that Massachusetts (and other states in which same-sex marriage is legal) has to choose between complying with federal regulations and risking loss of state funding from the federal government. As you probably know, when the federal government allocates money to states, the money often comes with stipulations. If Massachusetts wants to continue receiving federal funding for a number of programs and institutions, they have to play by the federal government’s rules.

Here’s a real-life example of how this is a problem: A Vietnam war veteran in Massachusetts died, and was buried in a federally funded cemetery. He and his husband wanted to be buried next to each other. However, law requires that in this cemetery (probably a veteran cemetery), couples can only be buried together if they are legally married. If DOMA didn’t exist, there would be no problem with burying these legally wed (in the state of Massachusetts) partners next to each other in the cemetery. However, with DOMA in place, burying these men next to each other would be in direct violation of federal policy. If Massachusetts were to grant the couple the right to be buried next to each other in this cemetery, they would risk losing federal funding for all veteran programs and benefits. Pretty messed up, right?

Maura’s case is this: For the past 200+ years, the federal government has always deferred to states’ definition of marriage. So why start imposing a national definition of marriage now?

If Maura’s case wins, then the state of Massachusetts will be able to allow same-sex marriage, as well as all of the corresponding benefits and rights, without fear of penalization from the federal government. It will set a precedent that the federal government may not enforce a federal definition of marriage.

Same-sex marriage outside of Massachusetts

But what about states in which same-sex marriage is illegal? Wouldn’t we (i.e., the homos) benefit from having a federally enforced policy requiring states to perform and recognize same-sex marriages?

I asked Maura about this, and she responded with examples from when interracial marriage was illegal.

• Perez v. Sharp (1948): The Supreme Court of California recognized that interracial bans on marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection clause) of the Federal Constitution. This was the first decision of a state to not support an anti-miscegenation (anti-interracial marriage) law.
• Loving v. Virginia (1967): The United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924″, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

So, according to Maura, as soon as we (you know, the homos) have a case like Loving v. Virginia, we won’t have to worry about a) the federal government taking rights away from same-sex married couples, or b) individual states banning same-sex marriage.

And the good news is that there are a number (albeit a small number) of cases that could make great progress for the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States. But instead of trying to explain them, I’ll just point you to GLAD’s DOMA Section 3 Challenge.

For those of you still reading, you’re doing great! Just a little bit more, and then you’re free to comment about how I shouldn’t ramble so much on the blog.

Social barriers and progress

One of the panel members at the symposium was Brian Powell (IU professor and author of Counted Out: Same-sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family), and he offered a sociological perspective. He reported his findings from his “Constructing the Family Surveys (2003 and 2006), which asked more than 1500 people to explain their views on a broad range of issues, including gay marriage and adoption, single parenthood, the influence of biological and social factors in child development, religious ideology, and the legal rights of unmarried partners.” It was interesting to see the variation in what people consider to be family.

For example, a lot of people think that an unmarried gay couple isn’t a family, but a married gay couple is. Many of these people also believe that if the married gay couple moves to a state that doesn’t legally recognize their marriage, they are still a family. Hmm.

The survey also asked about attitudes towards civil unions. Powell explained that a lot of people support same-sex civil unions, but think that same-sex marriage should be illegal. However, many of these same people define a civil union as a marriage performed by a justice of the peace. So really, they’re defining marriage as something performed in a religious institution. They actually DO support the legality of same-sex marriage, but they don’t think that churches should have to perform same-sex marriage if they don’t want to.

And that’s one of the huge misconceptions of the legalization of same-sex marriage. If same-sex marriage is legalized, no religious institution will have to perform same-sex marriages if they don’t want to. So, you know, spread the good word on that one.

And finally (yes, this is coming to an end!), Powell reported that Americans’ opinions towards same-sex marriage are at a tipping point. More and more people (especially young people) are starting to support the legality of same-sex marriage.

Hey, get to the point!

So here’s my point:

We’re having a big wedding so we can celebrate our love and commitment, and perhaps more importantly, so we can have a giant awesome party in a giant awesome theater with a giant group of family and friends.

However, given current same-sex marriage laws and the overall political climate in the United States, we can’t ignore the social and political aspects of having a wedding in a state (and country) that bans same-sex marriage. We can’t deny that even after we have a giant party for ourselves (which will be totally awesome), we still won’t be legally married (which will not be awesome at all).

We hope you will join us on our big day, and we don’t want any of this bass-ackwards country’s discriminatory laws to prevent you from dancing until you can’t dance no mo’. But in addition to partying with us, we hope you can understand the social and political implications of (and barriers to) our wedding and marriage.

And that’s it! If you read this entire post, you deserve some kind of prize. We just can’t really get you a prize because we’re, like, planning a wedding or something.

I’m reading this book called Butch is a Noun by S. Bear Bergman and it’s changing my life a little bit (then again, maybe I’m just exercising parts of my brain I haven’t used in while).  It’s one of those books where you start reading it and everything just clicks and suddenly you’re exclaiming “Yes! That’s exactly how I feel when I have to use a public restroom!” Okay, maybe that wouldn’t happen to most of you.

I came across this paragraph in one of Bergman’s essays, titled “Bridal Registry” and I had to read it to Anna instantly. She suggested I share it with all of you since we know you are faithfully checking our blog everyday for updates.

I did not exactly set out to be a Bride. I didn’t set out to be a Groom, either. In much the same way that I have a wife but I am not a husband, I had a Bride but I was not a Groom. Not only that, but people kept asking me what I was, then, as though the union of souls could not continue until the taxonomy had been satisfied. I was clear that I was not a Bride. I was willing to be a Groom, but it didn’t quite seem like the thing; I suggested that she was Beauty, and I was Beast. Harlequin and Columbine, I offered, bird and bee, but the prevailing sentiment was that either I was a Bride or I was a Groom. I dug in and announced that I was a Bear, that I had chosen a Russian girl on purpose so that the Bride and the Bear would make cultural sense, and now, if I could please be excused from the conversation, I had yarmulkes to order.

-S. Bear Bergman, Butch is a Noun

 Gender identity is very complicated for me. 32 years in and I’m still trying to figure it out. I’m genderqueer but not transgender; I don’t feel like my body doesn’t match how I feel inside. I just think that I don’t really match what it means to most people to be a woman or to be a man, inside or outside. I think I occupy this space in between that most people don’t take the time to understand or even consider. I look like a teenaged boy, I get called “sir” all the time and my friends love to tell me how girly I am. I don’t really fit in anywhere. But you’ll be happy to know that I am very much okay with it. And hopefully you are too!

So, you know, I’m not the Bride but I’m not really the Groom either. I fit somewhere comfortably in the space between. Maybe I’m the Broom (hey, it sounds a lot better than Gride).

Anna M. Eaglin

The most common question I received when Anna S. and I announced our engagement was “Isn’t that illegal?” Well, no, not exactly. Our marriage will not be legally recognized. I realize  this is really more of an issue of semantics but I do want everyone to rest assured that our non-legal lezzie wedding isn’t going to get raided by the po-lice. As far as I can tell, there are no laws against having a ceremony/raging party to honor the commitment we are making to each other.

The second most common question was “who is going to perform the service?” The assumption seemed to be that we would get someone from the local U. U. church to perform the ceremony. But Anna and I don’t go to the U. U. church and definitely don’t consider ourselves religious. Nothing against anyone who is religious or opts for a religious ceremony; it just didn’t seem to be the right option for us.

So what do you do when you are two non-religious individuals having a non-legal wedding? Well, if your name is Anna and you are marrying someone named Anna the only logical thing to do is get married by someone named Anna. Duh.

Anna Saraceno met Anna Eaglin at a Girls Like Us meeting early on in college. I, Anna Vanderzee, met Anna E. through one of Bloomington’s main social hubs, Jada B (turns out Anna S knew Jada B before I did but that’s because Jada B knows everyone and Bloomington is a small-ass town).  Eventually, all three of us ended up meeting and became the Anna Triumvirate.

The Anna Triumvirate

Anna S and I have lots in common with Anna E:

• We are all named Anna
• We are all way gay
• Anna E is finishing up her master’s degree in Human-Computer Interaction & Design (that same nerd degree that Anna S is going for)
• We all have dogs
• We all share a deep affection for Battlestar Gallactica and Buffy the Vampire Slayer
• We all have lots of awesome tattoos
• We all like to sing karaoke (well, Anna S and Anna E do; I like to sing but prefer to do it in the comfort of my own home or car or while Anna and I are walking around the grocery store)

All in all, we couldn’t think of a better person to stand up in front of all of you and talk about how great Anna and I are and how perfect we are together. The love two Annas feel for each other can only be truly articulated by another Anna. Duh.

[Author's note: I forgot to mention that Anna E even went and got herself ordained on the innienets. While this wasn't necessary for our non-religious, non-legal wedding both Anna S and I feel better knowing that the Church of Spiritual Humanism will provide Anna E with a piece of paper proving that she is qualified to marry us. Look! The "Deluxe Clergy Service Package" is only $89.95!]