I agree partly with the mother, but her reasoning is completely skewed. “The day is about them, not you” should be the answer she gives when people freak out about a gay couple at the service. The day is not about their bigotry, or about their gasps and pointing, it’s about the couple getting married, so STOP obsessing over the other guests and pay attention to the bride and groom!”

“Putting myself in his shoes, my first impulse would be to tell them that if I couldn’t bring my BF, I wouldn’t attend. But what positive result would that accomplish?”

I can think of several

1 – Self esteem for you.
2 – You are not a prop to be taken out and put on display for other people’s amusement and approval. You are your own person, and should be respected as such.
3 – Demanding fairness is always positive. They would not even THINK of treating a straight couple this way, so why should a gay couple be okay with that?

Dave, you seem to be under the mistaken notion that gay people bear the burden and responsibility for the bigotry and prejudice against them. That we should make exceptions and accomodate the bigotry of others for the sake of “the greater good”. You’re cynically blind to the fact that there can be no “greater good” where bigotry is reinforced and good people are self-oppressing.

I say what good can come of compromising who you are and making everyone else except yourself happy? I say what good can come of bowing to unreasonable and insulting demands?

I say that it is the family that makes such ridiculous and oppressive demands that are the ones at fault, and the only ones who need to make changes.

It’s been my observation that a gay person who’s willing to go to a wedding without their partner this year, will be asked to come to Christmas without him next year. And the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that. Family photos will be taken without the partner. Other siblings will get special gifts on their anniversaries, but not the gay man and his partner. In other words, when we back down we teach other people that they can continue to treat us badly and we will continue to make excuses for them and accept this behavior. And maybe, maybe we’ll accept even more insults and humiliating treatment and call it “good enough”.

A family that treats you like crap is worse than no family that all. Standing on principle means doing so even when there is no apparent benefit.

There is that old saying “All evil needs to flourish in this world is for good people to do nothing.” The same is true for bigotry, when we stand idly by, it grows.

I think that situation is more extreme than Ted’s–in this case, the couple getting married are going out of their way to be non-supportive. (It really doesn’t matter what reason the mother gives; by her own logic, the wedding is not about her, it’s about the couple, so the responsibility for disinviting a man’s boyfriend lies with the couple.)

It’s not just overt prejudices that ought to be confronted, it’s hidden prejudices. In this case, the hidden prejudice is the presumption that the friend would be _okay_ with leaving his boyfriend at home to placate wedding guests who might otherwise pay attention to him. It’s the old “I’m not a bigot, but I’m taking an action to avoid offending bigots” stance, and that also is not okay.

However, this is one of those occasions when standing on principle may have consequences that are worse than whatever benefits might be gained.

The only benefit I can see that will be gained by this action is that Ted will feel good about the action he took. I think it’s unlikely that the bride or groom or anybody in either of the families will become a stronger supporter of marriage equality as a result of Ted’s action. It’s more likely that the reverse will happen. When people ask “where’s Ted?” and are told why he’s not there, most people will view Ted’s action negatively and it will ultimately reduce support for us and our cause.

In addition to being viewed by others (however wrongly) as a petulent, trouble-causing baby, the other consequence is that it will probably create a permanent rift between Ted and his brother and sister-in-law, and perhaps other family members as well. They will always remember that Ted boycotted their wedding.

When the day comes that Ted marries the man of his dreams, do you think the bride and froom will accept his invitation to attend? He backed out of theirs.

It’s truly a lose-lose situation.

Here’s a similar situation. Recently, a good friend of mine was invited to attend his brother’s wedding. He believed his family was really supportive of him being gay, but then he was told that he couldn’t bring his boyfriend to the wedding as a guest. The reasoning his mother gave was “it will draw attention to you, and the day is not about you, it’s about them.”

Putting myself in his shoes, my first impulse would be to tell them that if I couldn’t bring my BF, I wouldn’t attend. But what positive result would that accomplish? Not much – the negative consequences would far outweigh the positive.

Again, a lose-lose situation for the gay person.

“But it seems more like asking a friend who has lost his driver license to come with you to help you buy a car.”

It would be more apt to say “It seems more like asking a friend who cannot get a drivers license because he is unpopular with with cool kids, to come with you to help you buy a car.”

This is a straw man attack. The bride reveals nothing of her stance on marriage equality, and based on the facts presented, Amy gave reasonable advice.

The comparison to holding a wedding under a famous lynching tree isn’t really apt–which is not to say that Ted has an obligation to attend the wedding. But it seems more like asking a friend who has lost his driver license to come with you to help you buy a car. It’s possible that it’s insensitive, but it’s possible that it’s not.