In a move I expected Disney to make eventually, Walt Disney World has opened their ‘Wedding Chapel’ and wedding planning assistance to gay couples.
The company announced out of California that same-sex couple
"commitment" ceremonies will be allowed at the Disney Wedding Chapel
and other locations at Walt Disney World and at Disneyland in
California. Disney previously allowed for private ceremonies in rented
meeting rooms.
No word if polyamorous ceremonies will be accommodated. Gay Days are from May 29-June 4. I wonder if Disney is hoping for some increased business around that time. (Read)
Yippee! and darn it! Had this decision come out 9 months ago I would be planing a Magic Kingdom wedding! I’m happy to know that a vow renewal is a possiblity now.
“No word if polyamorous ceremonies will be accommodated.”
I don’t understand the connection to the topic of the post.
“No word if polyamorous ceremonies will be accommodated.”
Well that’s a nasty snipe.
Come on John. “Polyamorous ceremonies”. Please.
I think it’s up to the people involved in non-coercive committed polyamorous relationships to decide if they wish to have ‘commitment ceremonies’. Why would I want to judge one way or another. So yes, it was a flippant remark, but there is a rather large vein of seriousness in it too.
“Why would I want to judge one way or another.”
Your judgement comes through loud and clear.
Well, I think his point was that Disney is trying to please “all” of its guests, including gays and polyamorous folk. After all, polygamous marriage isn’t any more legal than gay marriage in most states. Disney is just offering a ceremony, not a license.
I can’t believe your comment “No word if polyamorus ceremonies will be accommodated” and then go on to say “Why would I want to judge one way or another” in your own defense. Brushing it off as a “flippant remark.” Your polyamorus statement more than clearly states your narrow view and therefore shares with all of us your clear homophobic view. Thanks for sharing your toxic poison with the rest of us.
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. Please read what I wrote again carefully. I am asking if Disney is opening its ceremony chapels to all who wish to have commitment ceremonies, even polyamorous ones. It’s not my place to judge how anyone wants to spend their lives. But I am wondering how far Disney would be willing to go with this one.
John, I wonder if you’re aware that in many US states, opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that one should not permit same-sex marriage BECAUSE this would open the door to polyamorous marriage. Some of these opponents have gone even farther, arguing that same-sex marriage opens the door to eliminating all restrictions on marriage, allowing inter-species and inter-generational relationships.
So, in this context, it’s easy to understand how your comment comes across as a nasty snipe.
I believe that consenting adults should have the right to choose their relationships without interference from the state. And perhaps this is your belief too . . . it’s hard to come up with any other possible explanation for your comment, given that you tell us it was not meant as a nasty snipe. However, recognizing same-sex marriage does not open the door for polyamorous relationships to be recognized as civil marriage, and similarly I don’t believe that it would lead to this policy change at Disney.
In fact, the one state to recognize same-sex marriage rights (Massachusetts) explicitly states in its Supreme Judicial Court decision that marriage is an “exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other.”
I don’t think that just because some people mistakenly lump same-sex relationships in with polygamy, incest, etc. – all of which are different from each other – that John should be precluded from asking an obvious question. Note that the Disney spokesperson said that they are not in the business of judging “lifestyles.” I think that part of his statement was a poor choice of words. Is not polygamy also a “lifestyle”? No, it is not the same thing as a same-sex union (though it may involve same-sex unions), but it IS a lifestyle that involves claims to marriages.
So let’s not jump on John. It is certainly understandable why people are so defensive, given what everyone has been enduring in our daily lives, but wouldn’t it be better to save energy and time to fight people who actually have ill will for you? I don’t think John does.
I’m not gay, and I still don’t get the connection between allowing same sex commitment ceremonies means that Disney may allow “polyamorous ceremonies.” Wha???
One last comment and then I will close the comments as this topic has strayed too far from the purpose of this blog.
In case there is any confusion remaining, I am in favor of providing same-gender couples who wish to make a long term commitment to each other the same rights and benefits as couples of differing genders who wish to make a long term commitment to each other. Whether that long term commitment is called “Marriage” seems up to the couple making the commitment. I have friends and family who are engaged in both same gender and differing gender long term relationships that have been sealed with sanctioned ceremony. I wish them all the best and happiness forever.
Now some people may see the operative term in the above paragraph as ‘couple’. I see the operative term as ‘long term commitment’. (I would also add not coercive or arranged as I see legitimate government interest in protecting personal liberty and reducing tax fraud.) When you substitute ‘people’ or ‘persons’ for ‘couple’ in the above paragraph, does it not follow that groups of people who area committed to long term relationships should receive the same benefits as couples? I think it does. That is why it is a legitimate question as to whether Disney will also open their wedding chapels to polyamorous persons who are making long term commitment ceremonies.
Note: I have left religion out of this debate as not everybody is religious nor do all religions share the same ideas of marriage. The point of living in the USofA is that we can practice or worship as we choose without fear of the authorities sponsoring one set of religious tenets over another.
Comments are closed.