Couple had no need for a church wedding
While reading some editorials and listening to some politicians concerning the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that makes it unlawful for states to deny marriage equality based on sexual preference, I remember my Aunt Grace saying to Sue and I that we were married by law, but we were not married in the eyes of God.
Marriage, defined by my Aunt Grace, was a sacred part of her religion where two people were joined together in holy matrimony.
My Aunt Grace was a beautiful, caring, loving, very strict Catholic woman. I loved her very much. Forty-nine years ago, Sue and I could not afford a nice wedding in a real church. We could not afford to be joined in holy matrimony, but we loved each other and our love was all that mattered, so we were married by a Justice of the Peace with a few family members present. We were, in the eyes of the law, legally married.
We promised each other that we would love, honor, cherish and obey through sickness or health, richer or poorer “till death do us part.” We have gone through it all – the good, the bad and the downright ugly. Rich, sick, healthy, bad times, good times, kids. We kept our vows the best we could even though we were not joined in holy matrimony.
On Oct. 15, 1966, Sue and I received a legal document that said we were married and that by virtue of that marriage certificate; we were entitled to all the rights America allows married couples. Our marriage license does not say we are better than anyone else, morally superior to others or that we get a discount at Sears. Our marriage license does not say which religion we should practice, who our friends should be, where we should live or what we should wear. It is just a legal document that says we are married.
My Aunt Grace may not have approved of our marriage, but she loved me, and she loved Sue. Sue’s parents would have rather had a Protestant for a son-in-law, but they loved Sue and accepted me.
People say Sue and I have a traditional marriage even though I went against the traditions of the church I was raised in, and Sue went against the traditions of the church she was raised in. No one in my family hated Sue and no one in Sue’s family hated me. Both of our families believed love was the most important thing two people could bring to a marriage.
I hear the hatred that comes out of the mouth of some in our community. The condemnation of politicians that went through multiple marriages; preachers that preach family values while having an affair with a married congregant; the holier-than-thou crowd that can’t keep their own house together. The bar-room tough guys who believe marriage only applies at home and can be discarded when no longer convenient or attractions go elsewhere.
There are also the church going phonies that make God laugh when they say in their self-righteous pious voice, they know God’s heart, they know what God wants, they know what God will do. To hear some of them talk, you would think love had nothing to do with marriage. Sad, pitiful people that lead lonely hate-filled lives, people that want to see and delight in others misery, people that blame their poor existence on those less fortunate then themselves.
What does the old saying “you reap that which you have sown” mean? I think it means if you can’t give love, you can’t get love. You get what you give, be it hatred or love.
At our house, we prefer love. Sue gives me more than I deserve. Sue and I did not get married in the traditions of our family; we got married because we loved each other. Love should be the only requirement for marriage, the only thing traditional.
When our marriage contract is completed and Sue and I are laid to rest, I don’t believe we will go to hell for loving each other. I don’t know what will happen to all the haters that seem to have taken over the air waves and the pulpits. My Aunt Grace told me one time that God was a God of love, so I imagine He will accept the haters too, maybe!
Jim Sloan is a resident of Hopwood.