Last Sunday, I attended a wedding in Marblehead at St. Michael's Episcopal 
Church. My husband and I sat next to an attractive and distinguished couple. We also, knelt next to this couple during Communion and spoke all the blessings and declarations commonly found in church wedding ceremonies, this being no different.
At the reception, a family member of the groom pointed out that my pew and its four occupants were "all the talk" of the pre-ceremony gossip. What was it this time? I had forgotten that I tend to be prone to "Six Degrees of Separation" scenarios and this I would soon find was one of them. My husband, Alex, and I were sitting next to Caleb III and Bronwyn Loring who are key opponents of equal marriage rights in Massachusetts. Bronwyn or Bonnie Loring was an one of the thirty "Original Signers" of the petition to define marriage as between a man and a woman, together with her husband being large contributors to VoteOnMarriage.org, is known as a very prolific Letter to the Editor writer in the Salem Evening News whose favorite theme is "gays are too promiscuous to be allowed to marry," but also I know of Bonnie from a very personal connection.
An older gay couple that we know quite well rents a house on the Loring estate in Prides Crossing. They have rented this home for decades from Bonnie's father-in-law and it was at this house that they celebrated their recent marriage after 35 years of being together. Most of the Lorings were invited including Caleb III and Bonnie. All attended except them. Of course, no one would have expected that they would attend, but what came next shocked everyone. Bonnie did not just return the invitation card with "regrets" checked, Bonnie included a letter which admonished the couple, the marriage, same-sex marriage, and gay marriage in general. For one born into and married into privilege, this sort of response was, how can I say it? Oh, I will let my provincial background shine through... "Classless." Bonnie's father-in-law, Caleb's father, has since entrusted the property in his will, so that this couple, now in their 80's may live out their days together on the property, trumping any action by Bonnie to have them evicted.
So back to Sunday's wedding reception...a considerable number of guests understood the dynamics of the Co-Director of KnowThyNeighbor and his husband being seated next to "an original signer" and her husband and surprisingly were on our side. I found myself having to keep some guests from approaching the Lorings, though I appreciated the thought, this would not have been respectful to the occasion or the newly married. I was obliged however to speak to Bonnie and Caleb as that was apparent to all.
Church. My husband and I sat next to an attractive and distinguished couple. We also, knelt next to this couple during Communion and spoke all the blessings and declarations commonly found in church wedding ceremonies, this being no different. At the reception, a family member of the groom pointed out that my pew and its four occupants were "all the talk" of the pre-ceremony gossip. What was it this time? I had forgotten that I tend to be prone to "Six Degrees of Separation" scenarios and this I would soon find was one of them. My husband, Alex, and I were sitting next to Caleb III and Bronwyn Loring who are key opponents of equal marriage rights in Massachusetts. Bronwyn or Bonnie Loring was an one of the thirty "Original Signers" of the petition to define marriage as between a man and a woman, together with her husband being large contributors to VoteOnMarriage.org, is known as a very prolific Letter to the Editor writer in the Salem Evening News whose favorite theme is "gays are too promiscuous to be allowed to marry," but also I know of Bonnie from a very personal connection.
An older gay couple that we know quite well rents a house on the Loring estate in Prides Crossing. They have rented this home for decades from Bonnie's father-in-law and it was at this house that they celebrated their recent marriage after 35 years of being together. Most of the Lorings were invited including Caleb III and Bonnie. All attended except them. Of course, no one would have expected that they would attend, but what came next shocked everyone. Bonnie did not just return the invitation card with "regrets" checked, Bonnie included a letter which admonished the couple, the marriage, same-sex marriage, and gay marriage in general. For one born into and married into privilege, this sort of response was, how can I say it? Oh, I will let my provincial background shine through... "Classless." Bonnie's father-in-law, Caleb's father, has since entrusted the property in his will, so that this couple, now in their 80's may live out their days together on the property, trumping any action by Bonnie to have them evicted.
So back to Sunday's wedding reception...a considerable number of guests understood the dynamics of the Co-Director of KnowThyNeighbor and his husband being seated next to "an original signer" and her husband and surprisingly were on our side. I found myself having to keep some guests from approaching the Lorings, though I appreciated the thought, this would not have been respectful to the occasion or the newly married. I was obliged however to speak to Bonnie and Caleb as that was apparent to all.
This is how it went:
Tom: "Mr. Loring, I would like to introduce myself, I am Tom Lang and this is my husband Alex Westerhoff..."
Caleb: " Oh yes, of course Tom, it is good to finally meet you."
Tom: "I just thought that since we prayed next to each other today, I should at least introduce myself."
Caleb: "It must be God's plan."
Tom: "Mrs. Loring, I am Tom Lang, I just needed to introduce myself and tell you that I really do believe in marriage, even straight ones..."
Bonnie: "I know that you do Tom, we just have to figure out what we are going to call yours."
Tom: "Well, I just thought it was important for my husband and I to introduce ourselves..."
Bonnie: "Thank you so much for coming over to introduce yourself."
Caleb: "Yes, Tom, thank you for doing this."
Uneventful? Yes. Did I change their opinions? More than likely, no. Was it difficult for me to make the first move? Even after all that I have done with KTN, yes, I am admittedly still just a little bit afraid. Was this the correct way to handle the Lorings? Yes, given the circumstances, this was a wedding reception and civility and respect were the "deux mots du jour." Was this meeting a success for Equal Rights? Yes! Sometimes it is easy to forget that our enemies are not always JUST the most vocal or active participants in the fight against GLBT rights. Our enemies can be many things, fear, internalized homophobia, complacency expressed by ourselves or our friends, controlled messages by our GLBT leadership which can create a false sense of purpose, societal propriety, herd mentality, the myth that an individual cannot make a change...
KnowThyNeighbor is here and has always been here to help you understand that most of our enemies are harbored within ourselves and they are sometimes the most easily conquered. My husband and I were the only gay people at that reception, yet we had many people cheering us on, many that we did not even know before that day. The fact that we were brave enough to confront in a very public way those who would hurt us earned the respect of dozens of people who now have even a better reason to be on our side... a personal stake in this.
KnowThyNeighbor is here and has always been here to help you understand that most of our enemies are harbored within ourselves and they are sometimes the most easily conquered. My husband and I were the only gay people at that reception, yet we had many people cheering us on, many that we did not even know before that day. The fact that we were brave enough to confront in a very public way those who would hurt us earned the respect of dozens of people who now have even a better reason to be on our side... a personal stake in this.
Tom Lang, Co-Director
Bravo! I think small, private actions like this -- particularly courteous exchanges -- have a large cumulative effect in changing mindsets. You related to them as a person, not as a cause. It's so hard to do what's right when it feels uncomfortable; I've had my share of having to speak to someone on different issues and dreading their censure, so my hat's off to you.
Posted by: Carolyn Bahm | September 28, 2006 at 05:49 PM
Way to go Tom. That was a terrific and brave thing to do.
Posted by: Cyn | September 28, 2006 at 06:05 PM
I admire not the courage to speak to them you have shown, but rather the reserve to let this day be about the wedding and not about meeting the opponents. It seems to me Caleb's words had polish and his wife's did not. Asking what we should call your marriage! I got it...how about "equal". Thanks Tom.
Posted by: John Hosty | September 28, 2006 at 06:58 PM
yeah, you respected the moment, and relished the opportunity to go home and rant about it in this hate blog
Such a hypocrite.
Your "I just thought that since we prayed next to each other today, I should at least introduce myself." line is disengenuous at best.
If You keep calling your neighbors enemies, you will lose
Posted by: The Patriot | September 29, 2006 at 07:03 AM
Well Tom, I must say you are a better person than I. Speaking from experience I can tell you that you were more restrained than I would have been and have been in the past.
My sister is a “holy roller”, “bible toter” and yes I say this to her face. We have had many discussions with regards to her beliefs and values. Ones we obviously do not share.
I will admit that I have raised my voice a few times and have become frustrated by her refusal to even TRY and understand. I am resolved to the fact that she has no interest to understand. Isn’t that how most of them are?
I have found that we cannot have these conversations because it is too difficult. I wouldn’t want to ruin my 37 year old relationship with my own sister, yet I find that when folks don’t want to recognize MY LEGAL marriage, yet demand me to recognize theirs that I become “just” a tad bit pissy and very angry.
So I decided that no matter what I would always correct someone, EVEN family members who called my spouse my girlfriend, partner, room mate etc….
I think if it had been me standing in front of that woman when she made the comment about trying to figure out what to call your marriage, I would have probably opened my mouth, spit fire and burned all her hair off. Not intentionally of course.
I think how you handled the situation is commendable. I applaud your constraint yet I wonder why it has to be the “gay folks” to extend the olive branch?
Why is it we are just supposed to be nice and smile when someone intentionally says things to hurt you? She said that only to get under your skin.
I understand the passive yet positive assertiveness the HRC and other groups use in order to gain support, but I am still left wondering…..if the gay and lesbian community stood up and used the same tactics, same commercials, same everything as those who are trying to oppress us then perhaps the gains we make would be more substantial. Isn’t it time to just stop accepting the fact of bigotry? Why should you have to stand there and swallow what that woman said with a pretty smile on your face? Would a black man stand there and smile if someone said “We really need to find a new word to describe your union to your black woman? Perhaps the joining of two tribes? As we can't call it marriage. Marriage is only for heterosexual white folks.” No he would not. So why should you or I have to?
Perhaps the groups should become one with ONE agenda. United as one would be more powerful than all these little action groups doing “little” things that amount to nothing.
Why is it the gay and lesbian community not as organized as our opponents? It feels like everybody is spinning their wheels.
Not to get off topic, I guess the restraint you showed towards that woman is really amazing. I think I would have countered with,” I guess we should call it legalized fornication between two consenting adults, just like yours.”
I guess I am just sick and tired of eating shit sandwiches from the conservative religious right.
Posted by: Cherie Johnson | September 29, 2006 at 07:19 AM
To address the nasty shit sandwich posted above....
This is not a fucking game where there is a clear winner and loser you idiot.
When oppression ends EVERYONE wins. God you are a fool.
Happy Friday Paul. Go eat your breakfast before you get a brain cramp.
Posted by: Cherie Johnson | September 29, 2006 at 07:26 AM
I'm with you, Cherie.
Paul, you ARE a fool. And an insufferable one at that.
Of ANYONE here at KTN, you have NO PLACE calling Tom a hypocrite. You have spewed the most contemptuous, hateful bile of anyone.
And when gays and lesbians respond to it, you label them "haters" as to deflect and spin the situation.
Seriously, you still don't seem to "get" that anyone with half a brain sees through your manipulation and deflection.
I truly don't understand why you are so obsessed with homosexuality.
I'm starting to think maybe you and Tyler should just get it on and get it overwith. Jesus.
Posted by: Lula | September 29, 2006 at 09:22 AM
Tom, well done!
The restraint IN THE MOMENT was absolutely appropriate. That day was not about you and your relationship.
However, after the fact, it is absolutely appropriate you comment on the exchange, as your relationship was demeaned and you have every right to respond to that...in the proper setting.
THIS is it.
Thank you for sharing, Tom!
Posted by: Lula | September 29, 2006 at 09:23 AM
Thanks Cherie and Lula,
I think the underlying factor in my story is the other people at the wedding--the family members who pointed out to me who the Lorings were, the people at my table who wanted to participate in the interaction, the many who asked us before we left exactly what happened and commended us for doing what was right (defending ourselves). That was a much more powerful element of change than anything else I could have come up with. People like the Lorings exist in a world where their peers and society in general do not provide a check and balance. Many minorities have had to go thru this, including that minority by 1% -- women! Without your friends and associates telling you that your bigoted stances just aren't acceptable anymore, you will continue to have them.
Also, I do agree with you both about the GLBT community standing up for its rights and demanding them. My doing this in my own personal life and with KTN has made me a much different person--a whole person. And it was my activism, very strong and vocal which was the reason that some many in that room were there in support of my "face-off" with the Lorings.
By standing up for ourselves in the ways that we discuss here at KTN, sometimes restrained, sometimes very strongly, sometimes almost obsessively, but in all cases always vigilent, we earn the respect of the GLBT but also the straight community. Eventually it sinks in with them that if someone were hurting them or thier family, OF COURSE, they would stand up and fight back.
The KTN creedo is, and I hope other GLBT leadership will begin to follow this...
With regards to Equal Rights
Act as if your life depends on it.
Because, guess what, it does.
Posted by: Tom Lang | September 29, 2006 at 11:44 AM
"I would have probably opened my mouth, spit fire and burned all her hair off."
Cherie, would you mind terribly pointing that high voltage roasting breath in Paul's direction.
One less idiot on the planet.
Mmmm...and tastes just like chicken!
Posted by: Lula | September 29, 2006 at 01:11 PM
A great day of justice in Rhode Island!
I know this news,to Paul, is what a ham sandwich was to Mama Cass, but hey! Whattaya gonna do?
Court: gay couples from R.I. can marry in Mass.
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
In a significant victory for gay rights advocates, a Superior Court judge ruled today that a lesbian couple from Rhode Island may wed in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island’s laws do not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages.
The ruling by Judge Thomas Connolly is the first to find that same-sex couples from outside Massachusetts may wed under the Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 ruling that legalized same-sex weddings in the Bay State.
Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence, R.I., had argued in court that a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts did not apply to them because Rhode Island does not specifically ban gay marriage.
In a 9-page ruling, Connolly agreed with the couple.
"No evidence was introduced before this court of a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage," he wrote.
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, who had defended the 1913 law in court, said officials in Rhode Island could challenge the decision, but said his office would not appeal.
"In Massachusetts," Reilly said in a statement, "pursuing this matter further in the courts would be a waste of time and resources."
Gay rights advocates hailed the decision.
"At last the fence of discrimination has been removed at the border of Massachusetts and Rhode Island," said Michele Granda, an attorney who represented Becker and Norton, in a statement. "Loving, committed, Rhode Island couples can now affirm their relationships in the most public and respected way our society knows."
Opponents of same-sex marriage, however, assailed the ruling.
"Once again, the citizens are the victims of having marriage redefined by a court instead of by the people," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "This creates a new level of legal chaos for regulators and lawmakers in the state of Rhode Island and any state that does not expressly forbid same sex marriage. It also furthers the notion of Massachusetts becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage."
Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Governor Mitt Romney, echoed the same sentiment.
"The ruling is illogical, and I think Governor (Donald L.) Carcieri and the people of Rhode Island will be surprised to learn that gay marriage is permissible in their state," Fehrnstrom said in a written statement.
Fehrnstrom added: :We're reminded that the only sure way to protect traditional marriage is with a federal marriage amendment."
For the plaintiffs in today's case, however, the ruling was welcomed. Becker and Norton, partners for 19 years, and the parents of two children, said they planned to wed.
"After a very long engagement, we are thrilled to be able to marry and provide our family with the legal protection and social recognition we deserve," Becker said in a statement. "As the parents of two wonderful young children, our desire to marry has always been with them in mind. We want them to feel their family is as worthy as any other."
Posted by: Lula | September 29, 2006 at 01:17 PM
"Mmmm...and tastes just like chicken!"
Thanks to Lula, I am now a vegetarian
Posted by: John | September 29, 2006 at 01:46 PM
Um.
Sorry, John.
Posted by: Lula | September 29, 2006 at 01:51 PM
While I am happy for the Rhode Island couple, the court didn't go far enough.
Unless I am mising something, those who live in a DOMA state cannot marry in Massachusetts, but it seem like the courts will have to handle all other states on a case by case basis. This is wrong; a couple should have to sue for the right to marry. Even if they win, it is still frustrating.
I am reminded of the wise words of that great 20th century philospher, Gerry Garcia when he stated that "the courts are too fucking slow".
Posted by: John | September 29, 2006 at 02:13 PM
All,
Please take comments regarding Rhode Island to the new Post, "Massachusetts Allows Rhode Island Same-Sex Couples to Marry Here"
What you all say is very important and I want our readers and history to know where to find your comments.
Thanks
Posted by: Tom Lang | September 29, 2006 at 02:19 PM
WHERE SEXUAL REPRESSION LEADS...
ANOTHER HYPOCRITE BUSTED!
Foley To Resign Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors
September 29, 2006 3:02 PM
Brian Ross and Maddy Sauer Report:
Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) planned to resign today, hours after ABC questioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with current and former Congressional pages under the age of 18.
A spokesman for Foley, the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, said the congressman submitted his resignation in a letter late this afternoon to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.
Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.
The full details will be included in a report tonight on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.
Posted by: Lula | September 29, 2006 at 03:13 PM
You people really should read reviews on JEsus camp like this one
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/movies/22camp.html?ex=1159761600&en=fa2e807d6010a211&ei=5070
You will also be intersted in watchign the film :/
Posted by: the TRUE patriot | September 30, 2006 at 06:44 AM
The news on the Jesus camp is biased, to say the least.
Worshipping Bush? No, praying for him.
Jihadists? Not a chance.
Indoctrination? On a level comparable to GSA's, perhaps.
But, the monster has been set loose and the secular left is off to villainize Christianity once again.
Tell me, friends, who wins in the end?
Posted by: Another Democrat...ically inclined resident of Leftachussetts | October 02, 2006 at 07:43 AM
Those who mistakenly call themselves Christian need no one to villify them, they do a good enough job of their own doing that to themselves. As far as Jesus Camp goes, holy shite! Everyone who has not seen it yet should scroll up and go to the link so they can see for themselves how scary it really is.
I have said many times in the past that we have to find a way to live in peace with our fellow man as good neighbors. We do not have the ability to pick who lives near us, or determine their beliefs for them. We can show them what we think is best and why it is a good idea, and hope they see the value of "live and let live". In the end we will still live in the same communities as people who virulently disagree with who we have chosen to be. One thing to remember is this will always be true. There is always someone out there that is diametricly opposed to what you believe, but this is America. We should learn to deal with that rather than try to exclude one group from recieving the full rights another group enjoys. This should be true of all peaceful groups. Once hatred gets a foothold it always damages the whole. As the great MLK once said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Posted by: John Hosty | October 02, 2006 at 08:19 AM
"On a level comparable to GSA's, perhaps."
Making such an ignorant statement makes me wonder if you even know what a GSA is.
Posted by: John | October 02, 2006 at 09:23 AM
Yes, I know what a GSA is, and the statements made above by Mr. Hosty are blatantly ignorant. Does he not claim to be a Christian himself? Then why must he villify Christians, and take the information presented in Jesus Camps out of context?
Bush is not worshipped, war is not advocated, and indoctrination is not the goal.
I say again, if you are to call this form of exposure to Christianity indoctrination, then what is taught in schools about homosexuality is exactly the same form of indoctrination.
Need I say more?
Posted by: Another Democrat...ically inclined resident of Leftachussetts | October 02, 2006 at 03:32 PM
ps Martin Luther King was a born-again Christian, and the likelihood that he would have taken on the role that the homosexuals presume in their march for "rights" is about 5% or less...
Posted by: Another Democrat...ically inclined resident of Leftachussetts | October 02, 2006 at 03:33 PM
"ps Martin Luther King was a born-again Christian, and the likelihood that he would have taken on the role that the homosexuals presume in their march for "rights" is about 5% or less..."
Who died and made you the Mathemagician?
Jeez. Nothing like just making up statistics.
Posted by: Lula | October 02, 2006 at 03:46 PM
I have my dance card already filled with dim witted radical Bible thumpers, I just wanted to counter a little stupidity with fact:
http://www.rustin.org/about.html
Baynard Rustin
A master strategist and tireless activist, Bayard Rustin is best remembered as the organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, one of the largest nonviolent protests ever held in the United States. He brought Gandhi’s protest techniques to the American civil rights movement, and helped mold Martin Luther King, Jr. into an international symbol of peace and nonviolence.
Oops! I thought Martin Luther King Jr. would have nothing to do with gays? Check your facts next time before you open your mouth and make an idiot of yourself, if you can help it.
Posted by: John Hosty | October 02, 2006 at 04:15 PM
Did I say that Martin Luther King would have nothing to do with gays?
Before you attack...know your "enemy".
Posted by: Another Democrat...ically inclined resident of Leftachussetts | October 02, 2006 at 04:27 PM