The Play's the Thing- Act One

I spent a few days out of town this past weekend, this time in Louisville, Kentucky. I had a wonderful dinner with friends, saw a play put on by the local gay community (part of series they produce every year), followed by a night on the town and a wonderful brunch the next morning. I enjoyed the experience very much, and would recommend that everyone make an attempt to support the local arts, whether it be specifically for the gay community or the public in general.

I am a diligent observer of this world, always taking stock of everything around me. Louisville provided several conversations and experiences that fueled entry ideas for this very blog; therefore, for the next couple weeks or so, we'll focus on those. I suppose it would be fitting to start with the play itself, as it provided a good topic of discussion all on its own.

The play was entitled 'Regrets Only', and we were fortunate enough to enjoy the play in the company's new home in downtown Louisville. The story began as a famous gay fashion designer returns to New York to visit friends after losing his long-time lover. His friends include his long-time girlfriend, her husband, their child, and the hilariously funny maid. The story looks back on their lives, examines the ideas of love and relationships (both straight and gay), and questions the idea of gay marriage when the lawyer husband and his daughter are asked to research a constitutional amendment defining marriage (between a man and a woman) for the president. Of course, each character has his or her opinion on the subject, and the matter is discussed from every perspective.

The father and daughter argued that gay couples were not in fact 'married' and never would be; the designer, of course, had the perspective of being in such a relationship for years; and the mother was somewhere in the middle. This caused me to question myself, to decide where I stand on the issue, and to think about what I think of marriage in general. Really, it shouldn't matter who you choose as a mate. If you devote yourself and make a commitment to another person, then, frankly, I don't think it should matter the gender of that person in allowing them to marry. It should be a basic right like anything else.

I am speaking to a friend as I write this, and he says that he will never walk down the aisle with another man. He is gay himself, and states that he would gladly spend his life with another man (in fact share children with another man), but agrees with the majority of the people in this state that legal marriage should be between a man and a woman only. In fact, he states that he voted against gay marriage in the 2004 election, proving that even among gay men, there is not single voice on the subject.

In the large scheme of things, however; I tend to look at marriage in a more conceptual way. Ideally, we shouldn't labels or the approval of a human governmental body to determine who and when we can love and what defines such relationships and what rules should apply to such relationships. Ideally, love should be a more organic form of emotion, and should evolve naturally, not governed by someone else's concept of what it should be.

The romantic side of me would like to wear a ring someday, create a family, live a traditional life. But maybe romance is more about being swept away by the emotion, losing yourself in love, feeling so connected to someone that you never want to lose them. If that's the case, then tradition and rings and everything else shouldn't matter. I try to look at life these days as an adventure, open to whatever will come my way, not worried about creating a certain kind of life for myself. If you expect thing to happen a certain way (especially marriage), then you can only be disappointed when it doesn't turn out exactly the way you thought it would. I prefer to think that the kind of life I'm supposed to lead and the kind of relationship I am supposed to have will happen when it's supposed to the way it is supposed to in the big scheme of things. The point being to enjoy the life I am given and to take what I get as a blessing. When I love someone, I don't think it is neccessary to define that with the word 'marriage.' I love them with the word or without it, and I would hope that he loves me back in the same way.

So, in general, I would have to say that I reject the notion of having to be defined by the institution of marriage; but, if anyone else feels the need for such a label, they should be entitled to it.

Act Two of the play brought on another very interesting idea, which we will discuss in a later entry. Look for 'Act Two.'