Once again, good advice with one proviso:
Lots of people probably voted for Trump without intending to be Anti-LGB. Trump voters even like Obamacare! Trump voters are stupid! (Yes I think they are)
Trump himself grew up immersed in gay culture & I don't think that he personally spoke anti-gay (or did he)?

So it's possible that some Trump voters simply didn't pay attention (as they did on many issues)
& maybe opp to educate them through your presence & propaganda, donations etc

And if they were genuinely hostile to gays they probably wouldn't even go to an announced gay marriage.

Flame away but I'd go.

@1 Can we please stop with the defending of trump voters? It doesn't matter if voters had anti-gay intentions. The racist, misogynistic and xenophobic stuff is more than enough to earn the wrath of the gays and those who support them.

believe it or not, we cis-gendered white gay men care about something other than ourselves.

First, I'll add a point to Shannon Minter's analysis. Justice Scalia was not the decisive vote on the Supreme Court for marriage equality (he voted against). It was Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote all the landmark gay rights cases: Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges. Accordingly, absent additional changes to the composition to the Court there can be no change in the law. Even then, this line of cases stretching over two decades will be hard to overturn. So don't rush into marriage because you think the Supreme Court will change the law anytime soon.

LW is right to be unhappy with his SO's Trump-voting relatives, but what better way do these people have to show that they support his right to be married then showing up to his wedding and celebrating the event? If the first reaction of LW, and everyone else, is to cut off all connection across the ideological divide our country is going to be doomed.

LW if you decided to make a speech about marriage equality at your wedding, don't direct it at these relatives. Inviting them to your wedding only to lecture them would be terrible manners. Talk to everyone who attends, and vet what you are going to say with your SO too.

I read this whilst listening to the "Star Trek: Into Darkness" theme, appropriately.

I can't believe we're even talking about applying the concept of "good manners" to Trump trash.

You have no idea how most of your wedding guests voted unless you conducted a survey. These four were stupid enough to vote for Trump for "some other reason", and then stupid enough to advertise it.

@3
Could we please stop telling other people what to say?
Much less defending anyone?
Ok?

The counterpoint? A vote for Trump should be a non-issue regarding inclusion on the guest list for gay weddings. It the Trumpsters attend, it's a public act in support of gay marriage. If they decline, problem solved, plus, any fallout is virtually certain to be heavier on their turf. Amiright?

Fuck Trump supporters.
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/crime/2…

I think it's really cute of Shannon Minter to believe in stare decisis when the current Chief Justice perjured himself on that very subject during his confirmation hearings. He specifically spoke about his deep respect for stare decisis, and yet he has on several occasions simply ignored precedent in decisions where the precedent made more sense than the opinion he eventually signed.

@10 I think they're going to be fucked soon enough. I mean, they've already been fucked by voting in an all-GOP junta that has their worst interests at heart, but they're going to realize it sooner than later.

The American voter is remarkably unsophisticated, to the point of utter ignorance. This is not new. H.L. Mencken was riffing on it nearly a century ago, and as cynical and condemnatory as he got about it, one wonders if it was even enough so.

Politics is how democracy works. We eschew it at our peril. The American working class has been chased away from leftist ideology by a mix of distraction, insults, character assassination, bogeymen, our long Cold War, and yes, willful ignorance. Other countries' Conservative parties are further left than our left wing. Until we rehabilitate the image of Leftism, we're never going to have a balanced dialog, let alone balance of power, in this RWNJ paradise.

I appreciate Dan's fairly hand-wringing, but complex and reasoned response to a question which deserves it.
I love the suggestion of the donations and the pro-marriage equality statements.

And I wish the lw and his fiancé much happiness together.

thank you for finally backtracking about cutting relatives out your life if they support trump

If the Trump voters are opposed to gay marriage, they won't come to your gay wedding. If they attend your gay wedding, they will be more likely to be vocal supporters of equal rights by virtue of their exposure to your lives and your wonderful celebration of your commitment. If they come to your wedding and feel shamed (or don't come and still feel shamed), they will think you're assholes and become more likely to backlash against having their morals dictated to them.

Years ago, we in the gay movement said that simply being out of the closet and living normal lives -- proudly -- was the best way to combat homophobia. Show the homophobes that we are their friends, colleagues, neighbors. They will be more likely to accept other gay people and equal rights when they know that gay issues are their own issues when they touch so close to home.

We didn't say it was best to go, "Mom, dad, friends, colleagues -- I'm gay. And here's an envelope for your mandatory donation to LAMBDA. If you don't donate, get out of my life."

I have been resisting the temptation to call out the several narcissists I know who are more concerned that their gay marriages may at some point in the future possibly be nullified, than that Hillary has a tendency bomb the shit out of Middle Eastern countries for purely political gain. I think Dan you have finally convinced me to start shaming them for insane and, let's face it, evil views.

Begin as you mean to go on. If you won't want these folks in your life because they're crappy people who aren't worth engaging, then you don't want them at your wedding. If in ten years they might turn out decent humans, then invite them to bless and celebrate your marriage or whatever your ceremony is.

A marriage is a long thing, and a wedding invitation is in a way an invitation to your marriage (no not like that, necessarily).

My advice comes with the assumption that the invitees all genuinely want to celebrate your marriage with you. If they're only coming to tell you you're going to hell (hopefully in a lovely and tasteful handbasket) then they got no business being there.

Having said that: There is one very important statement that you can make here that helps spread LGBT equality. That is, that a marriage, yes even a same-sex marriage, is not a political event. That what you are doing is entirely and completely normal (which it is).

That means that neither Clinton nor Trump are invited to the party. The wedding is about you two. Not Republicans or Democrats or whatever.

And part of any normal wedding that doesn't involve eloping off to the JP is that the entire family gets involved. Yes even the crazy ones. Yes, even the relatives no-one likes. You're marrying this guy, you get his family as part of the bargain. That's what marriage is.

So be gracious. Invite everyone you would invite as if you knew nothing of their politics. Start off your marriage on a note of generosity and desire for everyone to come together.

Snubbing people right off the bat will only lead to further conflict down the line. That may be inevitable depending on the personalities involved, but the grievance machine should not start with you.

For all of the above reasons, I don't think you should turn your wedding into a political fundraiser either. Like I said, this is about you and your husband-to-be. Let your wedding be a celebration of that.

Have the wedding as usual and just simply spike their drinks with acid.
They'll trip out and never be the same again. Plus, it'll be entertainment: win- win!

If I were invited to the wedding of someone I loved to be there to celebrate the love and commitment he feels for someone he loves, and if, once I was there, the pressure was put on me to give money to their honeymoon fund or to cover the cost of the catering or to support a political cause that's near and dear to them, there would be social repercussions from me. I'd find it hard to continue friendship with people who lured me to one event only to trick me into attending something else. In this case, that's letting me think I was there to share their joy when they really wanted to squeeze money out of me or to count my presence at their political rally. No matter how much I agreed with their views, I wouldn't trust them again(and I'd want my wedding gift back) . I'd feel like making their point against the people they don't like, the Trump supporters, took precedence over the comfort and trust of the people they do like, presumably me.

I do like Dan's back and forth on compromise and what you do for otherwise reasonable people, but making a public display out of hitting up your guests for money is not the way to do it. Consider this: In the course of a single day, all of us probably interact with Trump supporters all the time. The barrista who makes my coffee might have voted for Trump. I still manage to be polite enough to say thank you when I'm handed my change.

So go ahead and invite despicable people to your wedding. Assume that people who truly oppose gay marriage won't come. If they do, take the high ground as you treat them with courtesy. There's plenty of time later to avoid them later.

Can I just say:
A "fiancée" is a woman.
A "fiancé" is a man.
KNOTS has a fiancé.
Thank you for indulging that moment of pedantry.

One question to ask is who's paying for this wedding? If MIL is footing the bill then yes, she can request that certain guests be included. If not, then no. I'd be inclined to tell MIL, if we were paying for the wedding ourselves, that we want to keep it small and intimate and that we will be choosing our own small guest list, thank you very much. (Obviously, if you know how every invitee voted, this means the numbers will be fairly small.) But it does depend on who these guests are. Groom's grandparents? Or MIL's work colleagues? Either way, I vote for the big middle finger to homophobia during the ceremony, as Dan suggests.

Granny @3: Calling Trump supporters stupid is "defending" them?

I hesitate to comment on the SL threads, as I have had terrible luck in my own love life and therefore feel unqualified to advise others.

The political nature of this one is what has caught my attention.

My own family members are, to a one, members of the far right wing of the GOP. They dislike Jews and Blacks, and saw my homosexuality as good enough reason to abandon me in my teenage years during the height of the AIDS crisis, leaving me homeless and relying on survival sex at the very worst time in history to be caught in such a situation. Thus far, only one of them has apologized for that, and even she made this apology conditional.

Should I ever marry (whoever can endure my rants 24 hours a day would deserve a medal instead of a ring, but thats another matter), these relatives will not be invited to attend my wedding. Since they also barred me from attending my father's funeral proceedings, they won't be invited to any other ceremonial milestone in my life. The door is not only closed to them, it has been welded shut.

I would like to claim to be a unique individual. However, I am sadly not. Lambda House is full of street kids just like my younger self, and they can only absorb a small portion of the homeless gay youth population in Seattle. What evil would cause parents to discard their own offspring? No animal in nature does that. Disregarding your own young, particularly when they are vulnerable, is the most unnatural and perverse thing I can imagine. And while Andrea Yates could at least claim to have suffered a genuine mental illness at the time of her crime, these parents who still to this day endanger their kids are motivated by a far more insidious insanity- religion and right wing politics.

I would no sooner invite a serial murderer to my wedding than someone like that.

You have no way of knowing that the other people you invited DIDN'T vote for Trump.

Everyone is going to have to make these decisions for themselves. Like a lot of people, I had to decide how to make peace with the Trump supporters in my own family and in my own life. I'd done a lot of listening over the months leading up to the election, but when it actually happened I was surprised just how betrayed I felt by people who voted Trump, even though I knew ahead of time that they were going to vote for him. It bothered me on a level that I did not expect. I'm not saying this is logical, but when something really upsets you, you have to find a way to considering it and make sense of it. I found myself putting everyone I know into six groups. Because I'm pedantic like that.

1 - My friends who were Bernie supporters, in swing states, and refused to vote Clinton (abstained or voted third party)- I have cut them out of my life. The depth of my anger towards them surprised me. The moment HRC lost Michigan, I realized it would affect my friendship with my Bernie supporting abstaining friends who lived there. These are people who actually discussed it with me for months, who told me that the consequences of Trump are worth it for them (which is shooting oneself in the foot), and I just can't find any respect for them now. Nothing but anger. They understand the political system- they understand the propaganda system. It's not that they are misled or confused or suffering - they simply felt that their "feeling" about voting was more important than the actual consequences of the outcome. Fuck those people.

2- Friends / family who did not vote or who voted third party in solid red or blue states, fine. No problem.

3- Friends / family who voted for Trump for more hateful reasons (the ones who've become emboldened, who revealed their racism, who just want to troll liberals, who want to burn the system to the ground and deny climate change, etc) I have cut them out of my life as much as possible as well. I just realized I don't need that crap in my life. This had been festering up for years now, these are the birthers and bigots that I've been mostly ignoring but tolerating because of family or social norms. Fuck those people now.

4- Friends / family who voted for Trump for realistic reasons, OK. I can engage with them. They actually care about things. They aren't crazy or hateful- just victim to a propaganda machine, and I blame the Democrats for that just as much as the Republicans. It's troubling to me too to know that they would not vote for the party that defends my rights, but on the other hand, they are absolutely correct in pointing out that the Democrats destroy other people's rights (imperialism) or that they are supporting the same oligarchs and financial system that hurts most people in this country. All that's true. Where we disagree is just that I think it's equally as true for Trump and they'd rather vote for a unknown than a known. I blame the propaganda machine and the failure of the left to mobilize these people. In any case, we can have a conversation.

5- Liberals who voted for Clinton and who refuse to acknowledge any criticism of the DNC- they are still my friends, but I have to admit that I blame them a lot for their cognitive dissonance. We can also still have conversations. They also care about things. It troubles me that they will not acknowledge problems with the Democrats though and are now focusing on Russians.

6- People on the left who voted Clinton as LEV. These are my closest friends anyway. But then what happens is you start to think of yourself and people like you as the only people worth associating with, and that's a path to the Dark Side, ha ha.

So I've really had to step back and stop thinking about it so much and try to think about individual people for what they're worth. Part of this is just getting used to a new normal. I'm not really sure how to proceed. I'm sure as the months go on, we'll all work it out one way or another. Unless things get worse and collapse.

Wandering @23: I'm so sorry you had to go through that.

@16 Billy

I find it extremely distressing how many liberals are silent on this issue. Dan is one of them. Obama/Clinton/Kerry have been terrible in foreign policy. Imperialism and war- brutal escalation of the destruction of the Middle East and (Trump is right) support of Islamic terrorism though not directly or simply as he claims.

My problem with saying this is reason to vote Trump is that the GOP is no better. The issue of US war-mongering imperialism is bipartisan, just like the issue of support of oligarchs and policies that favor the financial sector over regular people. These are problems with BOTH Dems and Reps.

You are right that liberals worry over civil liberties at home but ignore mass murder abroad. What distresses me the most about this is their failure even to engage with the issue. Maybe you think Hilary's actions in Honduras, Haiti, Libya, Syria, against Russia, etc are all justified. Maybe you think Obama's deportation of immigrants and detention of immigrant families in prisons is justified. Maybe you think the Clintons ties to the financial sector and policies of deregulation are fine. Make that case then- don't just ignore it while criticizing the Reps for the same things. What I've found is that liberals just ignore it altogether. They don't respond at all which makes me think they are either very ignorant or else just don't give a shit. Then they wonder how people could support Trump while not being racist. It's exactly how liberals can support Clinton without being imperialists. It's probably about privilege, but also about cognitive dissonance. You want to feel that you are supporting the good guys, when in truth there are only bad guys to choose from.

So I hear ya. But I don't think any of that was an argument to support Trump since the GOP has historically been every bit as bad on matters of privatization and neoliberal economics and imperialism. This is a bipartisan US policy- not a Dem or Rep policy. Which to me, leads me to look at the places in which the two parties actually do differ, and they differ on climate change and civil liberties. So unless you can make an argument that Trump would be better in the foreign sphere (no war with Russia for example) to an extent that compensates for his escalation of climate change and refusal to defend civil liberties, then it doesn't change the fact that voting Dem was the only LEV option.

@25 and @27...what does LEV stand for?

I was legally married in Multnomah County, Oregon, in 2004. Then a ballot measure passed that fall, and my marriage was invalidated. We got our license fee back, and contributed the money to Basic Rights Oregon.

@28 Lesser Evil Voting.

NGRHE @1, I'm struggling not to break out the Hitler analogy, but I just can't do it:

Some Hitler supporters probably didn't want him to kill all those Jews. They saw that he was hateful and violently xenophobic, but they voted for him based on other factors, like his great policies on murdering Gypsies, gays, the disabled, and Poles. I bet a lot of them were really disappointed that he killed those six million Jews. Sometimes you just have to take the good with the bad.

Trump's platform boiled down to I'm a lying, economically illiterate, hateful imbecile, but I hate a lot of the same people you do and a lot of the lies I tell are things that you enjoy pretending to believe are true, so please vote for me. He demonstrated no command of any issues. He advanced no coherent policies. (No, huge tax cuts for the rich, vast infrastructure expenditures and eliminating, not just the deficit, but also the debt, i not a policy, it's a fantasy.). He was an asshole at every possible opportunity. He encouraged violence against those who disagreed with him. He flaunted his hatred and contempt for most Americans (members of all non-white races, women, gays, etc.). He lied absolutely incessantly in ways that could be proven false in a few seconds. He suggested he would imprison his political opponents. He was rarely able to complete a sentence.

The people who voted for him liked this. There are no excuses for that sort of hateful, self-destructive stupidity. The United States that elected him with only a few million votes less than Hillary Clinton is a deplorable country. I want to secede.

Chances are they won't come. My homophobic invitees (family) didn't and I suspect yours won't either

I immediately thought it would be a great pleasure to take their toaster or whatever wedding gift the unwanted guests provided, return it for cash, and donate that cash to an appropriate cause. If you can't get a cash refund, donate the toaster itself to a cause they would dislike and send them a thank you note from the shelter or whatever.

@9, @15 and others have good points about how inviting them has two possible outcomes which are likely to be positive for the bigots. Either they decline and confirm their hate, or they come and probably learn something about gay people not really having horns and drinking the blood of children. But my advice would be simpler: Each partner to a marriage gets to choose which members of their own family to invite. It's fine to discuss and negotiate a bit, but if the fiance wants to invite the Trumpkins, KNOTS/LW should let him and just try to forget about them. If he really needs to, he can not join in the invitation. What I mean is that, if all the other invites say Mr. KNOTS and Mr. Fiance invite you to join them at their wedding, etc.", the invite to the Trumpkins could say "Mr. Fiance invites you to join him at his wedding to Mr. KNOTS." If you don't rub their noses in it, being idiots, they might not even notice.

More importantly, Dan's idea of blackmailing money out of the Trumpkins and the other guests and using kids as enforcers is deeply terrible. If you want to center your wedding around your feelings towards the Trumpkins, want everyone at the wedding to leave thinking that you're an asshole and want some of them starting to question whether gays really are all twisted hateful human beings, by all means, try the blackmail. Otherwise, don't.

Dan got that part severely wrong.

I say invite them and let them see a beautiful wedding. Nothing better than just living your life beautifully and with grace.
And though I'll probably get slammed for this, the question first actually brought to mind male priviledge. Because I don't remember Trump saying much about gay marriage - I remember him being a vile pig about women every few days or so. I just would have liked the question to be cushioned in complaints that didn't just center around a ME ME ME mantra.

Is this a wedding or a continuation of the very real us and them political schism occurring in America today? The occasion is meant to be the celebration of the union between two individuals, who wish to be joined in matrimony based on their love and commitment for each other. And yes for very real and practical reasons too. Weddings can be about more than just the happy couple, they are often about the uniting of two families. Which means the inclusion of guests important to both families involved, not just the happy couple. Here is where life long compromise begins.

Having chosen to extend hospitality then there is an obligation on all parties to truly extend the hand of hospitality to everyone present. Just as your guests attending are expected to join in, in the spirit of the occasion. Thats just good manners.
Presumably the happy couple intends on being together for years to come, long beyond the current politics of the times. Otherwise meaning, you should take take the long view. Your wedding is not a political event, a rally, a war ground, revenge fest or some fund raising / teaching political / moment / event. It is a celebration and solemnising of your union. Set an example, rise above the daily sturm und drang, and through your hospitality create an inclusive environment that welcomes all who wish to share your joy at this occasion. Those that oppose you, will likely choose to not attend and those, that do hold different political views and yet still attend deserve your hospitality and, not to be made to feel unwelcomed or shamed for their presence. That too is just good manners. There is a time and a place for everything. How do you want your guests and family to remember your big day?

You can reflect your values in your wedding without making it a political rally or a fundraising event. If someone is there to support your gay marriage while having philosophical misgivings, it's fair to acknowledge the work they're doing while /expecting/ them to do it.

You can't solicit donations to Lambda Legal any more than you can solicit gifts, but you can answer people who insist on knowing what you might like.

Vivic @35: Good point. Trump is not anti-gay, he's anti-woman. It's Pence who's anti-gay.

First, I don't think anyone against marriage equality in principle is entitled to attend a gay wedding, in a spirit of thinking one of the partners an exception--'oh, it's all right for you...'.

But beyond that, I'm not sure this is about Trump supporters at all. It's a disagreement between the fiances as to who should get to go to the ceremony. They should talk it out. I like Dan's compromise.

I wouldn't want to live in a country where every grocery store had a big photo of Hillary or Trump outside;@ and some people either patronised it or drove on by based on which. Ordinary acts of civility have to go on without us second-guessing ourselves that the checkout assistant, the bank teller, even the insurance agent or bank manager wishes us serious ill.

@23. You shouldn't feel your own bad or unlucky love life disqualifies you from commenting. Maybe commenting will be part of a process that helps you get things clear in your mind and sees you on your way to a happier love-life! To a degree I think this about myself; we all live in hope!

Incidentally, I'm raising an eyebrow at the comparison between making a concession (rather than, say, gaining a point) and taking it up the ass. OK, then, go on thinking that *wicked smile*

I'm with Fichu @20 and DCP @34 (and others as well, but these two said it best). Dan's idea to turn the wedding into a gay fundraiser and infuriate the Trumpists would make a terrific scene in a movie - you could call it "My Big Fat Gay Wedding" - but for real people in the real world, it's a terrible idea and the exact antithesis of what you and all of your guests will want to remember about your wedding day. I keep thinking about what Michelle Obama said about responding to haters - bless her, I will miss all of the Obamas but Michelle especially - "When they go low, we go high." Please consider going high on your wedding day. It truly is the best revenge.

LW, you have to talk to your partner. There's no other way.

If money is an issue, or if your future mother-in-law's money is what is giving her leverage for inviting people you don't want, in my county of residence, a marriage licence and JP wedding will run you about $100 (including parking near the courthouse). Good suits are inexpensive and a simple rose boutonniere is about $10 each. Saying, "I would rather have a JP wedding than have XXX people you don't like there" is a bit of a nuclear option, but it's also the option that removes MIL's veto power over your guest list.

(A note from my own family: when my sister got married, we had several guests who were invited to the wedding because they were friends of my parents, and many of them only showed up because of the prospect of seeing my sister's matron of honour actually wearing a dress. You do NOT have to be like that.)

Moving on to another point. Are these Trump-supporting relatives somebody you will interact with on a regular basis, or are they cousins or something that nobody is close to? If the relative will be a brother-in-law, probably you can't cut your soon-to-be husband's brother from the guest list without heartache. If the relative is an uncle or great-aunt or someone more distant than a sibling, then the next option is, "Immediate family and invited friends only." People outside that immediate loop might be annoyed at being cut out, but the "immediate family and closest friends" boundary is something almost everyone will accept with grace. AND, more importantly, it makes it about you and your husband, and not politics. Even if the real reason is politics, that fig leaf is big enough to hide behind.

Good luck.