Patrick Bradley is a New York-based food columnist and founder of TheGayFoodie.com. I’ve never heard of him, which doesn’t matter; somebody does need to explain to me why a writer’s sexual orientation has anything to do with food, and why this isn’t just blatant group identification tribal exploitation of the kind that is dividing this country and culture. But I digress…this stuff annoys me, but I digress.
Bradley sent to the gay website Out an open letter he wrote (and sent? Let’s hope so) to his parents, who refused to attend his wedding to his same sex partner more than two years ago, and who have been estranged from him ever since. I would call the letter an ethics bomb, an action that hurls ethical dilemmas and problems in all directions, for good or ill. I’m publishing it in its entirety, and will have comments afterward.
Dear Mom and Dad,
It’s been 890 days since the day that you both decided not to partake in my wedding. I don’t know why it’s taken me this long to say anything about it. Perhaps I’ve been afraid of what the family will think, what the family might say. Or perhaps I’ve been afraid of losing even more of my wonderful, beautiful family, whom I think about day and night.
But the time is now because I’ve finally grown too tired of the 890 days and nights of being haunted by your presence—by your lack of presence, to be more precise. I’m tired of night after night of dreaming of you. And tonight, I had the most unpleasant of dreams—one that jolted me from my sleep and disallowed me to return to it. So at 6:22 a.m., after little more than three hours of sleep, I’m writing this letter to you—knowing that it is taking from my opportunity of getting a full night’s rest before work; but I’d rather work on little sleep than on little dignity.
As not to keep anyone in the family excluded (any longer), I’m sending this letter to everyone involved. I want everyone to know what had happened on my last visit to you, before my beautiful, wonderful wedding. I’m not writing this letter in an act of vengeance (even though it feels like it is), but rather, I’m doing it because I’m tired of walking on eggshells around my siblings, godchildren, nephews and nieces. I’m tired of having to be “civil” with both of you, “for the sake of the family.” I’m also tired of the unwanted holiday and birthday gifts, and I’m tired of you having the audacity to speak to my husband (and myself) as if nothing has happened. Have you no shame?
I think it’s time that I told my side of the story to the family, as I’m sure you have already told yours. I want everything to be out in the open, so that I can feel like I have all of my dignity with me when I will undoubtedly see you at family gatherings—gatherings which I now would rather avoid if it means that either of you will be present; I have other ways of seeing my family.
On May 13, 2013, I made the trip out to New Jersey—the day after Mother’s Day—to take you out for lunch because I had to work the previous day. You picked me up at the train station and we stopped at A & P to pick up a birthday card for one of the boys. On the way there, I told you about how Michael’s extended family, who’d be traveling from Georgia, Colorado and beyond—in part to meet you!—were so excited about meeting you. You simply replied that you both would not be going to the wedding. I tried my best to retain composure, thinking that I’d be able to change your mind before the big day.
By the time we left A & P, you started citing the bible, while unsuspecting shoppers were bustling about us, running their afternoon errands. And by the time we got back to the car, you’d mentioned your fear of an angel appearing to you, saying, “Stop praying for Patrick! He’s already in hell!” I knew then that it was time to go to my last resort and give an ultimatum which I never expected would be fulfilled.
I explained to you, simply and calmly, that if you (both) did not attend my wedding, you would not see me again after the wedding: no holidays, no birthdays, no hospitals, no funerals. What I heard next put me into a state of mild shock. You followed up, quickly and readily, with, “We know that! I talked to your dad last night and we already accept it! We said that we give you back to God!” I recall other things being said, which I’ll omit here. As I sat in shock—shock that you would rather never see me again than attend my wedding—you simply moved onto your next subject: “Well, I guess you don’t want to go to lunch anymore.” As I opened the car door to walk back to the train station, you offered, “Let me drive you back to the train. Let it be the one last thing that I do for you.” If there was any doubt in my mind that I’d misunderstood what you’d said to me previously, you had clarified your intentions then and there.
Mom and Dad: By not attending my wedding, you rejected me, and you rejected my husband, who is my own immediate family. I, in turn, reject anyone that rejects my family—out of dignity and respect for it. But I am offering resolution.
I will forgive you both for what you have done, if you, in front of the entire family (from youngest to eldest) admit that what you both did was wrong; admit that you both should have been at the wedding. Because I do think that what you both have done is shameful. You’ve torn a family apart. But what breaks my heart most is what this has done to the youngest in the family—the ones who were too young to know, or too young to understand what was going on. The ones whose only conclusion was perhaps “Patrick must be bad” or “He must have done something wrong because Grandma didn’t go to his wedding.” That is where I think you both should bear the shame, not me.
I want everyone to know everything. And maybe tonight, I’ll finally be able to sleep the whole night through.
With Best Intentions,
Patrick
Observations:
1. The conduct of any parent who rejects a child absolutely and forever is unethical. This is as close to an absolute ethics breach as there can be. The same is true of a child rejecting a parent, unless the parent has engaged in conduct that violates civilized standards regarding the care and proper treatment of a child. In other words, if your mother threw you in a ditch so she could go to a party, your Mother’s Day obligations are moot.
2. Rejecting a child because the child’s life choices are not the parent’s choices is especially unethical. Human beings have autonomy, deserve autonomy and have a right to autonomy. Parents lose their right to dictate conduct to their offspring when legal majority is reached. For a parent to use any means other than logic, reason and expressions of belief to force a child to change a major life decision is indefensible. Using the threat of ejecting the child from the family is an abuse of power.
3. Parents do not have to accept a child’s choice of spouse, but they have to respect the child’s right to love and live with whomever he chooses. Refusing to attend a child’s wedding represents the slimiest depths of parental selfishness, for the wedding is not about the parents. They don’t have to actively participate, though it is cruel and hurtful not to. They certainly do not have to approve. Their presence, however, signifies nothing less than the existence of parental bonds, love and support for the child, loyalty, unconditional love, and support, not necessarily of every choice the child makes, but of their life’s journey, whatever turns it takes.
4. The actions of parents who regard religion as a higher priority than family bonds may be moral (if the religion demands it), but they cannot be ethical. No ethical system supports a wedding snub, or could; this is one of those situations where the moral logic is “It’s right because God says so, and that’s enough,” and in ethics, it isn’t enough. It’s also not logical. God, if he’s there, is a big boy: surely He can take the minor disappointment of the male child of one of his flock marrying a man. I doubt that He’ll think about it much at all. He’s certainly not going to rain down fire and brimstone because his parents just come to the wedding, or even the wedding reception. Or—The Horror—if they give a gift to the couple. To the son, however, the symbolic rejection by his parents of boycotting his wedding day is crushing. Parents who think their God wants that have an inexplicable faith in a mean-spirited and petty deity.
They also may just be dumb as salamanders, which would be my diagnosis.
5. It is not only antipathy to homosexuality that causes parents to boycott weddings, though all reasons—racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism, partyism— are equally indefensible ethically. I was the best man in a wedding boycotted by the groom’s parents because–get this–they were scientists who regarded the Catholic Church as anti-science, and the bride was Catholic. In the clip above from “Fiddler on the Roof,” the musicals protagonist Tevye disowns his youngest daughter for marrying outside the Jewish faith, but at the end of the show, he gives her a grudging blessing. The message: he’s a devout Jew and a conservative, but he’s still her father, still loves her, and is not an asshole.
6. The son, Patrick, has written a letter that is an ambiguous mess. If he really wanted reconciliation with his parents, he wouldn’t have written an open letter, but a private one. He’s angry, and at some level wants to tell the world why while shaming his parents. Writing “Have you no shame?” in a public letter is not a recommended tactic for softening hearts of granite.
7. The letter presents itself as an offer of reconciliation, but it isn’t. It’s a kiss-off. “Admit you are wrong to the world, and I forgive you,” it says. There’s nothing magnanimous or forgiving in that. Thus the entire thing is a self-aggrandizing and self-justifying indulgence. Patrick might as well have written an open letter beginning, “Dear Mom and Dad: I’ve been seething since you were so cruel to me, and let me tell you what I think of you and your biases.” That would have been honest.
8. Patrick can sleep because he finally, in his own passive-aggressive way, told his parents to fuck off. I don’t blame him, for they deserve it, but the “Best Intentions” closing is too much to bear. This letter isn’t an offer to clean the slate, or a sincere expression that “No matter how wretchedly you treat me and my spouse, I am still your son, and will always love you. I will continue to hope that you will see the terrible mistake you have made and the injustice you are pursuing, so we can all be a family again.” Those would be best intentions. Sending the letter only to his parents and not to a magazine whose readership will unanimously heap abuse on them would demonstrate best intentions.
9. The Out introduction to the letter begins,
“As the world moves forward on the subject of gay marriage, it’s especially painful when some parents refuse to do so, citing their biblical beliefs as an excuse for not supporting their child’s legal and loving step into wedlock.”
There’s the trivialization of religion bias. Religion isn’t necessarily an excuse to reject gay marriage; in fact, I would bet that when parents do what Patrick’s parents did, it is out of sincere religious belief, just as in Tevye’s case. It’s just easier for gays to hate bigots than to hate misguided religious zealots, so all religious zealots are secret bigots to them.
Unfair and untrue.
This is a family tragedy with deep wounds bleeding all over. I hope Patrick can sleep; he deserves closure, at least for now.
There is still time for a happy ending, at least a muted one.
Just like in “Fiddler on the Roof.”
Ethics Alarms 
I say screw them all. This is a dysfunctional family whose son has now brought their dysfunctionality out into the open to shame his parents, hoping total strangers who don’t know ANY of them will now bombard his parents with four-letter words and insults and/or tell him what a hero he is for telling them to kiss off.
The last few days have been particularly bad with folks posting rants or stupid memes that amount to simply insulting or shaming those they don’t agree with, and this is simply a symptom of that problem, albeit arising from the other long-term problem of family members doing very wrong by each other.
Everyone’s answer to every real or perceived wrong now seems to be to post a meme or a hashtag or to write a rant that the whole world will see, shaming, belittling, insulting, and holding the wrongdoer up to ridicule. What they hope to accomplish by doing this I don’t know.
The fact that you got 100 “likes” on a post or even 100 comments that amount to “you go!” isn’t going to change anything, other than give your ego a minor boost and make you believe you MUST be right. The fact that you publicly called those who don’t agree with you “fool,” “idiot,” “coward,” “stupid,” five kinds of sexual insult and ten different kinds of ignorant, is very unlikely to make them change their minds. If anything, it’s going to harden their positions.
I must add that it boggles my mind when someone posts something like that, then gets all indignant when someone calls them out on it. Do they really expect that the other side is going to just stand there with their head down like a Victorian era parlor maid being dressed down by her mistress for failing to sweep one corner of a dozen rooms and murmur “yes mum, no mum, won’t happen again mum?” During WWII Air Marshal Arthur Harris commanded all bombers in the European theater. Once the Battle of Britain was won and the allied air forces could go on the offensive he went after the Third Reich HARD. Apparently someone who thought he was overdoing it a bit said as much. He responded that it was simply illogical for the Germans to think they could bomb everyone else and not get bombed in response.
I hope this kid enjoys his fifteen minutes of viral fame, and I also hope he and his husband get divorced and he dies alone like the bitter jerk he is.
You had me on the cusp of a Comment of the Day until the last line. It’s hard to devise an ethical justification for a sentiment like that.
Sorry about that. The point I was trying to make is that being angry and bitter does not make you deserving of a happy-ever-after. Quite the opposite, actually.
“Patrick might as well have written an open letter beginning, “Dear Mom and Dad: I’ve been seething since you were so cruel to me, and let me tell you what I think of you and your biases.””
That’s how I read it. Of course you aren’t getting the apology, of course this doesn’t make things better. If your parents believe strongly enough that your choices imperil their afterlife, snarling at them isn’t going to change anything. But it sure feels good, doesn’t it?
The one caveat that I’m going to put out there is that he said that this was in part to explain to his nieces and nephews what was going on, the line “The ones whose only conclusion was perhaps “Patrick must be bad” or “He must have done something wrong because Grandma didn’t go to his wedding.” That might have actual value, but if that were the point, it should have been approached differently.
Meh, it would have felt really good for me to slug a blustering union rep who threatened to break my arm, and maybe break HIS arm instead, but that momentary twinge of joy fades really quickly when the consequences fall on you. Same with spewing venom, which I have done more than my share of. I’ve found ranting just makes me feel tired.
I agree, if the guy was trying to explain to his younger relatives what went on, that should have been handled separately from telling his parents to get bent. It doesn’t help that that part is waaay down the end and he’s going to lose most readers long before they get there.
“If your parents believe strongly enough that your choices imperil their afterlife, snarling at them isn’t going to change anything. But it sure feels good, doesn’t it?”
Can very well also say: “If your parents believe strongly enough that your choices imperil your afterlife, snarling at them isn’t going to change anything. But it sure feels good, doesn’t it?”
I can’t find the Penn and Teller bit, but I seem to recall at one point Penn commenting that he used to abhor Christians who concernedly discussed his eternal options with him, but then realized, if someone actually believed that there is an eternal Hell from which you cannot escape after Death and an eternal Heaven into which you cannot enter through actions after Death, then there is very much a likelihood that that someone is telling him about Heaven and Hell because they actually *care* and not just because they are self-righteous prudes who like living on moral high horses. So he stopped being aggravated by Christians talking with a certain level of urgency to him about Christ.
Which means the solution is to convince them that their beliefs are irrational, and God really isn’t going to punish someone to eternal torment for falling in love with somebody of the same gender. One tactic would be to show them the verses regarding homosexuality in context with the verses by the same author condemning women speaking in church. Confront them with their contradictions.
I’m not certain your exegesis has been very thorough regarding those conclusions… but try as you will.
How cute. “The solution!” Well… Why don’t we all just go out and do that then! Should be done by noon, right?
I noticed that calls to change Christian teachings on buggery and marriage are much more common than calls to change Islamic teachings on alcohol.
(And beheadings)
That’s the one I’m more worried about, personally.
At least you aren’t the daughter of a Muslim, then you could also worry about honor killings.
Michael:
[quote]I noticed that calls to change Christian teachings on buggery and marriage are much more common than calls to change Islamic teachings on alcohol.[/quote]
And yet somehow you haven’t noticed that calls to ban same-sex relations (I won’t say “buggery”) and gay marriage from Christians have led to huge, successful nationwide campaigns which have affected the lives of millions of Americans whether they share the religion or not, while there have been no such campaigns from Muslims trying to ban alcohol.
What you point out isn’t strange or even interesting. It just means that Americans spend more time criticizing religious views that actually have an effect on them and their loved ones, and less on those that don’t. That’s completely rational.
That’s a shift of terms. Ejercito is showing exasperation that the attempt is to compel Christians to change their beliefs. You’ve countered that by saying it’s an argument to stop Christians from imposing their beliefs.
You’re talking past him now…unless you think that the appropriate political strategy is to compel a religion’s beliefs to change, versus the actual legal option of not allowing a religion to impose it’s beliefs.
But as you said, Tex, the reason they impose that belief is because they think the people they’re imposing on will go to Hell if they don’t comply. Such impositions are rational if you agree with the premise. So you have to show them their premise is wrong. I never said it was easy, just that it’s necessary.
Nope. Fight it the way it’s supposed to be fought. 1st amendment.
The first amendment won’t stop parents from rejecting their children. They genuinely need to reconsider their beliefs in that case.
(I understand you think I’m conflating two different issues, but I’m not; my reply to Michael was based on his statement that he sees more criticism of Christianity than Islam in America. That’s a tangential issue to the main point, which is about parental treatment of children.
Yes you are.
Also, the first amendment quite thoroughly would have won the recent Supreme Court case in conjunction with the 10th amendment. I’ve demonstrated how before on here. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled based on it (though it was a sloppy and worrisome ruling the way they did it). So you argument to change Christian doctrine is somewhat moot. changing Christian doctrine won’t stop parents being estranged from their children and vice versa for a plethora of reasons that the main society has become comfortable with. So again, I’m not sure the purpose of your argument.
Jvb below, lays out a great discussion on this.
You know, there was this thing called Prohibition which happened less than a century ago.
I’m aware. What is your point?
You claimed that no one tried to ban alcohol.
Why is the prohibition of “buggery” (And I’ll use the term. It seems quaint, somehow.) uniquely a Christian thing? I mean really…. You think it pisses Muslims off less? Not only do they not get to throw us buggers off buildings, they have to watch while we get married. Boo. Hiss.
Jack,
One quibble. I do not think you addressed this part:
“I explained to you, simply and calmly, that if you (both) did not attend my wedding, you would not see me again after the wedding: no holidays, no birthdays, no hospitals, no funerals.”
Yes, you can criticize the parents, but it looks like Patrick threw down the gauntlet. He issued the ultimatum. It is not clear to me that the parents would not have ceased contact with him (or his spouse) if he went through with the wedding, just that they did not want to be THERE. Justifiably or not, Patrick upped the ante and they called his bluff.
-Jut
He threw a temper tantrum because someone would not approve of his choices.
The whole thing makes me mad on every level, but mostly it makes me sad. Even sadder than ISIS terrorist attacks because people throw away their chances of being really happy in so many different ways. Life is short and unpredictable. We should all be as good to each other as we know how to be. We hardly ever are.
Open letters usually are in bad taste, but I don’t think these parents will be shamed or upset in any way. They are sincere in their beliefs and their community supports them in these beliefs. It’s not like they were able to keep an estrangement a secret from friends and family.
If I were this foodie guy, I would have written it as an essay as opposed to an open letter, but, in any event, I imagine that his message has touched a lot of lives in a positive way.
You are a glass half-full kind of person, that’s for sure. It’s what I love about you.
I am not buying this open letter. I am calling an audible. We are being asked to accept that the spouse-to-be is a living saint; we don’t know that – he could be a great guy, but he could also be a jerk. Assuming the parents acted the way they did, their actions may have been unethical, but the real ethics foul is the author of this open letter. He made a private dispute very public, subjecting his family to probable ridicule and opprobrium. It was a cruel, cheap shot on his part, knowing full well that his parents would never be able to respond to public outcry that is about to be heaped on them by social justice warriors. His open letter was not sent to them, or published in the local paper; no, the coward put it on his website and on some gay advocacy website which, I am sure, his parents never visit for fear of God’s wrath raining down on them.
Were his parents wrong in not attending the wedding? I don’t know; nor does anyone on this blog, for that matter. We have absolutely no facts to determine if the parents’ actions were as unethical as has been declared by the author. Moreover, we know absolutely nothing about the future spouse? Clearly, the author was aware of his parents’ religious views. Perhaps this is just another episode in a petulant child’s conduct toward his parents. Perhaps our fair minded open letter writer took another opportunity to reject, and shove, his family’s religious values in their faces.
I also find some of the details hard to believe. For instance, he comes off as a really nice, considerate, reasonable guy, what with taking the train all the way to New Jersey (the horror!) to meet his mom on Mother’s Day (how charming), and stopping at the local A & P to pick up a birthday card for a little one. How thoughtful. Then, things go horribly awry and he is humiliated in the parking lot (is that a bit like a homophobic drive by?)d by bible thumping troglodytes masquerading as his parents. Somehow we are to believe that his family had no idea about his sexual orientation and that he had no idea that his same sex marriage would not accepted by his knuckle-dragging Neanderthal religious fanatic parents. He threw down the gauntlet by giving an ultimatum: “Accept my spouse of choice or never see me again.” That seems to be the action of a snotty-nosed, entitled brat, most probably to shouts of approval (along with a healthy dose of head-shaking and tsk-tsking) by his supporters.
I am not sure that I can agree with these two ethics observation abolutes, though:
“The conduct of any parent who rejects a child absolutely and forever is unethical” and “Rejecting a child because the child’s life choices are not the parent’s choices is especially unethical”.
At what point does a child lose or forfeit the right to a parent’s acceptance? There is the parable of the Wayward Son. We know the results but that is because the Wayward Son repented and sought forgiveness from his father. But what about where there is no repentance? Assume the parents rejected the author’s choice because the spouse-to-be was a drug-infested, thieving, career-criminal, low-down good-for-nothing lay about. Are parents simply supposed to sit back and accept the child’s decision? Is that unethical? Are they supposed to embrace that choice, unconditionally welcoming that spouse-to-be into their home (after they have safely stowed away the china. family jewels, and silver)? That seems awfully unfair to the parents. While the child’s autonomy is important, parents should have the right and duty to say they disagree with the choice. Otherwise, the parents have lost their autonomy, which seems unethical.
Likewise, while the son has autonomy (which clearly is an ethical value), at what point does the son’s autonomy run afoul of ethics rules and become a sword rather than a shield? When does the son have to honor the Golden Rule and treat his parents with the same respect and acceptance that he is demanding of them? He surely knows their beliefs and that his spouse of choice runs up against that choice. Wouldn’t it be more ethical of him to say that he disagrees with their decision not to attend but that they are always welcome in his/their home unconditionally? Wouldn’t that be a better, more ethical response than “take it or leave it”?
jvb
Recommended COTD.
As to your disagreement with the absolutes:
1. The Ethics Incompleteness Principle always applies.
2. Absent those anomalous exceptions, however: a parent’s love should be unconditional, and unconditional means without conditions.
3. We’re not talking about an interest free loan here or hiding the fruits of a heist…it’s going to a frickin’ wedding! How much of a sacrifice is that? You say you disagree with the match, you say why, you issue your warning, then you say, “OK, it’s your life.”
4. And you go to the wedding. I don’t care if he’s marrying Satan. You go to the wedding. Because you’re his parents.
Agreed, The Ethics Incompleteness Principle clearly applies, as you state in No. 1, and I am not sure I disagree with No. 2.
I disagree with Nos. 3 and 4, though. I take “it’s a frickin’ wedding” two different ways. The first is go even if you disagree. The marriage/wedding is simply a contract about sharing property and nothing more, so what’s the big deal? You go, spend the allotted amount of time by making an appearance, and quietly leave. If that is true, then why has the nation been debating this for 40 years? Why was there a collective shout of triumph across the land when the SCOTUS issued its ruling? Why did a vapid, clueless county clerk go to jail over a refusal to issue licenses? In fact, why do we need licenses in the first place? All of that leads me to think that a marriage is a lot more than a simple contract.
I think the SCOTUS decision is poorly reasoned and the courts should not have stepped into a cultural issue, but they did. That being said, I know same-sex couples, and I don’t question the sincerity of their commitment. I have given wedding gifts to same-sex couples. I have also declined to attend weddings because I thought the wedding was a huge mistake.
Which leads into No. 4: Marriage has broader social implications. Going to a wedding implicitly endorses the union, which means that you agree with what is happening. I don’t agree with the parents. I think that, if they did what our kindly author said, they acted unethically The parents, though, still have the right whether to attend or not. To deny them that right is remove free will, liberty, and the right to self-determination.
What the author did was pretty crappy, and he gets the “Ethics Frying Pan in the Back of the Head” Award. His open letter was not an attempt to reconcile. It was a petulant, snarky, surly, superior-than-thou kiss off, targeting his defenseless parents. I get that his feelings are hurt – whose wouldn’t be? But, his open letter tells more about him and his values than it does about his misguided parents. Based on his open letter, I wouldn’t go to his wedding, either. In fact, I would advise his spouse to run as far away as fast as he could, to save himself from years of having to deal with a selfish narcissist.
jvb
I’m in show business. People who act like that just aren’t lovable. They are menaces.
I still love Danny, Bing, Rosemary and Vera.
If that is true, then why has the nation been debating this for 40 years? Why was there a collective shout of triumph across the land when the SCOTUS issued its ruling? Why did a vapid, clueless county clerk go to jail over a refusal to issue licenses? In fact, why do we need licenses in the first place? All of that leads me to think that a marriage is a lot more than a simple contract.
Sure it is, but none of the things it is, all of them good, is the business of those who are not adversely affected by it in any way at all. Once it was clear, and it is clear, that homosexuality was a natural, if minority, state of sexuality and not a perversion, a choice, a communicable disease or a sin, then the government had no right to withold benefits of citizenship from gays, and people who disapproved, as in“I would never do that” “Well, of course and so what, you moron?” needed to grow up.
I think the SCOTUS decision is poorly reasoned and the courts should not have stepped into a cultural issue, but they did.
They had no choice once government got in the marriage business. That being said, I know same-sex marriage opinions that I like a lot better than Kennedy’s, which didn’t make the case that’s a slam dunk, equal protection.
Which leads into No. 4: Marriage has broader social implications. Going to a wedding implicitly endorses the union, which means that you agree with what is happening.
No, it doesn’t. Why would you think that? Respecting the flag doesn’t mean I agree with where the nation is going, nor does paying my taxes. I went to the funerals and weddings of people I detested because I loved my mother and she believed you never abandoned family. With children, parents have to the one place they can go and say, “I screwed up horribly—I burned the house down, robbed a bank, joined ISIS, married Nancy Pelosi, voted for Hillary, abused the dog and sent a contribution to Trump” and still know that the response will be, “It’s ok. We love you. You’re welcome.”
I had that, and it made all the difference. Every human being deserves to have that.
I don’t agree with the parents. I think that, if they did what our kindly author said, they acted unethically The parents, though, still have the right whether to attend or not.
I never said they didn’t have the right—we have the right to do all sorts of terrible things. This is one of them, and one of the worst.
There is no pre-existing ethical duty to attend a particular wedding. Parents do not have any sort of ethical duty to affirm their children’s choices.
I didn’t say they did. They have a duty to be parents, and attending a wedding is a parental duty. THey support the child, not the child’s choices.
Just saw a Campbell’s soup commercial that subtly involves a two father family.
I’ve seen worse behaviour by parents.
Also better.
One of my friends – and former students – is FtoM. Parents were, and are, very observant Catholics. I literally have seen him vomit in apprehension before going to see them for the last time, Then went and did what he had to do.
He never said a word against them, acknowledging that he didn’t just owe a duty to them, but loved them unconditionally. Whether they felt it their duty to reject him forever or not. That didn’t matter.
It took a few years, but eventually his parents came to the same conclusion. That they didn’t just owe a duty to him, but loved him unconditionally. Whether they felt it their duty to reject him forever or not. That didn’t matter.
From there, and with some education about the biological facts, they eventually accepted that they had a son, not a daughter.
I met his parents at his wedding. He comes from good stock. A man much like his father.
https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/10313820_10204469050739738_429710012400567462_n.jpg?oh=11b37aef6d8834e8dad8a42eeeee27a5&oe=56E948B8
My father was an intellectual snob, who routinely either ignored or berated his eldest daughter because she wasn’t “as smart” as he thought the rest of us were. He effectively ruined her self-esteem, and it was only years later — as adults — that that sister and I became best friends, focusing on what we had in common rather than what divided us. I wouldn’t trade that relationship for anything in the world.
My eldest sister died much sooner than she should have: I looked forward to the two of us sitting around as two old bats over coffee and having fun. Alas, it was not to be.
I never talked to my father about his treatment of this sister. In retrospect, I should have. I know it wouldn’t have changed his behavior — he was immovable in too many areas — but at least I would have let him know that he was “out” — with the entire family about this particular prejudice, sadism, and inexcusable behavior. I outed him on other issues all the time: but somehow this was too close, and too tough for me. Interestingly, that same sister only and always treated him with the utmost kindness and respect (neither of which he deserved): clearly, she was the superior person.
I regret not taking my father to task on this. Again, it wouldn’t have changed anything, but I would have felt better about myself. At least I had years of a close relationship which enabled me to get beyond the evil prejudice demonstrated by our own father.
I don’t care how Patrick put it. I don’t care what happens in the family. If he needed to call out his parents for being heartless and stupid, so be it. The way he did it is less important than the fact that he did. Patrick and Jack are right about one thing: how can parents like Patrick’s — and my own father — even pretend to know or understand the concepts of love, parenthood, and unequivocal regard?
It was Patrick who threatened to cut off all contact, not the parents.
Not that this is germane to the post.