"Wedding... just another vehicle to get the word out about safe sex"


Is same-sex marriage the same time-honored institution of marriage that societies everywhere have always recognized and celebrated, or does it represent a fundamental shift in principles and values, an essential and complete redefinition of marriage itself?

Well, imagine this promotion running in your grandparents’ Wall Street Journal as hopeful GI’s returned from World War II, and you tell me what you think:

NüVo Condoms to sponsor FIRST gay wedding ever at NYC PrideFest on June 30, 2013

NüVo Condoms is seeking a gay couple who is interested in getting hitched with an all expenses paid wedding at this years NYC PrideFest on June 30,2013. Are you a gay couple that has been looking to tie the knot? Wait no longer -- NüVo Condoms wants you to take the plunge! In honor of the 2nd year anniversary of the legalization of gay marriage in New York, NüVo will be sponsoring the FIRST WEDDING ever at NYC PrideFest for one lucky couple.


When speaking about the wedding at NYC Pridefest, BennyBwoy, spokesperson for NüVo Condoms stated, “We are excited about this event, we continue to create awareness for our brand, and more importantly the critical need for greater safe sex practices. This wedding is just another vehicle to get the word out about safe sex.”

The institution of marriage as “just another vehicle” to promote and advertise the use of condoms? Somehow I don’t think our ancestors would have seen it that way.


  1. B DeCicco
    Posted April 23, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    Horrible. What a slippery slope down this recent social experiment has been.

  2. Ash
    Posted April 23, 2013 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    This puts me in mind of when Grindr (an application that helps to arrange hook-ups between gay men) advocated for ssm.

    When reading all of the benefits that will be available to the couple chosen by this campaign, all I could think was: "Someone could have been sued if they refused to offer services for this wedding."

  3. Clark Herlin
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    "Wickedness never was happiness" (Alma 41:10).

  4. Thom
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    I can't wait until marriage equality is the law of our great nation. Let freedom ring!

  5. Ash
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Thom, it exists in 40 states!

  6. Chairm
    Posted May 3, 2013 at 12:48 am | Permalink

    Heh, SSMers argue, insistently, that unless the marriage law makes something mandatory then that "something" is not a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligiblity to marry.

    Here we see that SSMers do believe that the union of husband and wife is a sexual type of relationship under the law. That is, afterall, their own interpretation of the bride-and-groom requirement -- it is a mandatory that this type of sexual relationship includes both a man and a woman. And they object to that requirement on the basis of their promotion of a different type of relationship that features their own gay emphasis. They concede this is a public sexual type of relationship.

    Yet they argue for abolition of this legal requirement. So SSM, at law, is not a sexual type of relationship, according tot heir own argumentation. But they talk out of both sides of their mouth -- and their duplicity is revealed readily in their own rhetoric and political posturing. This story is just another grand example.