Is a tux always just a tux?

In the short time that gay marriage has been legal, I view the weddings as sort of Wild West territory. Traditions are out the window from the beginning, as same-sex weddings are by definition not traditional (at least not so soon), so people can sort of do whatever they want and start their own traditions.

There are some aspects of gay weddings that make no sense to me and one of them is in a lesbian wedding when one woman wears a dress and the other wears a tuxedo. When Cynthia Nixon got married, she wore a gown while her wife, Christine Marinoni wore a tux with a neon green vest. People can do what they want and I’m no fashion expert but I thought this looked ridiculous. I’m trying not to be offensive or insensitive but I just don’t get this.

I understand that some women might not like the look of a skirt and would opt for pants. No bride should have to wear something that makes her uncomfortable. Then why not wear a suit intended for a woman? Once a woman wears a man’s tux, it gets into drag territory and starts to look more like a gimmick. It’s like some girl going to a prom in a tux and thinks it’s clever and it’s been done. Madonna did it 20 years ago and Marlene Dietrich did it 70 years ago. It’s also a blah way to dress. I envy the fact that woman have so many more choices than men as far as formalwear so why are women choosing a boring old tux? There has to be some more interesting option for a bride that will suit her personality and taste rather than a cookie cutter tuxedo. There’s a happy medium between a frilly white dress and a cummerbund.

If it’s a statement that has nothing to do with fashion, then I’m not following what it’s supposed to mean. If you look hard enough at the picture of a bride in a dress and a bride in a tux, the unintended effect is that the couple is trying to pass as a straight couple getting married, trying to fit their marriage into a straight framework other than celebrating the fact that they can now legally have the wedding on their own terms. In a way, it’s still conformity. I have no idea what Nixon and Marinoni intended by their wedding regalia but there are meanings people can read into it, and will read into it, since gay weddings are politically charged right now whether we like it or not.

This brings up some odd thoughts about gender politics, including the old idea that in gay relationships, one person has the male role and the other the female role. Does a lesbian bride think, “Well, I’m the man in the relationship, so I’m calling Men’s Wearhouse”? I don’t think the idea of gender roles is entirely accurate in gay relationships because in both straight and gay relationships, men and women don’t fall squarely into rigid categories. Steve and I do what we’re good at and split some of the work. He bakes because he’s awesome at it and I don’t know the difference between baking soda and baking powder. I barbecue because I like meat. He handles computers because he understands them a lot better. I mow the lawn because he’s allergic to cut grass. He vacuums because I can’t stand doing it. I clip coupons for the supermarket because I’m cheap. We split the laundry and cleaning. Et cetera. I think it’s that way in a majority of couples, gay or straight.

Maybe sometimes a tux is just a tux and these brides have made fashion choices that have no semiotic meaning, but it’s a curiosity to me. At our wedding, a tux will be just a tux. We will each be wearing one. One of us will not wear a dress. It will be a regular old reception with food and music and booze and laughs — things everyone, gay or straight, enjoys. I figure there’s no point in making any kind of gender or political statement because two guys getting hitched is statement enough. The rainbow flags would just be redundant.