Talk about a story that has tabloid headlines written all over it.
The headline in The Mirror, on the other side of the Atlantic, was rather low key: “Bride plans to marry chandelier — but is in open relationship with other objects.”
I realize that this is a bit of a reach, for GetReligion. Nevertheless, I have a question about the mainstream news coverage of this story, as in: If there is going to be a marriage ceremony in this case, who will perform the rite?
If there is a rite, will there be any religious content in the text? I think that it’s safe to say this particular circumstance was not anticipated by liturgists who created the modernized, alternative service books that have expanded the Church of England’s old Book of Common Prayer.
So are we talking about a service by a click-here-to-be-ordained online minister? Will this be a neopagan rite of some kind? A simple secular union rite? Didn’t any reporter think to ask this logical question?
Let’s pause to hear from the bride:
A bride-to-be is excitedly planning her big white wedding in a bid to marry her chandelier.
Amanda Liberty, describes herself as being in an open relationship with several chandeliers and is determined to shed light on her unusual relationship. She hopes that 'marriage' to her favourite one will prove her love is valid.
Amanda, 35, from Leeds, identifies as an objectum sexual — which means she is attracted to objects. And the bride-to-be - who had previously changed her surname by deed poll during a relationship with the Statue of Liberty — has decided to seek a commitment ceremony to her chandelier known as Lumiere.
What a minute! There’s a New York City angle to this wedding?
Amanda Liberty changed her name in the wake of her, uh, same-gender union with the Statue of Liberty? There has to be a New York Post headline for this story.
As it turns out, there is, but it’s stunningly tame fare for the Post: “Woman plans to marry 91-year-old chandelier named Lumiere.” And the “story” itself is basically aggregation of the details in The Mirror.
The long-distance relationship with Lady Liberty never worked out. She needed a partner at home.
In the original interview, Amanda Liberty addressed several of the obvious questions about the nature of objectum sexual orientation and the relationships that result. Note that, in this passage, she makes another reference to a ceremony:
Whilst the Leeds native acknowledges that she can't marry her love in the traditional way later this year, she is determined to prove her love exists — and is worth just as much as marriage between humans.
Amanda said: "I'm determined to have this commitment ceremony, to prove that I'm here for Lumiere and that my love is going to last. I'll also be buying matching wedding rings for Lumiere and myself.”
Wait, there’s more:
"Lumiere is too big to take to bed with me, but she doesn't mind when I spend time with the others. Some objectum sexual people believe that their partners talk to them, but I know that Lumiere communicates differently. She doesn't exist or live in the way we do; they give off energy to show me how they're feeling.
"I'm doing this in the hope that people will understand our love, and if not understand it, maybe they could at least accept it. I'm not hurting anyone by entering in to a relationship with them, I am simply just following my heart."
Obviously, journalists who covered this story needed to ask for contacts with other objectum sexual believers and find out more about the content of these union rites.
I am being serious, I guess, since the language used in marriage rites — secular or sacred — always says something about the nature of the relationship that is being made permanent, to one degree or another.
Thus, a follow-up story, please?
Also, about the beloved’s name? Might the source be here: