This weekend, the Houston art world will add to its annals of art history not one, but two controversial performance pieces — one planted firmly in the "concept" camp with the other touting a solidly "political" angle. The local art community appears equally divided, with many opinions but few individuals willing to go on the record with their gripes.

The story begins on a sunny Saturday morning in June 2009, when noted Houston art duo, The Art Guys, married a live oak tree in a public wedding ceremony sponsored by the Contemporary Arts Museum Houston. Nearly 600 guests attended the event at the Cullen Sculpture Garden of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, including the existing human wives of “Art Guys” Michael Galbreth and Jack Massing.

This Saturday marks the newest chapter of the Art Guys Marry a Plant piece, as the happily married live oak officially joins The Menil Collection in a public dedication ceremony. The event will place the tree on the grounds of the revered museum, which houses an esteemed collection of works produced by a range of artists, from Max Ernst and Marcel Duchamp to Andy Warhol and Cindy Sherman.

In the past week, however, Houston Chronicle arts writer Douglas Britt has attempted to redirect attention surrounding the tree dedication with the staging of his own counter marriage (and “swift, amicable divorce”) to Houston art publicist Reese Darby. Titled Art Gay Marries a Woman, the ceremony takes place tonight as a warmup act for an amateur strip contest. Acclaimed artist Dario Robleto has conceived a special "giveaway piece" for the occasion, Britt said.

In light of the 2005 Texas ban on gay marriage, the writer views his arrangement with Reese as a legal “gesture of civil obedience” that comments on the manner in which The Art Guys “ignore the social context” surrounding their tree marriage.

"They didn't even maintain a superficial commitment to the tree," he told CultureMap in an email exchange. "Menil groundskeepers, not them, will care for it."

Britt spoke out against the Marry a Plant project in 2009, claiming the work “inadvertently reinforces” a slippery slope argument that labels gay marriage as a gateway to allowing people to marry animals and other non-human partners. ...

While both Galbreth and Massing support gay marriage rights, they insist their intent for the project was to use the act of marriage in the broadest sense, an ancient formal union between two abstract entities.

“Marriage and the ceremony are structures and contrivances that we didn’t invent,” Galbreth said. “[They’re] just the material available to us as artists in a social-sculptural way."

Labels: culture, gay marriage, gender, Marriage, Texas

VOTE

Many people say the institution of marriage has taken a back seat to a lifestyle of "anything goes."

Some Dallas community leaders and faith-based groups have joined a national campaign to combat that trend in black families and communities through the eighth annual Black Marriage Day celebrations March 26-28.

Most Dallas-area activities are free and open to people who are married, courting or engaged. The events aim to promote and strengthen marriage by touting its benefits in seminars, film festivals, vow renewals and celebrations.

Sponsors include Anthem Strong Families, Muhammad Mosque No. 48, some churches and the Wedded Bliss Foundation of Washington, D.C.

During a ceremony from 5:30 to 7 p.m. March 26 in Dallas City Hall's Flag Room, both a newlywed and a longer-married couple will be announced and inducted into a Marriage Hall of Fame. Past inductees will be featured in an exhibition that will tour around Dallas. A documentary film also will be shown. ...

Wedded Bliss Foundation founder Nisa Muhammad agreed, saying in promotional materials that "much of what we hear about marriage in the black community is a blues song. ... We want to replace that blues song with a love song of joy."

Labels: Christianity, culture, divorce, Islam, Marriage, race, religion, Texas

VOTE

In a first for Texas, a judge ruled Thursday that two men married in another state can divorce here and that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

Both a voter-approved state constitutional amendment and the Texas Family Code prohibit same-sex marriages or civil unions.

Although the case is far from settled, and the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage is a long way from being thrown out, Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan's ruling says the state prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the federal constitutional right to equal protection. ...

The Family Code section deemed unconstitutional by Callahan prohibits the recognition of any same-sex marriage or civil union, and it bars the state and cities from extending any legal protection or benefits that flow from such unions.

Labels: gay marriage, Texas

VOTE

HOUSTON — A judge in Texas pav the way for a court battle over the state’s ban on same-sex marriage when she ruled this week that two men married in another state can get divorced in Dallas.

The state attorney general said Friday that he would appeal the decision, even as gay rights advocates applauded the judge, Tena Callahan of Family District Court, for declaring that the state’s four-year-old ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions violated the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

The case highlights a subtle way gay men and lesbians often face complications when it comes to marriage: gay couples who have managed to marry in the few states where it is legal have trouble divorcing and dividing their property if they move to a state where it is not.

In the last two years, courts in Indiana, Oklahoma and Rhode Island, for instance, have denied divorces to same-sex couples who had been married in other jurisdictions. All three have laws against gay nuptials. Courts in a few other states, notably New York and New Jersey, have allowed divorces to go forward for gay men and lesbians married in other states, even though they do not allow same-sex marriages.

The case in Texas involves two men who married in Cambridge, Mass., in 2006, then moved to Dallas the following year when one of them was transferred by his company, a lawyer for the couple, Peter A. Schulte, said.

The men decided to divorce in January and reached an amicable agreement about splitting up their house, cars and other property. But they had to file for divorce in Texas, because, like most other states, Massachusetts allows only residents to sue for divorce, Mr. Schulte said. ...

But Mr. Schulte said his clients, who were identified in court documents as J.B. and H.B., had not sought to challenge the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. They were asking only to split up without having to return to Cambridge, as a heterosexual couple would have been able to do.

Labels: gay marriage, Texas

VOTE