What is the origin of that beautiful typical 3-layered (tiered) white wedding cake that is common to 70% of all weddings in the United States, a predominantly Christian country, but with many atheists and agnostics who also choose to use such a cake? The cake is not just a food item at the reception. It is not just edible confection. It is a work or art, sculpted for the unique bride of the wedding feast, a work of art designed to be viewed, not just served as dessert. The cake is a central focus of the rituals of the wedding feast. It is to be viewed because it is a symbol of normal heterosexual fertility, focused on the bride.
The 3-tiered cake originated in the Victorian era of western civilization. Queen Victoria of Great Britain in 1840 had a 10-ft wide lower tier cake, 3-tiers, white, topped by an elaborately carved scene of Brittania blessing the Queen and her groom, Prince Albert. The cake became instantly famous, with paintings of it showing up everywhere. This cake set the standard for future royal weddings and subsequently weddings for all. Queen Victoria also broke tradition and wore a white wedding dress. Also imitated by future generations as we see today. The white elevated wedding cake was a public display associated with the presentation of the bride in a white dress. The dress represented virginity and the cake fertility. The tiered white cake with its cone like form symbolizes the bride in her wedding dress. The bride was the central focus of the wedding, not the groom (the woman was the focus, not the man). In the late 1800's and early 1900's the cake was not even called a "wedding cake" it was called the "BRIDES CAKE" !
Female fertility is symbolized in the cake by the decorations and staging (flowers, swans, almonds). The ritual cutting of the cake together (bride and groom holding the knife together) symbolizes the sexual bond of the husband and wife. Without being graphic you can understand the symbolism of the knife cutting into the pristine (virgin) cake. The Bible tells us man and woman become one flesh in marriage, both in relationship and in the production of offspring (children). The cake cutting ceremony symbolically expresses the ideal that husbands and wives should have children. The top of the cake (top tier) is traditionally kept until the couple have their first child.
The sharing of the cake with family and guests, and the said audience eating the cake, symbolizes acceptance of the marriage and their status as a married couple in society. Eating the cake is affirmation, it is not just enjoying a tasty treat by an expert baker.
It is therefore not surprising, and not wrong, for a baker, an artisan, to refuse to create his or her artistic produce for a "gay wedding" if they do not recognize such a ceremony. Promoting abnormal sexual behavior and promoting a concept that does not exist in Christian, Islamic, Hindu, or Jewish traditions and ideology ("gay wedding"; "polygomous wedding") by making a bride's cake for any ceremony other than a man and a woman getting married under the domain of our Creation Entity is not acceptable to many Americans or simply does not make sense when one understands the history and meaning of the wedding cake (bride's cake). Producing the artwork known as a bride's cake implies acceptance and celebration of the feast and marriage, and if a baker does not concur, they cannot be forced to participate. A bride's cake makes no sense at a wedding of 3 lesbians, or 4 men living together as "partners", or 2 men, or 2 women, or a man with his beloved pet dog, etc.
If "marriage" as historically defined by Christians, Jews, and Hindus involving the permanent relationship between a man and a woman with promises to the creation entity and with a primary goal of raising a family, of committing spouses to each other for reasons other than just feelings and to become responsible adults, why does government (i.e. the states in the USA) continue to recognize marriage at all? Initially the USA was founded as Christian communities, hence it made sense for local and state governments to recognize marriage and its societal benefits. The state has an interest in promoting marital norms because it serves the public good by protecting children (statistics prove children raised by a mother and a father fare much better in various characteristics than children of divorced, widowed, or homosexual environments, or fragmented step-family environments) and committing a mother and a father to each other for the long term. Traditional marriage norms also protect civil society (married couples and their families are statistically more law abiding than other household environments). Traditional marriage also supports limited government (families that can take care of their own do not need government assistance). Therefore it is in government's interest to support traditional marriage. Once the definition of marriage is changed from one of virtue (supporting morals established in scripture), one of responsibility for raising and protecting children, one of commitment between spouses and living a life where you try to discern live according to God's will, to simply a bond between multiple persons based on emotion (feelings), then the institution no longer has positive or constructive meaning and is useless in the wide cultural context.
Some argue government should just stop recognizing marriage and leave it to the churches, synagogues, and hindu temples to certify their communities marriages, and dissolve any concept of "secular" marriage, but the impacts to insurance policies and costs, tax rules, property ownership, wills, adoption rules, etc would have to all be considered and new laws and rules implemented (no simple task). Marriage in secular terms should now simply be better defined as a government recognized "domestic partnership contract", the word marriage should be reserved for those who follow the traditional definition.
