DEAR MISS MANNERS: Last year, my ex-husband was waiting in line at a supermarket checkout when someone cut in front of him. Words were exchanged and this led to one punch being thrown. The punch put my ex on the floor with massive head injuries, from which he died the next day. All over a place in line at the supermarket!

My son's anger at the loss of his father was subdued somewhat when he saw the store's security tape and it showed his dad had said the first impolite words. Still, two lives are lost, one to death and one behind bars charged with involuntary manslaughter. At least part of his sentence is anger management classes. Maybe we all need to look inward for anger management in today's world and practice more etiquette toward each other.

GENTLE READER: Indeed. When people dismiss etiquette as trivial, they forget how easily feelings over minor offenses turn lethal. Miss Manners offers her sympathy that your family had to learn this so tragically.

Such fights, if not deaths, happen with enough frequency -- not only to etiquette vigilantes such as your ex-husband, but on the part of street thugs who are quick to feel that they have been shown disrespect -- as to suggest that rudeness has become dangerous. This should give pause to those who believe that rudeness is best cured by punitive rudeness, when that only escalates the antagonism.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A friend recently invited me to a non-hosted dinner at one of our city's finest restaurants in honor of her birthday. I had to work that evening, and so declined her invitation gracefully (I hope), with a promise of taking her to lunch at a more, shall we say, proletarian eating establishment.

However, she knows my work schedule is somewhat flexible, and seems hurt that I haven't made arrangements to be there.

The truth is, an evening at that restaurant would simply cost far too much without me making a spectacle of myself by ordering a starter salad and glass of water (tap), and saying, "No, really, I'm not that hungry." Most of us in our group of friends are on limited budgets, and I know others who genuinely like this person and are attending somewhat grudgingly.

Is there any way to politely inform her that we would enjoy celebrating her birthday in a manner that doesn't require a month's grocery budget?

GENTLE READER: You did, and she didn't take it well. Miss Manners finds it a bit of a stretch for a non-host to be offended when a non-guest declines a non-invitation. Besides, you were gracious enough to indicate an interest in celebrating her birthday another way. We can only hope that your friend will mature enough to figure out the problem before next year.

:

For decades now, Miss Manners has been telling people to stop putting such a ridiculous emphasis on gender in connection with forming wedding parties.

A bride reared by a single mother will typically bypass her and subpoena some gentleman who never had any jurisdiction over her that he could surrender, for the sole reason that she feels she must have a male "give her away." A bridegroom will often be told to produce a certain number of gentlemen as groomsmen, whether or not this corresponds to the number of his real friends, to match the number of bridesmaids.

For goodness sake, Miss Manners has always protested, you're supposed to be gathering people who are important to you, not casting roles in a play.

If the father or stepfather traditionally gives away the bride, it was because traditionally she had been under his protection; widows were expected to perform that ceremony for their daughters. (Never mind that the entire gesture is something of an anachronism now. Miss Manners only objects when the symbolism is creepy, as when a bride has her son give her away, thus symbolically surrendering his claim on her.)

If brides are traditionally attended by bridesmaids and bridegrooms by groomsmen, it is because it used to be assumed that friendships only existed within the same genders -- any mixing of the two being considered too exciting for simple friendship.

The point was always the relationship, not the gender.

But things have changed. Childbirth deaths, which had left more single fathers than mothers, declined, while divorce and births outside of marriage, which leave more single mothers than fathers, soared. The disappearance of chaperonage and parietal rules demonstrated that the young were not as indiscriminately stimulated as had been assumed, and that real friendships (as opposed to the courtship kiss-of-death known as "Let's just be friends") are indeed possible.

Yet even those who now recognize this in making up their wedding parties do so self-consciously, as if they were violating the rules. Miss Manners has been bombarded with silly etiquette questions: What should a gentleman who attended the bride as her friend, or the lady who attended the bridegroom as his friend, be called? How should they dress?

Oh, stop it, is her reply. Having recognized that gender is not the deciding factor, why would anyone then imagine that these people needed to cross-dress or assume laughably inaccurate nomenclature?

Miss Manners admits that at the time she began carrying on like this, it did not occur to her to apply it to the bridal couple themselves.

But it fits. If there are ceremonies featuring two brides or two bridegrooms, they should not be play-acting to appear to be one of each. Their parents and friends should take whatever supportive positions their ties dictate, without aping divisions based on her-side/his-side.

As for financial support -- and Miss Manners knows that is always prominent in bridal minds -- that should always be privately set by the willingness and ability of those concerned to pay. The notion that a bride's family owes her the wedding of her dreams, or that a bridegroom's family may be assessed by those dictating the expenses, is outrageous enough without doing this by assigning a gender division where there is none.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What do you do when you have been having a perfectly respectable conversation about airport security with your seatmate during a flight, but he begins to volunteer information about the way he was abused as a child out of the blue? How can one express sympathy without seeming to wish to hear more? I felt very uncomfortable listening to these confidences from a complete stranger.

GENTLE READER: Then reply, "I'm very sorry to hear that. But to get back to what you were saying, don't you think there is any way they can speed things up without compromising security?"

You will note that this is minimal sympathy, second only perhaps to "You're kidding! But is that drinks cart ever going to get to us?" Perhaps you will accuse Miss Manners of callousness.

However, if people are going to make small talk of their most personal confessions, they should expect to have these treated as small talk. Any serious show of sympathy would be acceptance of the serious job of confessor and consoler.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I'm sure you are aware of how many young African-American teens greet each other with a certain racial slur. I am an African-American man whose two fine sons tell me this is OK because they are both of the same race.

I say it is offensive no matter what. When anyone uses this term in my home, they must leave. I will personally escort them out and take them back home if I need to.

This is fine for my son's friends, but recently I had a friend from work come over for dinner and use this term to greet my sons. I calmly told him that was not allowed and he would have to leave. He did, and we haven't spoken since.

Did I do the right thing? My wife is so embarrassed and said I shouldn't have said anything. My sons say I did the right thing, and are happy that I treated my friend the same way I have treated their friends. Was I rude? What should I have done?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is with you in considering this slur unacceptable no matter who says it. She is with you in refusing to tolerate its being used in your house. She is with you in your policy of treating your sons' guests and your guests alike.

But she will not accompany you as you approach your door with guests in tow.

Ejecting a guest from your house is the severest permissible punishment you can inflict. As you discovered, it entirely severs the relationship. Your sons may be able to patch up their friendships using the child's privilege of blaming parents, but any cordiality you had with your children's friends is also broken.

Had any of these people meant to be insulting, such action would have been justified and the break-ups welcomed.

But, even in criminal court, motivation is taken into consideration in rendering judgment. As your sons have explained, the word is not uncommonly used by those of the same race, sometimes with the explanation that this takes the sting out of it.

Now, wait. Miss Manners has already said that she agrees that it is nevertheless unacceptable and that you shouldn't have to put up with it in your house. But it would have been sufficient for you to say, "We don't use that word in this house." If a guest then argued, or failed to apologize, that would be the time to expel him.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have never been able to find any information on renewing the wedding vowels.

I am not referring to a 40th or 50th reunion. I just went to a bridal shower and a white-gown affair for a couple married two years ago in a courthouse. I can understand wanting to re-do it in a church, but a bridal shower? Another gift for the wedding and a money-dance at the reception? RSVPs were mailed to the already-a-bride.

Am I old fashioned, or is Miss Manners gasping also? What are the etiquette rules?

GENTLE READER: Forgive Miss Manners for skewering you with a simple typographical error, but "wedding vowels" is right. Ooo! and Aaaa! is what your friends had in mind: sounds they wished you to make in admiration of them and to inspire them to make when they receive your successive presents.

You should have declined the invitations. However, it may help you to know that presents are not traditionally considered obligatory for a second wedding -- even, perhaps especially, if the second wedding is a repeat of the first.

: