By The Power Vested In Me, I Now Pronounce…
By Don Southworth
NWUUC
September 28, 2003
I promise to love and care for you,
Through times of joy and times of sorrow,
To rejoice when you are happy,
And grieve when you suffer,
To share your interests,
And hopes for the future,
To try to understand you,
Even when I do not agree,
To do all in my power
To help you be your true self,
The person God calls you to be,
In all this, I ask God’s help,
Now and in the days to come.
Words like these are said every day somewhere in the world. Two
people fall in love, two people decide to make a public declaration
of their love and commitment to each other, two people thumb their
noses at the long odds of staying together for a lifetime, two people
who might be named Bruce and Theresa, Don and Kathleen, Kevin and
Tat, or the two women who actually spoke these words to each other,
Beverly and Jamie. If you happen to be a man and a woman these words,
and the “I dos” and the marriage that follows them,
are embraced and celebrated by not only your friends and family
but the state as well. Once your wedding license is signed you receive
1,049 rights and benefits from the Federal Government and up to
400 rights and responsibilities from the state you live in.
If you happen to be a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, these
words are followed by just as strong a commitment, just as strong
a love, just as strong a bond as anyone’s. But instead of
being embraced by society you are scorned and discriminated against,
instead of being granted equal rights and responsibilities that
come with marriage you are told your love, your commitment doesn’t
count and you are granted nothing.
This morning we are looking at one of the most divisive, the most
controversial issues of our time – same sex marriage. Depending
on your perspective, granting the rights of marriage to homosexuals
is the most ridiculous and most repugnant act our government could
take or the fairest, the most just, the most humane action we can
take.
The Unitarian Universalist Association has been clear about its
position on same sex marriage for a long time. At the 1996 General
Assembly delegates approved a resolution that said in part, “We
urge the member congregations to proclaim the worth of marriage
between any two committed persons and to make this position known
in their home communities.” Unitarian Universalist ministers
have been officiating at same sex marriages and commitment ceremonies
for many years. This week when I was reading the Georgia State Law
on marriages and marriage licenses, I discovered that, because I
married Kevin and Tat last year, I could be guilty of marrying people
without a license which is a misdemeanor that carries with it a
fine of $500. If I am ever arrested I will be happy to pay it.
Having your minister stand up and tell you that he is in favor
of same-sex marriage and that he believes anytime two people publicly
declare their love and commitment to each other, and state their
desire to build a life together, we should celebrate and grant them
all rights of marriage, is probably not that big a surprise to you.
At least I hope it isn’t. But the current climate and conversation
about same sex marriage demands more than nice words about love
and commitment. We must engage in conversation and dialogue, not
only with each other, but with those people who will do everything
in their power to heap abuse, hatred and discrimination on same
sex couples who only want to love each other and be given equal
rights. And we must take action.
But before I tell you the action I am planning on taking and the
support I wish to have from you, let’s talk about what the
issues are when it comes to granting equal rights to couples in
same sex marriages. Andrew Sullivan, a conservative and former editor
of The New Republic writes in his book Sane Sex Marriage: Pro
and Con, “The issue of same sex marriage is a civil rights
matter and a religious matter.” And so it is. Any debate or
discussion about same sex marriage, in fact marriage at all, must
be broken into two parts, the religious and the civil.
The institution of marriage has a long and sometimes, disgraceful
history. In ancient times there was little religious meaning to
marriage at all. Marriages, most of which were arranged, were all
about property and inheritance and little about romance, love or
commitment. Of course, women were considered men’s property
back in those days.
John Boswell writes, in his ground breaking book Same Sex Unions
In Premodern Europe, “Nothing in the ancient world quite
corresponds to the idea of a permanent, exclusive union of social
equals, freely chosen by them to fulfill both their emotional needs
and imposing equal obligations of fidelity on both parties.”
When people bring the Bible into the debate about why homosexuality
is a sin and marriage is only between a man and a woman, it is wise
to ask what part of the Bible’s sexual mores they believe
in. Do they take their teachings from the part in Leviticus that
reads “A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination
and should be executed.” Or do they take their teachings from
the part in Leviticus that says if a bride is found not to be a
virgin she should be executed on the spot, or a couple that has
sexual intercourse during a women’s period should also be
executed. Do they believe in polygamy, concubines or forcing childless
widows to have sex with their dead husband’s brothers in order
to ensure the dead man has a male heir? People far better versed
in Biblical scripture than I am can debate point by point stories
and lessons from the Bible and how they are irrelevant to the same
sex marriage debate. Suffice to say that the Bible is confusing
at best when it comes to translating how sexuality and marriage
should be done today. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and
that’s good enough for me.
Another popular argument I hear from people about why same sex
marriage should be outlawed is because it will harm the institution
of marriage. I have heard this argument not only from religious
conservatives but also from people in Unitarian Universalist congregations.
The argument has been articulated by everyone from William Bennett
to Ann Landers. Bennett argues that same sex marriage will lead
to the acceptance of polygamy. Landers, who supported equal rights
for same sex couples wrote “I cannot accept same sex marriage
because it flies in the face of cultural and traditional family
life as we have known it for centuries.” A recent editorial
in the AJC written by Jonah Goldberg, suggested that because many
gay men do not wish to practice monogamy same sex marriage should
not be legalized. (Of course many heterosexuals do not practice
monogamy either but they still have the right to marry.)
E J Graf, author of What Is Marriage For? claims concerns
about changing marriage rules have been standard throughout history.
“Polygamy, bestiality, incest. All through history, any change
in the marriage rules – changing the divorce laws, allowing
married woman to own property separate from their husband, contraception,
inter-racial marriage – has brought out the same apocalyptic
cries: “God will punish you and your children and civilization
will collapse.” Of course it hasn’t happened yet.
The institution of marriage is not going to be harmed if we let
more people into it, people who are as loving and as committed as
anyone else. It could be argued that same sex marriage might even
help the institution. We heterosexuals have not been doing too great
a job. Last year in Cobb County, for example, a county that has
more church-going, supposedly righteous people than any county I
have ever lived in, 4,306 marriage licenses were issued and 3,392
divorces were granted. The gays and lesbians I know can do at least
as well as that.
The best rebuttal to the “same sex marriages will ruin the
institution of marriage” argument, an argument that is usually
couched in religious terms, was written in an August Los Angeles
Times editorial in response to the Episcopal church making Gene
Robinson its first gay bishop: “The actions taken by the New
Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront to Christians everywhere.
I am just thankful that the church’s founder, Henry VIII,
and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, his wife Anne Boleyn, his wife
Jane Seymour, his wife Anne of Cleves, his wife Katherine Howard,
and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through
this assault on our traditional Christian marriage.”
People’s religious reasons to be for or against same-sex
marriage are hard to sway. As deeply as I believe that the God of
love I acknowledge welcomes all people – homo and hetero sexual
- who wish to enter into a lifelong covenant to love, support and
take care of each other, someone else will be just as convinced
that their God will not. But the religious benefits and blessings
of marriage are not that big a problem – there are many congregations
and synagogues today that will provide a religious blessing to a
same sex couple who wishes to be married; no the biggest problem,
the greatest discrimination, comes from the government.
Included in the 1400 or so benefits a same sex couple are denied
when they make a life commitment to each other are joint property
ownership, tax breaks, legal decisions in end of life health care,
shared medical benefits and insurance, the ability to take a leave
of absence when a loved one is ill, social security benefits, the
list goes on and on. Some of the most heartbreaking stories of injustice
come from same sex couples who have shared their lives together,
yet are not seen as partners in the eyes of the law.
Peggy Neff’s partner of 18 years, Sheila Hein, was killed
when a plane crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. When she
petitioned the state of Virginia for support she received a letter
that said, “Please accept our condolences on the loss of your
friend. We regret to inform you that you are not eligible to file
a claim under Virginia Victims of Crime Act.” New York Governor
George Pataki did what the Governor of Virginia could have and should
have done – he signed an executive order granting gay survivors
of 9/11 equal benefits.
Bill and Robert considered themselves soulmates who were together
for 20 years. When Bill was admitted to a Maryland hospital, Robert
was not allowed to see him or make health care decisions for him,
even though he was the legal agent, because he was not considered
family. Bill died without Robert even getting the chance to say
goodbye.
Jim and Martin live in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and have been together
for more than 50 years. Martin, when interviewed about their relationship,
softly said, “I can’t have Jimmy’s pension when
he dies. And if I die first he can’t have mine.”
If I had time I could share stories about gays and lesbians that
have lost custody or visitation rights to their children because
they have chosen to be in a loving, committed relationship, couples
who have not been able to take time off work to care for someone
they’ve lived with for more than 35 years, surviving partners
who have lost their homes they helped pay for and who have watched
their partner deported because families, let alone the state, would
not acknowledge their relationship or sometimes even their existence.
This is wrong. This is discrimination.
And this discrimination is being grounded in religious belief.
President Bush made it clear where he stands when he recently spoke
against same-sex marriages and asked for tolerance for gays, “We
are all sinners”, he said. Colorado congresswoman Marilyn
Musgrave said when she introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment
to prohibit gay marriages, “I am Christian and have a Christian
worldview, but I think we should be aware that all of the world’s
major religions – not just Christianity, not just Judaism
– define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”
I do not agree with President Bush’s or Congresswoman Musgrave’s
religious beliefs but that’s not the point. The point was
articulated by Dierdre Bourdet of the National Center for Lesbian
Rights, “Our government’s role is to guarantee the freedom
and equality of every citizen under the law. A church’s teachings
regarding the definition or sanctity of marriage have no place in
federal law.”
Our government is not guaranteeing the freedom and equality of
same sex couples and that is wrong.
What can we, what can I, do about it? We can go to marriageequality.org
and consider starting a chapter here at Northwest. We can write
letters to our representatives in Washington, and I have, but I
don’t expect much will happen with those letters. After all,
politicians usually care more about polls than justice. If we had
waited for politicians to legalize inter-racial marriage we would
have waited a lot longer than 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled
it legal. The first time a national poll showed a majority in favor
of inter-racial marriage was 1991.
I can support Gay rights organizations such as the Human Rights
Campaign. I can march in Gay Pride parades, I can officiate at same
sex marriage and commitment ceremonies and treat them the same as
heterosexual marriage ceremonies, and I can preach about how same
sex couples love as deeply as anyone, and take the promises and
commitments they make to their beloved as seriously as I have with
Kathleen for 18 years… and I do. But I have decided that is
not enough.
Three years ago I served our San Francisco congregation. Two of
my ministerial colleagues on the staff, David Pettee and Margot
Campbell Gross, had taken a stand against signing marriage licenses.
My friend David wrote why, “I now believe that when I sign
a marriage license, I am simply re-affirming state-sanctioned discrimination
against same-sex couples who are categorically denied the privilege
to make their unions legal.” Three years ago I did not support
such a stand because I thought it would inconvenience heterosexual
couples, because I love to officiate at weddings and feared people
would not want me to officiate at theirs if I did not sign their
marriage license. For three years I have signed wedding licenses
knowing that each time I did so I was participating in discrimination.
For three years I have fought my conscience about doing what is
right because it would be difficult, because it would be inconvenient,
because I did not want to risk the wrath of my congregation over
doing something different.
Last month I went to our Board of Trustees and the Committee on
Ministry to ask them if the covenant I have with the congregation
demands that I sign marriage licenses. The Board and the Committee
believes it is implicit in my covenant that I sign licenses, but
after listening to my concerns they have told me they would support
amending my covenant to let me perform the religious ceremony, the
religious ritual of marriage, and not perform the civil ritual of
marriage, the signing of a marriage license. I am hoping the congregation
will also support me in this decision.
This is a decision that I have agonized over, prayed over, for
some time. I love officiating at weddings. I love getting to know
couples and help them articulate their commitment and love to each
other. I have to fight back tears when I watch a couple walk down
the aisle, when they make their promises and vows to each other.
I realize that my decision will inconvenience people. Although Bill
Sinkford, the president of the UUA has also taken this stand, many
of my colleagues have not. I am not expecting them to. Some of my
gay and lesbian friends support my decision and others wish I would
not do it because they do not want heterosexual couples to be caught
in the middle of the same sex marriage debate – a debate in
which they want as many allies as possible. .
To help me make my decision I turned, as I often do, to the writings
of Martin Luther King, Jr. In his book, Stride Toward Freedom,
he details how he came to believe in and practice nonviolent civil
disobedience. In one section of the book he writes about his struggles
with his conscience about initiating the Montgomery bus boycott,
after a newspaper accused him of following the same discriminatory
economic practices of white organizations. “Something began
to say to me, he who passively accepts evil is as much involved
in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without
protesting against it is really cooperating with it. So in order
to be true to one’s conscience and true to God, a righteous
man has no alternative but to refuse to cooperate with an evil system.”
I am not a man who uses the word evil very often. But the actions
of the state in refusing to acknowledge the commitment and love
of same sex couples are evil. A system that does not allow lifelong
partners to be at their loved ones bedside when they die, a system
that deprives people of the custody of their children, ownership
of their homes and the same basic equal rights that I have as a
heterosexual is evil. I hope you agree with me or at least you support
my decision to no longer act as an agent of the state and participate
in state-sanctioned discrimination against same sex couples.
I close with the words from a recent Boston Globe editorial that
tells it like it is: “In Massachusetts, as elsewhere, the
everyday reality of same sex-families is far ahead of the law. At
Little League games, school plays and Thanksgiving dinners, gay
and lesbian couples and parents are living ordinary lives. They
have made moral, emotional and financial obligations to each other
and seek only the recognition and protections a legal marriage affords.
It is time to extend these rights and responsibilities to all Americans.”
When we do I will gladly sign marriage licenses again. May it be
so. Amen.
Back to story
|
