Ministers Coverage in the Media and in Written Comments
“Dearly Beloved”
A Sermon by the Reverend David Boyer
November 2, 2003
First Parish in Lexington, MA
Tom Rosiello, a friend and ministerial colleague, related a wonderful story
to me. Tom and his partner, Malcolm, have been friends for years with
a concert pianist who is now in his 90's. Uncle T, as he is known, grew
upon a time when it was so unacceptable to be gay that he could not safely
go out to dinner with a date. Uncle T, like so many others, lived a closeted
life.
Uncle T now lives with Tom and Malcolm in their large home in Worcester, and
while he is still healthy enough to enjoy many aspects of life, he has days
where he is a bit confused. One day this summer he retrieved the mail,
and in it there was a copy of Newsweek magazine. The cover
story was about gay marriage; it was the issue for which half the covers were
printed with a photo of two women, and the other half with two men. The
copy that they received pictured two men.
Uncle T walked back into the house with this magazine in his hand, looking
puzzled. “Is this real?” he asked Tom and Malcolm. “Yes,” they
said. And Uncle T seemed stumped. He sat down and looked
at the cover the magazine for a long moment and then asked, “Well is it, you
know, a regular magazine?” (Not a small gay publication.) “Yes
it is,” they said. Uncle T looked at the cover, and looked at them, in
amazement. “I can't believe it,” he said.
“I can't believe it.”
This is the reaction many people are having these days to the changes in attitudes
about same-sex relationships. More and more Americans support equal rights
and benefits for gays and lesbians. More and more prime time television
shows feature gay characters, or gay participants in reality programming, like
the “Amazing Race” or “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”
More and more municipalities and corporations are making provisions for equal
benefits for same-sex couples. And it looks like more and more states
will create some kind of mechanism for gay marriage. In recent weeks,
national attention has focused here in Massachusetts, where the state's Supreme
Judicial Court will rule on a suit which could empower the state to give marriage
licenses to same-sex couples.
There has been a great deal of speculation as to what may come of this but
it's looking likely that the court ruling could significantly change Massachusetts
law. It may be along the lines of Vermont's civil union option or even
something like Ontario, Canada's decision to give marriage licenses to couples
regardless of their gender.
These changes have come rather quickly for many of us. Even Uncle T can
hardly believe it. Even a few years ago, it was considered bold for Unitarian
Universalist clergy to perform services of Holy Union. People attending,
who were often witnessing such a ceremony for the first time, felt nervous
and more than a little excited at the novelty of hearing vows spoken between
two men or two women. The Holy Union services I conducted in the early 90's
were often for couples who worked and lived great distances from my church
but came to it for fear that they might lose their jobs if their local communities
became aware of their actions.
But just two months ago, two former parishioners of mine, Michelle Blair and
Karen Ahlers, were pictured on the front page of USA Today for their
union ceremony. Even though they were denied a marriage license, Karen
and Michelle consider themselves newlyweds. “Why are we letting them define
for us what married is?" Karen asked, “Why would we let other people define
for us what our relationship is?"
These sorts of questions are really at the heart of the debate on civil marriage
in our state today. Why do some feel the need to deny others what they
themselves consider their inalienable rights?
The Culture Has Changed
Many of us were recently dismayed with a rather intolerant and inaccurate letter
printed in the Lexington Minuteman recently objecting to gay marriage
by vilifying gay parents. What I found remarkable was not that someone would
write such a letter, but the immediate response by others in our community
including numerous clergy in town. I am not sure we would have seen such
a response even a few years back. There has been a sea change in attitude in
our society in a very short time. As the Times reporter Elizabeth
Bumiller put it, “The cultural change has been swift, radical and seemingly
irreversible.”
Nevertheless, the case is far from closed. In fact in that same article,
Bumiller cites polls showing a noticeable reversal in American attitudes, not
about questions of benefits or civil protections, but about using the word “marriage.” “I've
been writing for a long time about how tolerant Americans are, and
how the culture has changed,” said Alan Wolfe, a Boston College professor of
political science, “yet gay marriage is the line.” Polls show that Americans
consider marriage to be a religious institution intended
explicitly for a man and a woman. Ask Americans about civil unions for
same-sex partners, and more and more will say “it's about time.” But
call it marriage, and some of those same people balk. We heard this echoed
in the testimony of Catholic Bishop O'Reilly who made headlines saying that
he and
other church leaders from Massachusetts would support extending some benefits
to same-sex couples -- though they are strongly opposed to gay marriage.
And while the Bishop's statements caused me an Uncle T moment; “I can't believe
it,” it is clear that the line has been drawn at marriage. Or
as one wag put it, according to Bishop O'Reilly a successful marriage isn't
finding the right person, it's being the right person. But whatever is
decided by our courts in the next while, the stakes are quite high.
Three years ago the Vermont legislature passed a law that permitted couples
to apply for a license of civil union that, when signed by a minister, or justice
of the peace, would, in essence, treat the parties as spouses under the law. Even
a cursory reading of this legislation reveals how many practical concerns are
addressed in the designation of “spouse.” It involves not only medical
treatment, but also survival benefits in social security and pensions, the
ability to inherit real estate free from taxes, bereavement leave, even the
right to oversee burial or funeral arrangements. As one commentator put it, “The
practical dimension is that there are gay couples in our midst and it's a matter
of fairness that they have the opportunities to care for those they love.”
A couple should not need other people's approval to fall in love. While
there are plenty of heterosexual couples who perhaps shouldn't have gotten
married, the government, or someone else's religion, does not interfere in
their choices. At least not today. We know there was a time
when both government and religion supported bans on interracial marriage. In
fact, the last of these laws was only repealed in 1967.
A lot of the current conversation about gay marriage is reminiscent of the
civil rights struggles of the sixties. There was a famous quote at the
time that I loosely paraphrase: “You know, black people don't need you to like
them, they need you to stop trying to keep them from voting or from sitting
in buses and lunch counters. They don't need your approval. They
need you to stop telling them what their choices are.”
It's a Moral Issue
What are the arguments that have been put forward in opposition to giving gays
and lesbians the choice of marriage? Let me outline a few:
One position expressed in the local newspapers recently is that the legislators
must act to prevent same gender couples from marrying because “it is a moral
issue.” Such an argument begs the question of the role of both government
and the discipline of ethics in America today. The phrase, “you cannot
legislate
morality,” comes to mind. Of course we all know this
has not prevented governments throughout human history from trying
to do just that. However, in our modern society even laws that
are essentially moral in nature, such as age of consent and drug
laws, are never reasoned purely on moral arguments. Instead
they are enacted with the express purpose of avoiding the damage
or abuse to individuals that might otherwise result. It is
clearly difficult for some to realize that the state might be ahead
of them in issues that they feel strong religious sentiments about. But
that doesn't encumber our lawmakers to accommodate them. This
may be a moral issue but it's one of fairness and an equitable
society.
Prohibitive laws remove the element of moral choice from the individual and
replace it only with coercion. One late night commentator observed, “It
must be that we are all going to be required to have gay marriages, otherwise
why would anyone care?'
Public Harm and God
This brings me to the argument that allowing same gender marriage would cause
harm to the whole community. Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values
Coalition put it like this; “Any attempt
to elevate same-sex marriages to that same plane will have grave consequences
for our nation.” Put forward in purely secular terms this is a
very weak argument because marriage is a private choice between two individuals. When
I think of the married couples in my immediate neighborhood, it's clear that
the choices that they made in a mate have no bearing on the success of my marriage. But
this ‘public harm' argument has to have theological undertones to be at all
convincing. The inference is that if God forbids something and the people
of a community allow others to do that which is forbidden, the entire community
will be punished. This is what the Puritans who began this church believed
and one of the reasons they initially forbade Baptists, Roman Catholics, and
even Universalists from worshipping or building churches in Lexington.
Of course, we know now that times have changed. The minister of this
church is no longer the arbiter of morality and behavior in the town. That
minority opinions and behaviors exist in our society was long ago decided not to
be a community affront to God. Not only that, but such acceptance of
diversity was woven into the origins of our nation's Constitution and Bill
of Rights. No one can force their religious views on another even
if those views are firmly believed; not in America!
It's a perennial problem that some of those who relish their own freedom to
worship and celebrate religion in the way they most see fit, forget that they
are not free to impose their beliefs on others. Nor do they have the
right to expect their lawmakers to act as their proxies. When the Vatican
decided to wade into our nation's discourse, calling it the “duty” of all Christian
lawmakers to oppose gay marriage,” they not only showed their lack of understanding
of American separation of church and state but they also assaulted the sense
of fairness and equal treatment under the law that we hold dear as a nation
under secular law.
We need to remember that a while many marriages are performed in churches,
the legal right to marry is the sole preserve of our civil authorities. A change
in civil marriage rights will not change or encumber any religious practice
or rite. All churches and ministers will remain free to decline ceremonies
as they do now. No one is being asked to change their religion. What
is being asked is that some in our society be given the same rights and privileges
as the majority.
Emotional Discomfort
When I think about this issue, I sometimes wonder if the objections are not
so much about rational discourse as about feelings. “It just doesn't
seem right. It's not natural.” “It's not the dream I always had
for my son/daughter/grandchild.” “I grew up with romantic images of the
perfect wedding and the perfect family, and now those dreams are shattered. How
will I explain this to my friends? They think homosexuality is wrong.”
This is the level at which I believe many of the objections are rooted. Most
of us did not grow up in the comfortable presence of same-sex couples, but
we did grow up on social and media-transmitted images of weddings and babies
and nuclear families. We grew up in churches that, shamefully, preached
against homosexuality. We internalized a standard that nobody imagined
would be challenged the way it is now. “I can't believe it,” says Uncle
T as he stares at Newsweek magazine. “Is this a regular magazine?”
What is being asked now is that these sentiments and feelings not obstruct
the civil rights of those who have been traditionally excluded from the right
to marry because of their gender is the same as the person they love. Allowing
same-sex marriages doesn't do one bit of harm to anyone, while
disallowing them does harm the people who wish to enter into those marriages. It
hurts them economically and socially. There are 1400 rights and privileges
that go with legal marriage, which most of us take for granted. And that's
all in addition to the stigma of being in a same-sex relationship in the first
place, a prejudice that is shrinking but not yet gone.
To allow these marriages, is simply to allow all adults to fully enter into
the long-term relationship of their choice. No one is asking anyone else
to change their religion but to allow others the same rights and benefits that
they themselves expect.
There is an interesting twist to this now broad public discussion. The
province of Ontario legalized gay marriage a few months ago, and officials
have noticed that so far, far fewer gay couples have come to apply for licenses
than expected. A sizeable number of couples, so far, are not opting to
exercise their right to marry. This story led to an amusing conversation among
a group of my colleagues other day. One of our gay ministers said he
was a little nervous about whether he was really ready for the inevitable questions
should the marriage law become a reality. He said he especially dreaded
that question so often put to heterosexual couples in love: “So, when are you
two going to get
married?” The joke, which is only half a joke, is that legalizing gay marriage
will lay the ambiguities of contemporary marriage at the feet of same-sex couples
just as it confronts straight couples. Along with the 1400 rights and
privileges will also come the emotional complications of the institution of
marriage today.
I believe that the tide is turning in favor of civil marriage for all adults,
and that is a good thing. Our gay and lesbian church members, friends
and relatives should be perfectly free to marry the loved one of
their choice. If it makes you a little uncomfortable, that discomfort
and confusion is understandable, because it's such a change from how things
used to be. Even Uncle T is a bit bewildered. But remember, as
you ponder this important issue, little is being asked of you but to be welcoming
and
large-hearted, and to wish all happiness to two people in love.
Warmest congratulations, and here's to love – may it prove enduring and strong.
|
