Ministers Coverage in the Media and in Written Comments

Marriage for All Who Wish It

(This was also published as an op-ed piece which was published on the Editorial Page of the Nashua (New Hampshire) Telegraph on August 24, 2003).

Rev. Stephen D. Edington, Minister
Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashua, New Hampshire
August 9, 2003

Over the past 10-15 years I have officiated numerous same-sex “Services of Holy Union,” to use one of the more common terms by which they are named. One I did a couple of years ago still stands out in my memory. It was in a Unitarian Universalist Church in Massachusetts, just south of Nashua. The church was between ministers, and I was the closest available UU clergyperson.

The couple I joined was two young men. It was your standard wedding fare: The limos, the tuxes and gowns for the wedding party, the wedding-rehearsal anxiety the evening before giving way to the ceremony beautifully coming together—as they (nearly) always do. The reception was held at a large function hall in Lowell. This, too, was your basic reception: The deejay introducing the wedding party, the first dances with family members, and a blessing offered for the meal and for the couple by the minister—that would be me. I was seated at a table with some of the aunts, uncles, and cousins of one of the young men; and stayed in “minister mode” throughout the evening, i.e making pleasant conversation and answering questions about my particular religious faith that inquiring minds seemed to want to know (or maybe they were just humoring me). After being there for the appropriate length of time that ministerial etiquette calls for, I thanked those at the table for an enjoyable evening, made my farewells and offered best wishes to the couple, and drove home. The only thing I didn't do was sign a marriage license.

I drove home to my wife of 23 years and our seventeen year old son thinking about how ordinary the whole thing had been. Not ordinary for the couple joined, of course, or for their family, friends, and co-workers who were there; it was a most important day for them, to be sure. But ordinary in the sense that it was like so many of the two or three hundred other weddings I've performed, except this was a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex couple. Ironically, it was the ordinary nature of the whole event that causes it to still stand out for me. Whatever the feelings may have been about same-sex marriages among the hundred or so guests who were there, nobody was batting an eye about the fact that it was two men who had been joined rather than a man and a woman.

The other thought I had on my drive home was really a question: How on earth does the union of these two young men in any way threaten, demean, or otherwise diminish the near quarter-century heterosexual marriage my wife and I have shared? How does it threaten anyone's heterosexual marriage for that matter? Unless and until the opponents of the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples—even if one of them happens to be the President of the United States—can come up with a reasonable and coherent answer to that question, then, as a matter of law in a civil society, they have no case.

Few would argue that the institution of marriage in our contemporary society is a deeply troubled one. Statistically speaking a couple getting married today has just a slightly better than 50/50 chance than their marriage will last. An increasing number of our children are being raised in single-parent homes. Millions of public and private dollars are being spent dealing with the tragic reality and after-effects of spousal abuse. And it's gay and lesbian couples who want to get married who are threatening the institution of marriage? How ludicrous! The irony here is that the same-sex couples who want to be legally married are coming from the more traditional, family-values if you will, segment of the gay and lesbian population. With all of its uncertainties and pitfalls, they are still desirous of taking on the risks of marriage in order to gain its rewards and benefits. For this they should be commended rather than rebuked.

Another argument against gay marriage is that it separates the institution of marriage from the purpose of bearing and raising children. At one time, when the primary function of marriage was the propagation of the human species and the socialization of the young, this argument may well have carried some weight. Today however, while child bearing and rearing remain a very important part of many marriages, mine and my wife's included, it is hardly the sine qua non of marriage itself. I have several long-time legally married childless couples (by choice or by circumstance) in my congregation. Would anyone care to argue that they are any “less married” than those with children? I didn't think so. At the same time—and here is yet another irony—we have same-sex couples in our congregation who, by one means or another, do have children, but who at the moment are legally prohibited from raising those children within the framework of a legal marriage. Go figure if you can.

Then there is the argument that homosexual marriage—as well as homosexual relationships in general—violates the religious principles and convictions of certain members of society. This is true. It is also true that such things as abortion, eating meat, dancing, and playing cards, to name but a few, also violate the religious principles and convictions of certain members of our society. I do not belittle any of these convictions, with respect to those who hold them, whether I happen to share them or not. The question here, however, is this: Should the religious convictions of some be given the status of legal prohibitions that are binding on society as a whole on the basis of religious precept alone ? In a society governed by a secular, civil Constitution I think not.

A sub-theme to the religion argument is that homosexuality is “unbiblical.” This was the argument frequently invoked by some Episcopalians in their debate over the election of now Bishop-elect Rev. Gene Robinson. Rev. Robinson is an openly gay man living in an openly partnered relationship. Yes, there are condemnations of homosexuality in certain passages found in both the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible. But those who invoke these passages are engaging in a practice I call “selective Biblicism.” Selective Biblicism involves the extraction, and the exaltation, of certain Bible verses that happen to support one's own predilections with little regard paid to the cultural, social, or historical context of those verses.

To those who engage in this practice I have but one question: Do you ascribe the same weight to all of the prohibitions found in the Bible as you do to those pertaining to homosexuality? If one regards the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, then I fail to see how he or she can do otherwise. To cite but one example, do you enforce the clear prohibition against women holding authority and speaking in church (I Timothy 2:11) in the same manner that you do St. Paul's apparent condemnations of homosexuality in other parts of the New Testament? Unless one is willing to uphold all of the prohibitions and condemnations found throughout the Bible, then I find the argument about the “unbiblical” nature of homosexuality to be less than convincing on the part of those making it.

I've lost track of the two young men whose Union Ceremony I was pleased to officiate two years ago. I hope they are doing well. I hope the prayers and blessings that were offered for their shared life have guided and sustained them. And should the day come when their spiritual union will also be granted the legal status that it warrants and deserves, I'd be delighted to sign their marriage license.

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100