Ministers Coverage in the Media and in Written Comments

What is Marriage For?

Dr. Laurel Hallman
The First Unitarian Church of Dallas
March 21, 2004

PRAYER

God of many names, and mystery beyond all our naming, you are the power which draws us to one another in ways we cannot explain; you are the yearning which pulls us out of our isolation, the desire for companionship which causes us to risk all that we are for another. You are the mystery we name Love, the covenant we name Marriage.

God we are so thankful for those who have married here, among us, in our church. Men and women, men and men, and women and women. We give thanks for each promise spoken here, in the honorable tradition and covenant of Marriage, promises sanctified by the blessing of this church community. For we have been truly blessed.

And now we would pray for the courage to speak the truth of our experience of the mystery of love, the honor of commitment, and the largeness of your love among us. May we never diminish your power to unite people, knowing that your love grows in a community of loving care.

These and the prayers of our hearts, we pray now in the silence:

We pray in the names of all those, known and unknown, present and absent, remembered and forgotten. We pray in the names of all the helpers of humankind. AMEN.

SERMON:

I don't remember any moment of decision. I don't even remember any major discussion at theological school. I do remember years before, as I was going through my own divorce from my husband, when I realized that a friend of mine, a lesbian whose partner had left her for a younger woman was just as hurt, just as confused, just as broken as I was. Perhaps that was the moment I ‘got it' that we're all pretty much in the same boat—gay men, lesbians, and heterosexuals—that we want to love and be loved, we want permanence, even at the price of compromise. Perhaps that was when I realized that within all the varieties and differences in our human experience, deep within we're all very much alike.

However that sense was formed, when two women came to me in 1982, not long after I began my first ministry and asked if I would officiate at their Service of Union—being held in the University Chapel—whatever the reason, I said ‘yes.'

It was not an act of Civil Disobedience back then. I did not think it was especially brave or unusual. I probably underestimated how hard it would be for them to sustain their marriage without the support of a larger society. I didn't have a clue about telling them to look carefully at their wills, to see a lawyer about all the things heterosexual couples take for granted—their ability to own property together, to make health care decisions for each other, to be protected at time of divorce should it become necessary. I just said “yes.”

It was a lovely wedding—we called them “Services of Union” back then. The Chapel is placed in a beautiful grove of trees, and the curator of the chapel, as I remember, didn't seem to think it at all unusual when I arrived with two women for the rehearsal. Nor did their parents; nor did the guests. It was neither triumphant nor shocking. We listened hopefully to their promises and celebrated their union.

Back then, there were two reasons to call them Services of Union. One was the legal distinction between these same-sex commitment services and traditional marriages between men and women. We knew there would be no license to sign, no record of the service down at City Hall, as there would be in a heterosexual marriage. It was a simple way to make the distinction. The other was that the same-sex couples who came to me did not want to call their commitment services, marriages. They saw all around them that traditional marriages were failing—their commitment was to be something different. They didn't want to use the word marriage to represent their commitment. With the belief so often of the young that they are creating something new—better than anything known before in human history—these same-sex couples wanted to distinguish between what they were doing and the failed and flawed realities they saw in many of their heterosexual friends', even their parents' marriages.

In 1982 we were just beginning to move out of two decades of questioning every institution in our society—marriage was not the exception. The same-sex couples who came to me—as did many of the heterosexual couples in that time—many couples who came to me to be what we would now call “married” would want to have their own special imprint on their service.

I could regale you with stories of unique weddings of that time (as could just about every other UU minister I know), for example a wedding on horseback…I asked that we not be on horseback during the ceremony, but agreed that they could ride off together following my announcement that they were married. A wedding in which the couple's five year old was the witness…the bride had wanted a child and asked the groom to be the Father six years before, with the caveat that he would not expect any parental rights. He agreed and she had the baby while he was on the first portion of his trip around the world. But somewhere in Africa he decided he'd made a mistake—and came back—much to her chagrin and anger that he had reneged on his promise not to become involved. Finally (it took two or three years) she decided that she would marry him. Their daughter is starting college now and they are still married.

I could go on…. I say this only to remind you that in the early ‘80s, many people were questioning the institution of marriage, or at least its social component, so that a same-sex couple wanting a commitment ceremony was in some ways a relief. They might not call it a marriage, but in spite of all the odds, and with considerable courage, they were committing themselves to each other with promises that looked and sounded very much like wedding vows.

Which brings me to the distinction which must be made, and which is causing some confusion these days: the interests of the state in marriage and the interests of the church.

I have always found it curious that in a country which has a clear separation of church and state, I am called on to represent the state in only one way and that is to marry people. In countries where there is not such a clear separation between church and state, such as Austria where my son was married, there are two ceremonies, the one down at the courthouse and the one in the church, often on two very different dates in a clear definition of the civil event and the religious one.

I have known, for most of the 25 years I have been officiating at same-sex marriages, that they were religious commitments—not civil ones. Our denomination has created certificates of union for same-sex marriages to take the place of the traditional marriage certificate issued by the state. It is a thoughtful gesture with significance in what it doesn't represent.

Marriage is for the purposes of two individuals who wish to commit themselves to a life of companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and care—no matter what.

Marriage is for the purposes of the church, which blesses and commits itself, at least in our case, to the support of that union, reminding the couple of promises made and providing a context in which their relationship can flourish which reminds others not to intrude on that primary and sacred commitment. The church provides a setting where the values that make a marriage strong can be emphasized, and the people, so committed, can strengthen the church.

Marriage is also for the purpose of the state, in this case the State of Texas, which has interests in strong marriages because strong marriages create strong families, and strong families provide the foundation of the social order.

Marriage is for the purposes of the couple themselves, the purposes of the church in its work of creating la virtue as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would have stated—the virtues which are the glue of human interaction—and the purposes of the state, in its work to create the social structures within which we live.

Most couples, when they stand in this sanctuary to be married, are thinking first of their commitment to one another. They have gone to great lengths to make those commitments in public, before God and the assembled congregation, large or small. Until that moment, they may have said “I love you” countless times. They may have said “I will love you until the end of time” in countless ways. But until the moment that they say, “Till death do us part” before God and the assembled congregation, it is not a marriage.

And now in recent days, we have become painfully aware in new and often confused ways, that until they say “Till death do us part” after obtaining a license at the court house, it is not a marriage in the eyes of the church.

Two people may commit their lives to one another, we may bless that union with the history, tradition and authority of this church, but these are only two of the three purposes of marriage. Until the third, represented by the license granted by the state—until the third is part of this mysterious equation, it is not a marriage with all the commitment and protection that implies.

Now, two out of three is not bad. I have always thought, as a minister, that bringing a private relationship here to the church, inviting friends and family, speaking promises of faithfulness, and praying for the strength to live those promises, especially, especially in the face of the frequent hostility and even danger presented by the larger society—I have always thought that the services we have here deserve the name “marriage”. And I have called them that.

But strictly speaking—and it is time for the rest of us to own up to the truth of this reality—strictly speaking, it is not a marriage until the state recognizes it, in spite of what the couple promise, and in spite of the blessing of God and this congregation.

Some of you have spoken to me this week after the news of the arrest of two Unitarian Universalist ministers in New York, who “unlawfully married couples” at the beginning of the month. Some have spoken to me, generally concerned that by admitting I have officiated at such services for almost 25 years, I might be placing myself in legal jeopardy.

The truth is, for strange reasons of history, ministers are authorized by the state to perform weddings— BUT ONLY if we have a license granted by the state, in hand. The New York ministers signed affidavits declining it was a civil union in a definite act of civil disobedience.

If we don't have a license in Texas, at least so far, it is a non-event in the eyes of the state.

There is an ironic exception to that rule in Texas. You can be married in Texas without a license and even without a church if you fulfill the following requirements (left over from the frontier days when the clergy and magistrates were circuit riders and might not show up for a year). You can be married if: (1) you say you are married and your partner is not your parent or your child, your brother or your sister, (2) you live as if you are married, (3) you aren't married to someone else, (4) you are over 18, AND (5) you are of the opposite sex.

In Texas, reaffirmed by the Texas legislature in the late ‘80s and the land of the frontier spirit, even today, you can be married without the blessing of the church or the authority of the state if you want—unless you want to be married to a person of the same-sex. It is there the frontier spirit screeches to a resounding halt. I can hear the voice of the state saying, “No way.”

Until now I have had no worry about officiating at same-sex marriages because the state didn't care. It is as if the state is saying, “Make whatever legal arrangements you can, bless it if you can find a congregation who will and a God who is not a God of judgment. But none of that matters.” At least, not until now.

Now, following the unprecedented events in recent weeks with mayors in New York and San Francisco issuing Marriage Licenses to same-sex couple, with the Massachusetts Legislature debating the legality of same-sex marriages in these recent unprecedented events, the issue of the legality has risen to prominence. Our denominational headquarters are in the very next building to the State House in Boston and our President has hung a very large banner down the side of our building, which says, “Civil Marriage is a Civil Right.”

After these almost 25 years, it is hard for me to comprehend why the state would not have an interest in creating stable families and protection for not only the adults in the relationship, but also the children—for there are many children, both biological and adopted, in these families. It is hard for me to understand why our church, why I wouldn't want to help people make public promises of love and fidelity within our community, and then continue to work to make this church a place of mutual support and care so families can flourish. I can't understand why the promoting of the virtuous life which our country's Founding Fathers thought the church would provide—wouldn't extend to all its citizens—who also are our brothers and sisters, parents and children, our neighbors, our co-workers and the men and women who sit with us each Sunday here in the pews. After all these years, it is hard for me to understand why it looks as if it's going to get harder before it gets easier. But I think it is.

The President of our Association, Bill Sinkford, has created a “President's Freedom to Marry Fund” to support his work in this area. You can find a link on our website if you would like to donate to that fund.

In the meantime, you can say to your co-workers and friends that your church has been conducting same-sex services (and I would call them marriages) for 25 years. What a joy it has been to celebrate 10, 20, even 50 year anniversaries of these unions here at the church. It has helped us all reclaim the important purposes of marriage—to sustain love, to help forge the sometimes difficult and always deepening spiritual realities of love over a lifetime, to create safe and secure families for our children, and to care for one another as we age together. What a joy and privilege it has been. We wish the same for communities of worship across our country and for the strengthening of our country's values.

In the meantime, let us have courage to speak boldly of our experience that others might be moved to change and the world will become a better place.

AMEN.

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