For better, for worse; for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health; till death do us part. Seven years ago I made these promises to one person, Kevin, and the years have been very good. Except for his inability to load the dishwasher correctly and my failure to comprehend the comedic genius of the Three Stooges, we have proved to be a good match. Since that day seven years ago, our public vows have included two other people, Henry and Charlie. For all three of these relationships we have stood before a congregation of Unitarian Universalists, in one wedding and two naming ceremonies, wherein we vowed to give our hearts to these people, defining and shaping our family of choice. For Kevin and I, the Unitarian Universalist faith has been a sustaining force during hard times, has provided joyful fellowship during celebrations, and is a safe place for us to explore the values in our lives that shape our marriage, our parenthood, and the way we are in community with others. I cannot speak seriously enough about how much I believe in the healing power of our faith to save lives, transform lives, and strengthen lives. Sometimes, like now, it is through social justice, but at the heart of the matter, love is always the reason. The subject of marriage has been taking some very hard hits lately and each time I read something or hear something on the news that makes my heart break for the people involved, I feel gratitude and abundant joy in my heart to be part of such a loving and growing faith such as ours. Our work toward defeating this most recent piece of bad news, the so-called marriage amendment, is one more testament to how this faith stands on the side of love.
Within our faith community, families of all stripes are respected, from a family of one to blended families involving many layers of biological and non-biological members. We also recognize that many couples never get married, some because they cannot, and some because they so choose. As for oppression of women within our faith, we would not counsel anyone being abused to stay because God ordained the marriage. Also, divorced people are loved and welcomed without stigma from our faith. One of the reasons I love being a UU minister is because of our ceremonies that welcome everyone. We mark everything from the smudging of a new house to baby dedications, from celebrations of life to healing divorce rituals. Love makes a family. I am proud of the banner at this church that says “Civil Marriage is a Civil Right.” I am grateful to our clergy and lay people who have understood for years that homosexuality is about love and emotions, not sex. As a religious leader I am called to seek the just, loving, righteous path of our human condition. When it comes to marriage in this country today--the ceremonies, the legalities, and the people involved, it is important to continually stand on the side of love as we think about the different families being formed as the definition of marriage changes.
Why do we bother to get married today, in the United States, in 2006? The first and best answer, before we delve any deeper, is that we marry because we love. Lao Tzu writes that, "To love someone deeply gives you strength. Being loved by someone gives you courage." I think that courage is what moves our very souls, and it takes courage to enter a relationship in which you will share your life with another person, through good times and bad. What difference does it make which gender or orientation a person is? You will still have the joy, or the sorrow, of in-laws, and you will still have shared memories of great times together. A marriage is a marriage, regardless of there being a ceremony or a valid marriage license.
When I lived in Maine I was licensed to perform weddings and legally sign the wedding license, so I helped about two dozen couples get married. When I moved to Virginia I found out, first of all, that I would not be allowed to sign marriage licenses until my ordination, and I found out about HB 751, written by Bob Marshall. Then-Governor Mark Warner would not sign it, but it passed without his approval. “A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.”
This bill is nothing short of mean-spirited and ensures that the government of Virginia is going to fight against homosexuals with every strategy possible. I feel angry and disgusted. I also have some questions about my place in a society where a spiritual matter such as marriage is so regulated by the state. Now this new movement to amend the constitution is even worse.
Why should I get to enjoy legal rights and privileges, tax cuts, and automatic governmental perks just because I happen to be heterosexual? I have chosen to not perform marriages for anyone until they are legal for everyone, and I never thought that I would feel that way. When I first told Kevin that I felt we were participating in a practice that oppresses people—being legally married in Virginia—it felt scary to me. My marriage to Kevin has always been a spiritual one, wherein the church ceremony is more important to me than the rights granted to us. It doesn’t feel oppressive, yet many couples do not share the same rights as we were awarded. This is a big conflict for me. I am not ready to get a divorce to prove my point, but I am ready to stand up. I love to be the minister at weddings because I love my husband and remembering our own wedding. I also appreciate that with no book of common prayer, we UU clergy enable couples to truly personalize their ceremonies. As I get more active in the Commonwealth Coalition the picture changes for me significantly about the part I am willing to play in signing that license that denies freedom to so many.
What would happen if we only had religious weddings and the state had nothing to do with our love lives? Gay men and lesbians have been creating these religious marriages for years, when the government will not grant permission. The subject of gay marriage is everywhere but it is not always clear why and how heterosexual allies and families are actually affected, besides feeling deep sorrow and empathy for the gays and lesbians in our lives who just want to have their love relationships sanctioned like those of their straight friends’ and families.’ The issues are complex, but it is time to learn at least part of the argument.
The ethics professor at Bangor Theological Seminary, Marvin Ellison, wrote a book called Same-Sex Marriage? that has also been advertised in the UU World. Marvin is a gay man, an ordained Presbyterian minister, and a Christian ethicist. Being an ethicist, he dialogues with theologians and legal scholars to put the subject of marriage and specifically gay marriage under a lens tinted toward justice and spirituality. He says that marriage is controversial for 4 reasons. -most revered and conflicted of cultural institutions -requires talking about sex -the institution is about the regulation of sex -it has fostered gender and sexual oppression
By supposedly rewarding marital relations where children are concerned, the system has often collapsed in on itself. Single parents are stigmatized for having sex and children without benefit of marriage, but so are some married folks who are working poor. It is a culturally confusing institution. I know of too many families whose parents are working poor, where they are actually penalized for being married. Their income is just above poverty level, so that no state assisted health care is offered, but they can not afford to purchase it either. If they had not gotten a marriage license signed, the single mother then could have health insurance at least for herself and her children. Stigmatized, yes, but at least they would have coverage. Because the couple wanted to participate in the culturally normative institution of marriage, they face the daily fear of a health care crisis.
Also, because marriage is the cultural normative, single people are stigmatized socially and institutionally. As Dr. Ellison wrote, marriage is a difficult subject because it implies sexual activity. People who are single are stigmatized in this system. They are considered higher risks for mortgages, car insurance, and other privileges married people enjoy. Not to mention that too often it is assumed that they are just waiting for that right person to come along, when maybe they are content being single. It reminds me of a professor I had who continually explained that he and his wife chose not to have children, calling themselves child-free rather than childless. Perhaps a single person whose sexuality is not being regulated is just too much for some people to take. For the single person who chooses to be so, perhaps one more offer of a blind date is too much. Marriage as the normative way to live stigmatizes many people.
On his fourth subject, of oppression, domestic violence is a key factor in looking at the institution of marriage, and at this proposed amendment. Marriage is no guarantee of security--emotionally, financially, or socially. In some cases, marriage is not secure at all. From FBI reports we know that there are 4 million reported cases of domestic violence against women every year. 20%, or 800,000 are assaults in the home. These are the cases that are reported, and only 10% of battering incidents get reported. These figures do not speak of the fairy tale romances or fantasy weddings that began these marriages, but they serve as terrible reminders that women, and some men, are risking more than their happiness when they choose a mate. We need only to watch one news show or read one newspaper to hear about a husband who would rather murder his wife than divorce her. And yet we continue to tie the knot. Here is one piece I learned about domestic violence and of this terrible amendment. When somebody is being abused by a family member one of the ways they can seek safety is through a protective order issued by a judge, which can remove a dangerous family member from the home. If this marriage amendment were to pass, it would likely increase the instances of domestic abuse because of its restrictions on who is defined as a family member, thus resulting in the courts issuing fewer protective orders. If this amendment passes, unmarried heterosexual partners will not be considered family, so a woman being beaten by her boyfriend may not seek a protective order against him. This is already happening in Ohio, where a similar amendment passed, and it can happen here. This amendment is not just about gay marriage. It is about loss of freedom for everyone who does not fit the mold of one man married to one woman. Domestic violence does happen within all communities, to all genders, within legal marriages and other arrangements, and it is very hard to help a neighbor even when we detect trouble. Many people within our faith community do not fit the mold of husband and wife, and we all deserve protection if necessary. A loving faith community is a safe place to heal and to reflect when a life situation becomes dangerous and unhealthy, but our constitution should afford safety.
Because homosexuality is still seen by many as non-normal behavior, adversaries of same sex marriage, and of GLBT folks in general, tend to focus on the sexual part of homosexuality, not looking at the universal characteristics of love and emotion. Bill Maher was credited with saying, “Every marriage is a same sex marriage because you have the same sex with the same person for the rest of your life.” As long as state and federal laws determine which unions are legal, it will always be a tension between church and state. Right wing Christians and lawmakers do not want marriage to include couples of the same gender, and they will provide biblical reasons, legal reasons, and scare tactics to prove that the very institution of marriage itself could be changed if this happens. Once again, as a religious liberal, conservatives who use biblical prooftexting for enacting legal rights anger me. Where is the separation of church and state? Here’s another take on the bible from Linda Lavner; she says, "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."
So what if marriage changes? I will still love Kevin, many other people I know will still love their spouses, AND my GLBT friends will finally have their relationships be recognized by their government who gladly accepts their taxes, their adherence to law, and even their military service, as long as they don’t tell who they love.
Proponents of de-centralizing civil marriages and having marriage be a matter between the couple and their faith traditions makes more sense to me. I want to marry people by the power vested in me by our UUA more than I want to have power vested in me by a government that oppresses and ignores GLBT folks. On a personal level, I still want to be legally married. I still want to remember my church wedding fondly--I just want for everyone to have the same opportunities. Marvin Ellison’s book spelled out for me very clearly that until everyone has the same rights and privileges, the American institution of legal marriage is unjust, and I believe it is the duty of people of faith to fight injustice. As Unitarian Universalists we are called to stand on the side of love, and the Commonwealth Coalition calls us to do it through justice.
Women’s rights were fought in the church long before the state, so were Prohibition and its repeal, and black civil rights 40 years ago. I am proud to be a UU and I believe that we can change the laws, and popular opinion, because communities of faith have always been where change starts. Marvin Ellison’s book asks, of changing marriage to include the GLBT community, “If all this were the case, would marriage still be recognizable as marriage?” I say yes, because people would still love their spouses and would still have to deal with each other’s idiosyncrasies. Kevin probably has a much better chance of learning to load the dishwasher than I do of appreciating the Three Stooges. No law will change that. Homer wrote in the Odyssey, 11 centuries ago, "There is nothing nobler or more admirable than when two people who see eye to eye keep house, confounding their enemies and delighting their friends."
When a couple is in love, often they want to have their friends and family witness to the rite of passage that joins their lives together. Within our faith this is considered a wedding, and the union is considered a marriage, whatever the state says. This very simple truth is why Unitarian Universalism can transform, heal, and yes, save lives. The definition of marriage has been changed within our ranks for some time, and this is true for many liberal Christian communities as well. Amending our constitution will not change the way people love each other—it will only lessen the freedom of all Virginians.
Theodore parker wrote of justice: “Look at the facts of the world. You see a continual and progressive triumph of the right. I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice. Things refuse to be mismanaged long.”
Have we answered any questions today? Hopefully. Have we started to think about the cultural institution of marriage any differently? Let us keep the conversation going. Weddings will happen, whatever they are called, and the legal names will be a battlefield for some time to come. While the war rages on, and some of us may be in the trenches, let us not forget that love is the heart of the matter.
Unitarian Universalism provides a sanctuary for the freedom to love whom we choose, freedom to ceremonialize that love, and a faith community that will help support the relationship. In our lives, in our worship, and at the polls, may we continue to stand on the side of love. Amen and blessed be.