I promised I would post this sermon on marriage equality today. Here you go!

[Pacifist Patriot]

Marriage Equality: At The Crossroads of Politics, Religion, and Our UU Principles

I realize politics is not necessarily a popular topic for the pulpit and the subject of marriage equality is seen as a highly charged political issue. However, this issue really does get to the heart of what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist. You don’t even have to read past our first three principles to see this. As Unitarian Universalists we affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person; justice, equity and compassion in human relations; and acceptance of one another.

Unfortunately, marriage equality is such a hot political issue because it is seemingly a religious one. I don’t think it would be remotely as contentious if religious organizations weren’t so committed to defeating marriage equality politically. Which is really rich when you consider the fact religious organizations have had absolutely no say over who can marry whom in our country’s entire history. Ever.

I hope you’ve noticed I am not using the term “gay marriage.” I don’t like the term because it implies there is some sort of difference between a committed lifelong romantic partnership of two people of the same gender and one between a man and a woman. This is also one of the reasons I oppose the compromise position of civil unions for homosexual couples and marriages for heterosexual couples. I’ll get to the other reasons in a minute. We’re best off starting with the basics.

What is marriage?

Marriage in the United States is and always has been a civil contract legally defined by the state. Thus all marriages are by definition a civil union. Here’s how it works.

Two people decide they want to enter into a committed partnership for the rest of their lives and allow the other party exclusivity to meet certain needs. Those needs may vary slightly for each couple, but basically when you decide to get married you’re telling the other person you will forsake all others when it comes to having particular needs met.

If the couple wants the approximately 1,400 legal rights conferred upon married couples in the U.S., with over 1,000 of these being federal benefits and 400 being state benefits, they have to apply for a marriage license. Not from their minister, priest, rabbi or imam, but from the state.

With valid marriage license in hand, the couple chooses an officiant who is authorized to solemnize marriage under their state’s statute. According to Florida statute this includes all regularly ordained ministers of the gospel or elders in communion with some church, or other ordained clergy, and all judicial officers, including retired judicial officers, clerks of the circuit courts, and notaries public. The second paragraph in the statute states, any marriage which may be had and solemnized among the people called "Quakers," or "Friends," in the manner and form used or practiced in their societies, according to their rites and ceremonies, shall be good and valid in law.

To be very clear, couples marry one another by expressing intent to be married in the presence of an individual listed above with the authority to sign the license. The officiant, whether clergy or a judge, is simply a witness acting as an agent of the state.

The signed license is returned to the state for recording and thus the marriage is recognized as legal.

To summarize in its simplest terms, a legal marriage is created when:

1. Couple decides to get married.
2. Couple obtains a marriage license from the state.
3. Couple expresses intent to be married in front of the officiant.
4. Officiant signs the marriage license.
5. License is recorded with the state.

You’ll notice I’ve not really referenced religion much at all. Clergy are authorized officiants in all fifty states, but in no states are they the only category of officiants recognized by law. Step three doesn’t sound very romantic, “couple expresses intent to be married in front of the officiant,” but that’s simply a dry way of saying “wedding ceremony.”

Unfortunately, religious organizations and the wedding industry have created an environment where the marriage license, the critical element to rendering a couple legally married, is about as overlooked as it can get. Fact remains, In the absence of a state-issued marriage license, I can no more wave a wand over a couple’s head and render them married than I could declare someone a naturalized citizen.

One of the first things I do when I meet with a couple is explain the marriage license process to them and include a brochure about it in my informational packet. My contract includes a clause reminding them if they do not present a valid license before the wedding, their ceremony will be symbolic and not result in a legal marriage. The last email I send to them a few days before the wedding is a reminder of the importance of the license and asks whom they have designated to give it to me when I arrive. Despite all of this, I have still arrived on site for a wedding to be greeted with a puzzled expression. “We need a license?” I had one bride with a blank look on her face say, “I thought you got that for us.”

Because of religious organizations and the wedding industry, too many people are under the mistaken impression the ritual drives the legality of the marriage. The ritual should be a personal expression of the couple’s regard for one another and their hopes and dreams for their shared future. It is not, in and of itself, what renders the couple married. Wedding does not equal marriage. Only the valid marriage license issued by the state does that. Consequently, I have performed wedding ceremonies for couples who want to publicly express their commitment, but not become legally married and for couples who are already legally married but want the public ritual of a wedding after the fact.

So if it’s not the ritual, but the piece of paper that confers legal rights, and churches have never had the right to determine who can and cannot obtain a license from the state, why are churches so concerned with the issue of marriage equality? Well, there are many reasons. We are seeing exploitation of people’s beliefs and values for political expediency. Churches have long vilified and demonized homosexuals so they make a rather convenient scape goat. Political strategists can capitalize on this depth of feeling. They know when they put marriage definition referendums and constitutional amendments on the ballot they will mobilize voters and get them to the polls on Election Day.

People already at the polls for one issue tend to go ahead and vote in other races they might not ordinarily bother to vote in. People who oppose marriage equality are more emotionally invested in the issue and therefore opposition turnout is higher than voters who support marriage equality. And even greater numbers of people just don’t care about it one way or the other so they stay home. Political strategists can reasonably predict how people who vote against marriage equality are likely to vote on other issues and for which political party. In other words, they know they are mobilizing a right-leaning base of voters. That’s pretty cynical, but nothing hidden about it. Political operatives have admitted to this very strategy.

I do, however, think there are religious leaders who honestly believe homosexuality is a sin and feel state recognition of same gender marriages validates a lifestyle they find offensive. They have genuine concerns society is endorsing something offensive to God and therefore there will be repercussions for us all. They conveniently ignore our country’s history and have no reservation about imposing Christian values on everyone. They truly do not grasp the violation of church and state this entails. Or don’t care as long as the violation is in their favor.

There are individuals, both clergy and laity, who fear marriage equality will force their religious professionals to officiate, sanction and bless same gender marriages. This anxiety is unreasonable, but I give credit to the state of New York for recognizing the importance of perception and adapting the language of their statute to address this concern.

It’s unreasonable, because although Jews can obtain marriage licenses, have you ever heard of a Baptist minister being forced to perform a Jewish marriage ceremony in his church? Have you ever heard of a Catholic priest being forced to perform a religious marriage ceremony for a couple who have been divorced? Again, the church’s role in marriage is optional, not required.

This concern does become an issue with secular employees of the state, however. A clerk in New York has already expressed her crisis of conscience and stated she will not issue and sign marriage license for same gender couples. I respect her personal beliefs, while also wondering if she’s turned away pregnant women obtaining marriage licenses because her church opposes premarital sex. I tend to suspect not. However, she must recognize her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same gender couples violates the law and be willing to accept the consequences. If she cannot perform the basic functions of her job she needs to find a new one. The state cannot be party to discrimination.

And this is precisely what we are talking about here. Earlier I mentioned religious leaders who feel state recognition of same gender marriages validates a lifestyle they find offensive. This is critical to a full understanding of the issue. These individuals believe homosexuality is a behavioral choice despite all evidence to the contrary. Sadly, there are plenty of like-minded people who simply cannot accept the truth. Homosexuality is a natural and normal part of who some people are. So comparisons to previous laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage are somewhat valid. A person can no more change the color of their skin than they can their sexual orientation. By denying marriage equality, the state is saying “because you are the way you are, you are not entitled to these 1400 legal rights and economic benefits other people can have because of the way they are.”

Many of these legal rights and economic benefits are granted only through marriage. A homosexual couple can quite literally spend thousands of dollars drawing up all manner of legal documents and still find themselves denied rights we can enjoy for the $93.50 fee for a marriage license.

I’ve heard the ridiculous argument that, of course gay people can marry. They can marry someone of the opposite gender just like the rest of us. This is not an acceptable response folks. Such marriages are a sham and do not grant equivalent rights at all. Okay, maybe they could get a tax break for joint filing as a married couple with their marriage partner, but they still wouldn’t have status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent with the person they love. We’re dismissing their inherent human right to love and be loved by the one person they care for above all others. A society prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is complicit in denying them their humanity.

I’ve heard the well-intentioned, but in my opinion, naïve argument gay people should have civil unions and straight couples marriages. I mentioned before I don’t like this option because having different vocabulary implies a difference in the relationship. And indeed, in the states that have civil unions, the rights are somewhat different. I find this argument invalid because by definition marriages are civil unions and always have been. By creating another word for something that already exists you are redefining the existing word and this opens the door to the second part of this argument. I’ve heard people advocate the compromise the state can issue civil union licenses to everyone, gay and straight, and then the church can decide whom to marry. Again, I find the people who suggest this are well-intentioned, but somewhat naïve.

Marriage is a civil union, but it’s also a social status. A couple whose legal partnership was solemnized by a justice of the peace at the courthouse is not civil unioned, they are married. Their friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, etc. recognize them as such. Likewise, a couple whose legal partnership was solemnized by a priest in a church is married no more and no less than the couple at the courthouse. I don’t know about you, but looking around at the married couples in this room I couldn’t tell you whose union was solemnized by a member of the clergy and whose was solemnized by an employee of the state or a notary public. It simply doesn’t matter, does it?

The bottom line is we don’t need to jump through hoops to treat all Americans as human beings with inherent value entitled to equal protection under the law. Which last time I checked was both an American civic virtue and a Unitarian Universalist principle. We don’t need to create new categories, redefine words, or the like. We simply need to issue marriage licenses to two consenting adults and not worry about whether they love someone of the opposite or same gender. Done.

Okay, easier said than done, but that’s the gist of it. If you want to affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person, promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations; and accept one another this is a great way to do it.
If you think this doesn’t concern you, I beg you to think again. The people who do care enough to mobilize are those who seek to deny civil and human rights to others. But they go further than that. Michigan just passed a law allowing counseling students at state universities to forgo counseling homosexuals if doing so violated their religious beliefs. Can you imagine the state allowing counselors in training to turn away black people? Would you trust a counselor who can’t bring himself or herself to sit in the same room with clients and help them with their problems simply because of their sexual orientation?

Michael Reagan compared homosexuals to serial killers, embezzlers and convicted thieves when commenting on a pending California law that would require notable LGBT historical figures be included in state textbooks. Brian Sewell has complained about the number of LGBT characters in soap operas and questioned whether gay relationships are suitable for young children to view, without bothering to ask if soap operas in general are unsuitable viewing for young children.
Linda Harvey of the American Family Association believes corporations should not hire any homosexuals. She said, “…higher rates of domestic violence and unstable relationships. I would not think of a homosexual person as a good employment risk, I just wouldn’t." Of course, she offers no evidence to support her claims. Can you imagine the outcry if she suggested women were poor employment risks?

The leader of the Brooklyn Diocese, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, is punishing elected officials who voted for the same-sex marriage bill in NY. Two days after the measure passed, he announced anyone who voted for it would be banned from honoring students or even appearing at Catholic schools and parishes. This doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of hyperbole, fear-mongering, bullying, and violence homosexuals are subjected to on a daily basis. Just because of who they are. Think of one aspect of your inherent nature and simply imagine if it rendered you a target for such vehement hatred on a constant basis. How long could you endure the torture?

Churches do have something to fear from the state doing the right thing and granting marriage equality, but it isn’t being forced to perform same gender wedding ceremonies or a series of cataclysmic events springing forth from the wrath of God. Marriage equality will go a long way in broadening the acceptability of homosexuality as normal and natural. There will come a day when churches who turn away gay couples are viewed as antiquated and mean-spirited. Joseph Francis reminds us that, “as long as society is anti-gay, then it will seem like being gay is anti-social.” When society is indifferent to sexual orientation than being anti-gay will be anti-social.

Because it is possible to legislate social change, I think it behooves all of us to recognize the importance of this issue, not just politically, but spiritually and religiously as well. If we are a people of faith called to promote justice than we have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. We can’t ignore the noise from the right. Marriage equality will result in social acceptability and therefore a reduction in and hopefully the eventual elimination of the hatred, bigotry and violence our homosexual brothers and sisters live with today.

I invite all of you to give serious consideration to marriage equality in the coming days, weeks and months. How does this issue help define who you are as a spiritual and religious person? Do you find your own personal attitudes about homosexuality life affirming or a barrier to a full embrace of our principles and values as Unitarian Universalists?

Ernest Gaines asked an important question, “Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?” I pray we see a day this question need not be asked. Peace be with you.

~ July 10, 2011

[HillWilliam]

1. Hearty K&R

Thank you.

[BillStein]

2. amen

:grouphug:

[closeupready]

3. K&R

Thanks for posting this. :hi:

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. You are most welcome. The best thing about it was...

after the service a woman approached me who had never been to a UU service before (lifelong AME). She was there to assist a member who is in physical rehabilitation at the moment. She said she really appreciated the sermon and it gave her a lot to think about. It was nice not necessarily preaching to the choir.