"WITH THIS RING, I THEE WED..."
REFLECTIONS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
March 14, 2004The Reverend Anne Felton Hines
The words on the sign the man was holding sent a chill through me: "God abhors you!" it read. What could possibly be causing God to "abhor" anybody? Murder? Child molestation? Torture?
But no, it was nothing as violent and despicable as any of that. The person to whom the sign referred - the person supposedly so hated and despised by God - was simply a young man who was asking for the right to marry another man. I was stunned. It was an indication of how intense and volatile the debate over same-gender marriage has become. It was proof of why the poet Audre Lourde contends that, "those who live at the shoreline…were never meant to survive."
The movement to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry has taken center stage lately. First there was the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court last month which declared that denial of marriage to gays and lesbians was discrimination, and therefore unconstitutional. According to that decision, same-gender couples will be able to begin marrying legally in a little over two months!
Then, on Feb. 12th, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples, contending that the denial of marriage rights to these couples violated the non-discrimination clause of the State Constitution. Since the mayor's action, 4,161 same-gender couples have wed in San Francisco. Ironically, one of those "tying the knot" was the son of Senator Pete Knight, author of Proposition 22, which four years ago amended the California Constitution to define marriage as "a union between a man and a woman." David Knight married his partner of 10 years, Joseph Lazzaro, last Tuesday.
After the events in San Francisco, several other states - New Mexico, New York and Oregon - followed suit - though New Mexico and New York have both since been ordered to stop.
This past Thursday, the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, until the Court can rule on the city's authority to do so.
And back in Massachusetts, the Legislature voted on Friday for a constitutional amendment which would limit marriage to "unions between one man and one women."
But I think that what really got so many of us to sit up and take notice - what struck fear and outrage into our hearts - was President Bush's announcement that he would push for an amendment to the federal Constitution banning marriage between same-gender people. Into the document that most defines who we are as a nation - that is grounded on the premise that all people are created equal and deserve equal protections, and which has been amended only to expand the rights of Americans - the President would now insert an amendment to deny equal access and protection to those Americans who are gay or lesbian; amazing!
When I listened to his speech, what most astonished me was his assertion that "history has proven" that children are better off when raised by a mother and father. Oh, really?! Surely, of all people, George Bush should know that the gender of one's parents has nothing to do with whether one becomes an alcoholic, or gets arrested for drug abuse, or any of the other challenges that have plagued families, including his own. I was outraged by the hypocrisy.
I kept thinking about the families I know of gay or lesbian couples - some here at Emerson. Not one of them has had problems any worse than those of straight couples I know. Indeed, I am always aware of the amount of love and commitment, of respect and wisdom, that I so often witness in these families.
I have performed Services of Holy Union for over a dozen same-gender couples over the years, and in every single instance, I have been moved by their devotion to one another, and by their courage. In some cases, their families and friends were in attendance and were rejoicing in their union. In other cases, some or even all of their family members had rejected their relationship; but the two people persevered, surrounded by a circle of loving friends, and by the affirmation of Unitarian Universalism. I cannot think of one reason why any of these couples should not be allowed to sign an official marriage certificate; in many cases, I have no doubt that their unions will last longer than some of the heterosexual marriages I've performed.
The Rev. George Regas, former rector of All Saints Episcopal Church, once said to his congregation: "When we bless the union of a gay couple, we are saying: The church sees goodness in you and your love for each other; we recognize your intention to share that love for a lifetime; we want to bless you on your journey and sustain you when the way is difficult; we cheer you on your way and hope for your success; we will rejoice in your victories and weep for your failures."
Isn't that what the State has been saying - albeit in less poetic terms -- to heterosexual couples through the institution of marriage - that society sees goodness in them and their love, and that we want to cheer them on their way and we hope for their success? What would be the harm in offering such support and affirmation to gay couples as well? Imagine how it would be for you who are married had you been told you could not marry the person you loved, because you're heterosexual. Imagine having to introduce your beloved spouse as "friend" or "partner" rather than "wife" or "husband" - through no choice of your own. Yet thousands of people in this country - including members of this congregation -- face that painful awkwardness every day; and now the President of the United States, and millions of other Americans, want to create laws that will make it even more explicit.
Since the President's announcement, I have received a couple of responses from people whose lives are directly affected by his decision; from that experience comes a poignancy that needs to be heard. And so I want to share parts of these responses with you today.
First, a letter written to President Bush by the Rev. Meg Riley, director of the UUA Faith in Action office in Washington, D.C.:
Dear Mr. President,
This morning you felt compelled to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as existing only between one man and one woman.
You say that this will create "clarity." I would like you to share this clarity with my first-grade daughter on her school playground.
Challenged by another child, my daughter will declare forthrightly that of course her two moms are married. After all, we have wedding photos in our home, as any couple does. They show her two moms, fifteen years ago, in front of our Unitarian Universalist congregation, smiling, with many of our friends and family members around us.
You see,... she knows only that we are her parents, the only ones she's known….She knows that we provide the only stability, the only bedrock, that she has ever known.
Of course, she knows that there are people who say that two men or two women cannot be married. She knows that, not very long ago, some people said that no one could marry someone of a different race, but now of course we no longer believe that. But I haven't yet been able to break it to her that some people want to change our Constitution to say that our family isn't part of "We the people."
Tonight I will sit her down and…have the conversation that I hoped I could avoid. I will tell her that you, the President of the United States, have decided that only a man and a woman can be married, and that you want to make that part of our Constitution….I will tell her that…people may say very mean things to her at school about our family. She will be afraid. I will project confidence and good humor, but I will be afraid, too.
I do not want to teach my daughter that the President of the United States does not include our family in the people he serves and protects. I do not want to say to her that the very flag she loves will be waved by people who believe that it does not belong to our family.
Please, Mr. Bush, tell me how I should conduct myself "without bitterness or anger," as you instructed me today. Come over to my house tonight; look at my daughter's eyes as they absorb the fact that you think she can no longer be included in the very Constitution of this land. You tell me how to "conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country."
Because I am at a loss.
Sincerely, The Rev. Meg A. Riley
And this, from a friend of Renee Lancon, written to his friends and family:
Hey everyone…
Roughly four or so years ago, I came out to you as a gay man and it was, of course, an experience and journey that I will never forget….At the time of my coming out, I assured those around me…that I was still the Nick you had always known, and that I fully planned to live a "normal life" pursuing the same dream we mostly all have - to have a successful career, to fall in love, to get married, to have a family of my own.
Today I listened to MY president of MY country announce to the world that he is going to fight to make sure that I can't pursue those very dreams I've always had.
I write because I just want you to know - really know - how his words truly cut into me with prejudice and hate….To hear someone whose job is to lead us into a better tomorrow say words so filled with blatant disregard for an entire portion of our population… crushes me to the core….Anything I write now can't possibly convey the awful feeling of being denied a life, and a dream, and laws to protect me, because of the way I was made by God.
I hope….over the course of this political year you will think of me, of my face - as a friend you care about - and the pain our president's stance causes me - when this issue is raised. I hope…that at the very least, in your heart you will support me on this issue - much like you did years ago when you assured me it was okay that I was gay.
As of today, I promise to fight for the right to walk down the aisle with a husband I love in front of the friends and family that matter to me. I will fight for this right because I do not want my children to have to.
Thanks for reading and listening. Much love. Nick.
But the response that has filled me with pride and gratitude is that of our Board of Trustees here at Emerson. Most of you probably heard it read a couple of Sundays ago, but I'm going to read it now again:
The Board of Trustees of Emerson Unitarian Universalist Church is saddened and dismayed that President Bush, in his statement of Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2004, has chosen to lead the nation on a road leading, not forward with love and freedom, but backward with fear and repression, a road begun with demagoguery and paved with bigotry. We therefore proudly affirm the view so eloquently expressed by William Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, who said:
"Amending the United States Constitution to deny same-gender couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage would be to enshrine discrimination into the document that provides the foundation for our democracy. While the Constitution has been amended in the past, it has never been altered with the express intent to deny equal protection to an entire class of citizens, and now is no time to start. Instead, successive generations of Americans have found new ways to honor the spirit of the Constitution by extending its promise to an ever-widening circle of American citizens. The document that granted freedom and full citizenship to African Americans and gave women the right to vote must not be used as a weapon with which to attack the families of our country's gay and lesbian citizens."
These responses to President Bush's desire to deny marriage to people like Dar Fisher and Ann Teitlebaum, Marjorie Stark and Gail Ringer, Brad Thornton and Tom Huang, are powerful. But it will take the continuing witness of all of us - gay and straight - to ensure that such blatant discrimination is defeated. We must raise our voice, in part because marriage - and its definition - is a religious issue, and therefore has no place in state or federal Constitutions. But ultimately we must raise our voice because, as Unitarian Universalists, we place our faith in the "worth and dignity of every person," and in "justice, equity and compassion." Denying gay and lesbian couples the same rights that are given straight couples, denies their "worth and dignity," and deprives them of "justice, equity and compassion." "Love and commitment are rare enough," writes Anna Quindlin in the New York Times; "it seems absurd to thwart them in any guise." Absurd; and worse yet, unjust.
I hope that this congregation follows the model of our Board of Trustees. I hope that we begin a conversation today about this issue of human rights. I hope that we find it in our hearts to stand with other people of faith in supporting the right of all people - gay or straight - to marry the person they love. And I hope we put our words into acts of solidarity - perhaps sending the Board's resolution to the newspapers so our gay and lesbian neighbors know they have allies; or perhaps hanging a banner (as some UU churches are doing) outside our building that reads, "Civil Marriage is a Civil Right;" or encouraging our political representatives to vote for pending legislation that bans marriage discrimination. You may have ideas of your own.
Let us work toward the vision of a nation where one day all those who love will be celebrated, no matter their sexual orientation. Let us move beyond our fears of "otherness," into the realm of compassion and justice, where all children, no matter the gender of their parents, know they are loved and protected, and that their family is as much a part of this great country as any other family. Let ours be a country where every person is allowed to live and love "out loud."
For surely God - that Spirit of Life that breathes through us all - "abhors" no human being. If there be a God, I believe with all my heart that it is a God of love and compassion and justice, and that it stands with all who love in return.
May we do no less.
© 2004 Anne Felton Hines. All rights reserved.
