I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine. I am come into my garden; I gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk; Eat, O friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved. (Who) brought me to the banqueting house, and (the) banner over me was love. I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine. (Song of Songs)Yesterday I officiated at a marriage ceremony, as I have done so many times these past twelve years. I was filled with joy, as I have been so many times these past twelve years when in the presence of loving togetherness. The couple basked in the laughter and tears of friends and community. All were strengthened by the public sharing of vows and rings. It was a violation of New York State law and I could be charged for it. Why? The couple I married were both women. I know you know that we're in the midst of a national debate about gay marriage and that two Unitarian Universalist ministers have been charged with misdemeanors for their intention to perform a civil ceremony and marry people who did not have a license issued by the state. Many of us have attended rallies and demonstrations, taken part in the ceremonies, written letters to the editor, donated money. My own letter was finally published in the Woodstock Times, The Daily Freeman and the Times Herald Record. I have copies of it here if you want to see it. Today I thought I would add to those thoughts because for me gay marriage is about three things: justice, spirit and marriage itself.
The justice part seems the most clear, at least for me. A banner hanging on the Unitarian Universalist Association's headquarters at 25 Beacon Street, right beside the Massachusetts State Capital building, says "Civil marriage is a civil right." Earl Warren, when Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. . . . Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." He wrote that in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, the case that struck down laws forbidding marriages between people of different races. Did Warren ever think that his words would be used to claim gay marriage as a civil right? Probably not. Do they, under the constitution? It seems so. In 1987 the Supreme Court outlined four attributes of marriage: 1.expression of emotional support and public commitment; 2. spiritual significance, and for some the exercise of a religious faith; 3. the expectation that for most, the marriage will be consummated; and 4. the receipt of tangible benefits, including government benefits and property rights. The court concluded that if these attributes were present, a state could not ban marriage. This case applied to the right of those incarcerated to marry. As bans on the rights of various groups to marry were struck down, in 2000 the Vermont legislature passed a law that gave same-sex couples all the rights and benefits of marriage, but called them civil unions. The Massachusetts Supreme Court declared last year that granting same-sex couples anything less than full marriage rights is discriminatory.
Which gives rise to one of the roots of this debate, which is a struggle over how we, as a nation, will define marriage. What will we call those "full marriage rights" relationships? Civil unions? Marriages? In1996, during the presidency of Bill Clinton, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. How ironic. What did marriage need defending from? In the utter wisdom of our senators and representatives -- gays and lesbians. Did they think that gay people would harm marriage in some way? Would everyone be forced to have a same-sex marriage? Would bestiality be far behind? What nonsense. Anyway, this law had two major provisions. First, it allowed states not to recognize marriages made in other states. This means that a relationship legalized in a state that allows gay marriages is not necessarily legal in another state, so if you get married in New York, your marriage may or may not be legal in New Jersey. You can see the problems that entails, and what discrimination it sets up. Second, the Defense of marriage Act defined marriage as occurring between a man and a woman. Lawyers have advised the White House that the Defense of Marriage Act will probably not survive a court challenge. Duh. To get around that, the President of the United States, interestingly enough, has called for a Constitutional amendment that states, "Marriage shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." He has not come out for a ban on civil unions, but rather has left the door open for "state legislatures (to be) free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." George Bush seems to be saying that civil unions are up to each state, but don't call them marriages. This is incredible. In 2000, when Vermont instituted civil unions, the action seemed the work of a liberal, fringe state. Now, barely four years later, the President of the United States has virtually conceded their existence! Civil unions for gays and lesbians are coming, that's for sure. But will we understand and define them as marriages? If the civil unions carry the same rights and privileges of marriage, why does it matter what we call them? It matters because we're arguing about it. There's something deep here and this is the spirit part. Why is marriage only between a man and a woman? There are two pieces to this question: namely what is marriage and how do we understand homosexuality?
Marriage comes from the French marier and was first used in the 14th century. It is both a religious and a civil term, governed by both religious and civic understandings of what it is. It is, according to the Catholic encyclopedia, the legitimate union between husband and wife, implying mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common and an enduring union. Marriage, for Catholics, is a sacrament, although it is not a sacrament for other Christian sects. Martin Luther, at the time of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, called marriage not a sacrament, but a worldly thing, and owing to Luther's influence civil marriage has been instituted in almost all European countries and in North America. Be it noted that civil marriage only began among some peoples in the Post-Reformation period, it existed among Native Americans, for example, earlier than that. For many, many years, then, religious and civil marriage proceeded along parallel tracks, although in civil constitutions the language about marriage is not always gender specific.
People married for many reasons, often having nothing to do with love. They married to make alliances, or to protect wealth and control property, to ensure the survival of the clan, to ensure the stability of society, to name but a few. Procreation was understood as a way to accomplish those ends and thus the purpose of marriage came to be birthing and raising children, which, until the advances of science in the 20th century, was gender specific. But what is the purpose of marriage today? Surely for some it is to raise a family, with children either biologically theirs or adopted. Does this require a man and a woman? No, it does not and these days families come in all shapes and sizes. And not everyone marries for the purpose of having children and a good number of couples choose never to have children at all. I would say the main focus of marriage in our society, in the minds of those getting married, is about love and wanting to make a life together. Such committed relationships still add to the stability of our society. Marriage still affects wealth and property, although people often don't realize how much of a property relationship marriage is until they divorce. Many people live in committed relationships and choose not to marry at all. Marriage is a changing institution.
If you look at the parts of a traditional marriage ceremony, you can see the history of marriage in it. The bride wears white, indicating her purity, and she is "given away," explicitly or implicitly, by her father and family. Some of the vows still ask the woman to honor and obey her husband. When the officiant declares the couple married, he or she might say "I declare you man and wife. You may kiss the bride." Like the bride is some kind of property, some kind of prize. When I was married we had to speak with the Episcopal priest prior to the wedding. He advised my husband-to-be that, about once a month, I would burn the toast and yell at him for no reason. I imagine the priest was referring to PMS. He sighed and told my husband-to-be just to ignore me at those times. Like the bride has to be put up with. Today some couples modify their ceremonies with family blessings to include mothers and children, as well as the groom's family. Or everyone walks down the aisle arm in arm. They light unity candles. Not everyone wears white. They write their own vows.
We see the changes also in the civil laws defining who may marry and who may not. Over the years the state has allowed some people to marry and has forbidden others to marry. In Revolutionary times, a wife became her husband's property, with few rights of her own. In slave holding states slaves, even freed slaves, could not legally marry. As late as 1967, people of different races could not marry and until 1987, people in prison could not marry in some states. It seems that most cultures have allowed divorce and even Christian denominations vary in their practices. Roman Catholicism does not recognize marriages dissolved by law, while the eastern Orthodox Church and the Protestant sects do recognize divorce. So is there one definition, one practice called marriage? Upon what basis is marriage denied to gays and lesbians?
In large part it is a religious basis. Most people in most religions understand marriage to be between a man and a woman and they understand that to be the word of God. In the Daily Freeman fourteen Protestant ministers belonging to the Ulster County Evangelical Pastors' Association wrote as follows: "As an organization that stands for the word of God and supports the biblical definition of marriage consisting of one man and one woman, we believe that the mayor of New Paltz in solemnizing marriages between individuals of the same sex is acting against God's law as well as the spirit of the law of New York State. We, therefore, are encouraging those of faith to notify their state assemblymen and state senators of their support of a biblical definition of marriage, and for them to uphold state law as it is presently written." Tradition says marriage occurs between a man and a woman. The bible says that. But the bible also condones polygamy. Jacob, the patriarch who produced the twelve tribes of Israel, did so with two wives and two concubines. The Catholic encyclopedia, after defining marriage as the legitimate union between husband and wife, says, "The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by civil law; for in such relationships there are as many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger sex."
That polygamy is okay when gay marriage isn't leads me to think that the purpose of marriage is to have children and, when this purpose was defined, the former produced children while the latter didn't. But in the United States of the 21st century, we don't need to base marriage upon the production of children. The world is over-populated. We don't need to base marriage upon the production of an heir to keep wealth and property within the family. There are other ways to do that now. So upon what basis is marriage denied to gays and lesbians? Tradition? Biblical injunction? We disregard biblical instruction about a lot of things, including slavery, eating shellfish and covering one's head while praying. Upon what basis is marriage denied to gays and lesbians?
Christians and Jews have the right to define marriage according to their own traditions, beliefs and understandings. I don't think society has the right to compel a church to accept gay marriage if that church believes homosexuality to be a sin. But neither does any religious body have the right to compel a society composed of many different beliefs and religious and non-religious bodies, to enshrine one particular set of beliefs into law. The church, the synagogue, the Unitarian Universalist congregation get to define marriage for themselves. They get to call it whatever they wish and to recognize it or not, according to their understandings and policies. But the state, the civil authority, also gets to define marriage for itself and to recognize it or not, as it serves the whole citizenry. I think the state should call all marriages by the same term, either civil union or civil marriage. I think the church must articulate what marriage means within its own context, which is a religious one. Religious marriage and civil marriage can then travel parallel, if not identical, paths, as they have for so many years. So rational, so relatively simple a solution. Why doesn't it happen? Upon what basis is marriage denied to gays and lesbians?
Homosexuality is stigmatized in our culture. Only in the last thirty years has it been removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental illnesses. Only in the last forty years have we considered human sexuality to exist on a continuum with exclusive heterosexuality on one end and exclusive homosexuality on the other. Most scientists think that most people fall somewhere within the continuum. That is, humans have the capacity for both heterosexual and homosexual attractions. Throughout history, a constant percentage of any particular population has been gay or lesbian. But this is not a truth we want to know. Homosexuality raises certain fears, revulsion and hostility in a significant enough percentage of people and those fears that cannot be resolved through the use of rational dialogue. Those fears and hostility are deeper than the rational mind. They explode sometimes in violence, such as the murder of Mathew Shepherd. But more regularly, they exist as an undercurrent that says don't ask, don't tell. Jobs can be lost, relationships severed. If you're gay or lesbian you do worry about how your friends and family will react when you tell them. You do worry about what response your child will receive if he or she talks about you. You do worry about whether or not to bring your partner to the office party. You do know that you cannot publically display the kinds of affection that straight people can, like holding hands or kissing, with those you love. This level of invisibility is not only unjust, it kills the spirit. It kills the spirit. It is death to ask someone to be silent about who they are.
Oh, I know that civil marriage will not solve all of these problems. Civil marriage can confer rights and benefits, but it cannot erase the fear and prejudice. But it's a step. Sometimes a change in behavior results in a change of attitude. Maybe not completely, but it's a step. We need to take this step even as we remember that it is not the magic solution, that more is required of us. Down deep, the civil disobedience around gay marriage is a way to say we will not be invisible anymore. We will not allow ourselves those deaths, day after day after day after day. Because we're here and we always have been. We're here and we love just as deeply, just as passionately, just as wondrously as you do. And we will not be denied.
Right: What will we tell our children if they see you talk? Linda: People who love each other talk. Left: A gentle whisper when they take a walk Linda: People who love each other talk. Left: Would you rather teach them fear, to hate and to betray? Right: Or will you show them love can grow in many different ways? Linda: People love, people love, people love. Right: What will we tell our children if they see you laugh? Linda: People who love each other laugh. Left: What if they see a movie or a photograph? Linda: People who love each other laugh. Left: Would you rather teach them fear, to hate and to betray? Right: Whether you are straight or bi or lesbian or gay, Linda: People love, people love, people love. Right: What will we tell our children if they see you touch? Linda: People who love each other touch. Left: Openly and respectfully, we share so much Linda: People who love each other touch. Left: Would you rather teach them fear, to hate and to betray? Right: Or will you show them love can grow in many different ways? Linda: People love, people love, people love. (adapted for antiphonal reading from Pat Humphries' song People Love)
Civil marriage is a civil right. Gay marriage is about justice. Gay marriage is about a living spirit. Gay marriage is about love. And no person, no institution, no laws will ever, ever stop our love.
This will be so.
Song #168 One More Step Closing words by Raymond Baughn, Speech Stammers To Tell Speech stammers to tell of touch of stone, of love of ache inside, or startle of surprise. Whatever at last is said is spoken from what is unsayable.
home
updated April 4, 2003 by Donn