Faith, Justice, and Marriage

Sermon

Our reading this morning was written by a good friend of mine. Erin and I became friends as seminarians at Divinity School, and have stayed close since then. We spend time together at General Assembly. We meet twice a year as members of the same UU ministers’ study group. And I had the great privilege and joy of being duly vested with the power, by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to perform the wedding of Erin and her partner in October of 2004, nine months after she preached the sermon I quoted this morning. I cannot tell you how thrilled I was when she asked me to do it, not only because she is a good friend and so the task would be exceedingly joyful for that reason, but also because it would be my first chance to perform a legally binding ceremony of union for a same-sex couple. During the ceremony I asked them,
"if you have carefully considered the sacredness of the obligations assumed when lives are wed and are well assured that you are prepared to enter this covenant, binding your lives together through time, will you then join hands and declare, before those of us gathered here, your family and friends the vows of your marriage:"

When I came to that line: " …by the power vested in me by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.."” it was so powerful and important. A great cheer roared up behind me from all the guests and I had to stop there and let the moment roll on in all its exuberance and vindication. I held up my hand and punched it forward and another roar came from all the dignified, quietly-dressed Unitarian Universalists in the old fashioned box pews. And then finally it got quiet, and I could finish: " …I declare you, to be from this day forward, fully and legally wed."

I’ve studied marriage throughout history as part of my interest in the history of women in western religion. I can still repeat by heart the marriage vow made by the father of the bride, on her behalf, back in the day of Classical Greece: "I give this woman, (her name), for the purpose of the procreation of legitimate children." Pretty romantic huh? It hearkens back to the point Erin made – that once upon a time marriage was a business arrangement, and that was the way it was for a very long time. Marrying for love is a modern phenomenon, and marrying with the belief and intent that you are committing to, and sacralizing, a relationship that will actually be cherished, honored, most intimate and most sustaining for a lifetime is an enormous undertaking. As many in this sanctuary know, it is one that takes tremendous energy, generosity, forgiveness and care to achieve.

When we talk about marriage, what are we really talking about? Does everyone buy into the concept that I just spoke about? In fact, no. There are many people the world over, for whom marriage is still a business transaction, many who marry the choice of their parents rather than themselves, many who are able by the laws of their country or the standards of their faith, to be married to more than one person at the same time. In fact, all these traditions prevail even among some citizens in our own country. So it behooves us to be sure we’re talking about the same thing when we’re talking about something as complex, fundamental and currently incendiary as marriage.

Let me be clear, when I’m talking about marriage in this sermon, I’m talking about the committed relationship between two adult people that is intended to last a lifetime, and that is based on mutuality, fidelity, honesty, respect, trust, and love.

I have some close friends up in Boston I was visiting with recently who have been together over 10 years and I have taken to pressuring them to get married because they have promised me that I can do the wedding when they do. They are a gay couple who have weathered some very considerable difficulties in their relationship – all the tough ones people frequently encounter: fidelity, finances, employment, and some significant cultural differences. When it became legal for them to marry in Massachusetts I hoped and believed they would do it fairly soon, but to my surprise, they still haven’t, and they may not.

When we had our regular conversation about marriage a couple of weeks ago, the main reason they gave for continuing to hesitate is that they are aware that the standards they have set for their permanent relationship don’t fit the usual bounds of marriage in America. I asked them if I could quote that conversation for this sermon and they gave me permission. Perhaps the most significant difference is their definition of physical fidelity, which is broader than the public norm and more open than some would be comfortable with, including myself. I don’t know if it’s because they’re gay and sexuality is such a strong force in gay culture, or because they’re men and as some studies suggest, males are often less oriented toward monogamy than females, or what, and perhaps it doesn’t matter. They have established an enduring relationship wherein they share their home, their lives and their souls with each other and depend upon each other with confidence and profound love and within this relationship they have set articulated standards for the physical terms of their partnership that work for them. In the conversation, I responded that plenty of straight couples get married and don’t honor fidelity in their marriage, whether or not it’s part of their marriage vow, so while the straight public standard is one thing, the straight private standard is clearly not always the same. In the end, were things that different, other than that my friends both acknowledged their open standard? If straight couples could get married, and stay married, without a problem in that area, why did this undermine my friends’ legitimacy to get married? In the end, it became clear that somehow they still feel closed out of marriage, regardless of Massachusetts state law. That it is a great thing for many, but not for them.

I asked them what they would do if the Massachusetts legislature took the steps some conservative legislators are threatening, to undermine the current ruling by creating a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Then, they said, they would rush out in a trice and get married right away, before the overturning. But they would do it as a political act, to help be part of the problem articulated by Massachusetts Gov. Romney who said what would they do with all the couples who had been legally wed in the interim? This was surprising because my friends are actually, in many ways, conservative and careful people. They go to church, one sings in the choir, they pray, they live their liberal values with care and great thoughtfulness, only have one car between the two of them and try to use public transportation as much as possible for environmental reasons, and they both believe that marriage truly is a sacrament. For some couples, a purely political statement made by marriage would make all the sense in the world, but not necessarily for these two men. "In a way, aren’t you conceding to the definitions laid out by conservatives?" I asked. "I mean, they offer a purely political definition that ignores your inherent worth and dignity, and the long-standing inherent worth and dignity of your relationship, and you almost buy into it – in the end only doing it for political reasons. In a way, would you yourselves be diminishing marriage then? Which is, in fact, part of what the religious and political right accuses the left of, in holding marriage open for same-sex couples, that this disrespects marriage. Is that really the reason you would get married? Is that really what you would want your marriage to be about, after all your reflection and concerns?" My gratitude that these are not considerations and condemnation I face as a straight person, my gratitude for that knows no bounds.

Though marriage sometimes is for convenience or for immigration reasons or for financial reasons or to satisfy societal norms, none of those rises to the level that weddings articulate in their ultimate expression, the vows. Never have I been asked to perform a wedding wherein the vows promise: "I, so and so, do solemly promise, to take you as my spouse, for as long as it is convenient and financially beneficial, until I am granted citizenship in this country, so that everyone who has pressured and shamed me for my singlehood will leave me alone or offer me the respect I deserve, for the purpose of the procreation of legitimate children, so long as we both can stand it." Never has anyone left out promises of a covenantal relationship, of a bonding of oneself to one’s partner, of the extension and exchange of family, of promises to endure and support through hardship and suffering. And not only do people exchange vows of unique commitment, their vows also include aspiration and optimism – to share joy, to grow even more and evermore in love and consideration, to learn from each other and grow from their shared experience of life. All of this is part of what makes human life sacred, part of what compels our sense of the inherent worth and dignity in an individual. And it may drive us politically, but it is not political, and ought not to be.

There is no straight ownership of lifelong partnership and devotion. How dare anyone say that in the face of the thousands of gay men who have nursed their partners through years AIDS and held them while they died. How dare anyone say that in the face of the uncountable and uncounted gay and lesbian couples who have found each other and stayed with each other for lifetimes, attested to in history and documents from ancient times to today. How blind are they, those misanthropic and self-rightous people who feel only the humanity and rights of those exactly in their own mold, to deny the sacred, loving truths of lifelong homosexual relationships that are all around them?

But just as events in our country, and initiatives begun in no small part within our own UU movement, have brought the issue of marriage equality to the forefront of national conservative awareness, so too have they brough the issue to the forefront of national liberal awareness. This is not a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issue, just as interracial marriage was not a black-white issue, just as civil rights was not a black issue, just as title IX and the equal rights amendment are not women’s issues, they are all human issues, they are all justice issues, owned by all of us, for which we are all responsible. And, thank providence, we Unitarian Universalists, are among those who know it. Within Unitarian Universalism, straight allies are so poignantly aware of the undeserved gift their straightness gives them, that in a number of straight weddings I have performed in recent years, the bridal couple made mention of the freedom to marry issue during their wedding ceremony, and either gave a financial donation to that cause in honor of their own union, or suggested that guests consider doing so, or both.

Recognizing the right of any two adults to yoke their lives and souls in the most extreme, daunting, lofty, choice people can make, is not revolutionary and it should not even be difficult. Proofs of lifelong love, made sacred by all the sacrifice and generosity and forgiveness and honor that entails, are all around us. I will not cite all the instances of Jesus reaching out to those beyond the mainstream of society, nor cite all the instances of biblical support for inhumane practices we no longer find acceptable in the modern west. That has been done and done and done by me and others. And in the end, neither the loving nor the outdated injunctions apply in any legal sense because the bible simply does not dictate the law of this land, nor has it ever, no will it ever, so help us God.

Even as I preach this sermon, as you may know, "Virginia is attempting to pass a draconian constitutional amendment denying basic freedoms to gays and lesbians." (I quote here from an email sent out to UU ministers by our colleague the Rev. Phyllis Hubbell of the Baltimore UU church.) "This amendment would create an arguable constitutional foundation for the similar law the Virginia legislature passed in 2004. This law prohibited not just marriage and civil unions, but threatens to overturn private contractual relationships between same gender couples. It would, for example, prevent such couples from giving one another medical powers of attorney or allow them to hold shared assets. It may even prevent any two persons of the same gender from holding joint mortgages. The constitutional amendment has already passed once. If it passes this year, it will be placed on the ballot for voter approval."

Because of this, Unitarian Universalists in Virginia are rallying for a lobbying day in Richmond on Wednesday, January 25th. They are asking for Chesapeake area UU’s who can make themselves free that day to commit to going to Richmond. It will be a day to go to lobbying training, visit legislators, attend committee meetings and watch the session. We have a number of members and friends here from the Virginia area; if you are interested in helping in this vital effort, please contact me or visit the Equality Virginia website.

And for the many Marylanders here – our turn is coming up here. This church is a welcoming congregation, committed to the safety, equality and welcome of our gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and queer members and friends, both within and beyond these walls. We have a liason to the Freedom to Marry Task Force of the UU’s for Social Justice organization in our own Lynn Gangone who is hosting a meeting of people interested in further information and opportunities following this service. We have more we can always do on this human justice issue, again both within and beyond these walls. And we have resasons for optimism; not only the great strides made by gay and lesbian individuals and culture in our nation, not only by the strength of our own denomination’s unshakeable commitment to this cause, but also because the riddled history of this nation with its justice and injustice, inspiration and indecency, invention and insularity, is also a hopeful one. We are better than we were, with all the challenges we face, we are never so daunted as to lapse back in to evils that prevail over time. We understand each other better, we honor differences better, we acknowledges our prejudices and injustices better, we see complications and unspoken truths better; and this has continued and it will continue, as long as good efforts continue undaunted to hold up the truths we know and believe in, particularly the beauty and dignity of human partnership in love.

In the end, marriage is its own proof. As I frequently say at the beginning of a wedding:

"This is perhaps the oldest celebration in the world, so very old and laden with traditions of earnestness, that we feel a formidable presence. The accumulated wisdom, the earthy and beautiful dignity found in a good marriage gives the wedding ceremony its meaning." So very old and laden with traditions of earnestness, accumulated wisdom, earthy and beautiful dignity – these are found in many places, including in longtime partnerships of two people who love each other and commit to each other for life. And such people, and such love, deserves marriage. End of story.

Amen.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Reading: Excerpt from The State of Whose Union? by the Rev. Erin Splaine, delivered at First Parish in Wayland, MA February 1, 2004

There was a time when marriage was mostly an economic arrangement — a business deal between two families brokered by an intermediary. "For hundreds of years," she writes, "women had few to no legal rights once they married. Married women had no independent legal existence: they could not make contracts, maintain their own names, file lawsuits, have full ownership and control of property, and in some cases could not maintain custody of their children after their husband's death. The husband controlled all the family earnings and all of his wife's property in exchange for nothing firmer than the general social expectation that he would support his wife and children. Some of these inequalities continued well into the 20th century. Over time, however, both the courts and the legislature have changed marriage laws to reflect the equality of spouses."

There was also a time when interracial marriage was illegal in forty of our United States, including Massachusetts. All forty of these states all had a prohibition against marrying someone of the "wrong" race, no matter how much you loved them. While in other states it was social prejudice that accomplished much the same result. Marriages between whites and persons of color were decried as "immoral" and "unnatural." Language that is so painfully familiar in the current debate surrounding gay marriage.

Then as now on the issue of same-sex marriage, public opinion polls, by overwhelming margins supported the state outlawing interracial marriage. Yet then as it must be now it was the court of law not the court of public opinion in which change is made. Then as it must be now it cannot, it must not be the role of the majority to decide the rights of the minority.

In 1948, at a time, when 38 states still forbade interracial marriage, and six did so by state constitutional provision, the California Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision became the first state court to rule in favor of interracial marriage. It was a decisions that was met with outrage by many, outrage at what some called activists judges. Yet, the California Supreme Court decision was controversial, courageous and legally correct.

It reads in part: "A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains."

Barred from marrying that person who might be to them irreplaceable.

Yet it was not until 1967 that the Supreme Court of our United States ruled that interracial marriage to be legal across the country. In that case, a Virginia judge had upheld that state's ban on interracial marriages, invoking God's intention to separate the races. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned his decision, declaring that: the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans; marriage is one of our "vital personal rights" and the right to marry is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free [people]."

Much of the same arguments used against those decisions are being used now against gay marriage. Just as people defending interracial marriage bans invoked "divine law," "immorality" and "unnatural unions" as arguments against ending discrimination, so do the opponents of civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples.