No wait, that's not all I have to say about that right now. I had a really good sermon emailed to me today from a good friend and I thought I'd share it. It's long but worth a read when you get some free time.
---------------------------------
Why Gay Marriage Matters
A sermon by Rev. Fred Small
First Church Unitarian, Littleton, MA
February 2, 2003
Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson were in love. Like all lovers, they laughed and argued and cried and whispered their dreams to each other in the darkness. As the years deepened their love, they bought a home together in Minnesota. They exchanged rings symbolizing their lifelong commitment.
On November 13, 1983, a drunk driver smashed into Sharon's car. When Karen got to the hospital, they refused to let her see Sharon or even to give her information. She wasn't family. She was just "a friend." Karen waited for hours in anguish not knowing if Sharon was alive or dead. Finally, a priest told Karen that Sharon had suffered a serious brain injury. She couldn't walk. She could barely speak. She would need constant care. But their nightmare was only beginning.
Sharon had never come out to her parents. When they questioned the attention paid by this "friend" of their daughter's, Karen finally had to explain that she was Sharon's lover. Her parents exploded. That was impossible. It was insane. It was disgusting. Although Sharon was already making progress under Karen's devoted care, her parents moved her to a poorly equipped nursing home three hundred miles away and forbade all visits.
Karen spent nine years and over $300,000 in legal costs to win the right to visit, care for, and finally bring home the woman she loved. In 1992, convinced that Karen had demonstrated greater dedication to Sharon's rehabilitation than her own parents, a judge granted custody of Sharon Kowalski to Karen Thompson.
In Hawaii, a gay man suffered a stroke and was rushed to the hospital. His partner of twenty years was turned away even though they had a legal document declaring their intention to make medical decisions for each other. Days later, when he finally reached the hospital's lawyers, they said, "You can pick his body up at the morgue." His partner had died three days earlier.
In San Francisco, Louise Rafkin and her lover of six years registered as domestic partners. When her lover died suddenly, Louise couldn't even make funeral arrangements without written permission from a "family member." Because the will couldn't be located and the deceased was "unmarried," her estate reverted to her father, who lived in the Middle East. Although he'd known Louise for years, he refused to accord her any legal rights.
"Ultimately a jury will make the final judgment about my relationship," Louise reflects. "Whatever the outcome, a courtroom is an ugly venue for such decisions. . . . I've discovered just how many implicit rights marriage provides, rights that have tentacles that reach into every important aspect of daily life. Many of these revolve around community property, access to family courts, taxes, Social Security and survivors' benefits. Some of these can be addressed through paperwork-wills and legal documents-but many, such as tax and benefit rulings, are just flat out unavailable to gay
and lesbian couples. Unfortunately, the point at which many of us butt up against these discriminations corresponds to a moment of tragedy."
Stories like these have convinced me that marriage is not just a symbol or a perk or even a chance to pick up some china and silverware and have a party. Marriage is a fundamental human right. Marrying Julie was the best thing I've ever done. Marriage is probably the most significant personal commitment two people can make. If two men or two women want to care for each other for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, who dares stand in their
way?
The answer, of course, is forty-nine states and the District of Columbia-fifty if you count Vermont, which has legalized civil unions for same-sex couples but withheld the name "marriage." The vast majority of Americans believe that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against. But only a third support gay marriage. Despite or perhaps because of our own divorce rate, heterosexuals cling to the ideal of marriage as if it were our last flotation device in a tempest of change.
The ideal is elastic, God knows.
You can get married by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas. You can get married on a roller coaster. You can get married while sky diving. You can get married if you're a murderer, rapist, or child molester. You can get married in Kansas if you're a twelve-year-old girl. But you cannot get married if you're gay. Now some argue that marriage is for procreation, but if so, a fertility test as well as a blood test would be required. Some say gay marriage would undermine the family, but marriage is obviously about strengthening family, not undermining it; the only thing gay marriage undermines is
homophobia.
It's ironic that those who charge gays with promiscuity would also deny them the legal framework for monogamy. Unfortunately, anti-gay forces have seized upon marriage as a winning political issue, and they've been frighteningly effective.
In 1996, Congress passed the perversely named "Defense of Marriage Act" or DOMA. DOMA defines marriage as requiring a man and a woman. It bars Social Security, veterans', or other federal benefits in the event of a gay partner's death or disability. It disallows same-sex couples from filing joint income-tax returns, even if they share all their property. Finally, in
defiance of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, it declares that no state is required to give any legal effect to a same-sex marriage or civil union from another state.
The debate in Congress was not pretty. "The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society, the family unit,'' said the bill's chief sponsor, Congressman Bob Barr, now on his third marriage. Senator Trent Lott, then Majority Leader, declared: "To force same-sex marriages on the states would be social engineering beyond anything in the American experience"-presumably including slavery and segregation. Senator Jesse Helms, in a display of Biblical scholarship, insisted that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.''
Thus illuminated, the House of Representatives approved DOMA by a five-to-one vote, 342 to 67. The Massachusetts delegation split 5 to 4 against the bill, with Congressman Meehan absent. The Senate passed it 85 to 14. Of New England senators, only Kennedy, Kerry, and Pell mustered the courage to vote nay. Campaigning for reelection, President Clinton denounced the measure as cynical and divisive but signed it anyway, citing his strong personal
conviction that same-sex marriage is wrong. (Later we'd learn more about the president's strong personal convictions on the subject of marriage.)
Inspired by our national leaders, over thirty states have enacted mini-DOMAs barring recognition of same-sex partnerships solemnized elsewhere. (I note that of these, twenty-six are states that formerly banned interracial
marriage.) In Massachusetts, the proposed constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex marriage and deny gay couples equivalent benefits expired last year. But supporters have vowed to bring it back this year.
Because we affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person, Unitarian Universalists have taken the lead in the struggle for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. In 1984, long before same-sex marriage emerged as a political issue, General Assembly went on record supporting the right of UU ministers to perform gay unions. In 1996, General Assembly passed a resolution supporting their legalization. During the proceedings, UUA President John Buehrens invited gay and lesbian married couples to the stage, where they received a five-minute standing ovation. Unitarian Universalists were instrumental in the successful drive for legal recognition of civil unions in Vermont and have led like campaigns in
other states. Here in Massachusetts, the UUA has filed a friend of the court brief in support of seven same-sex couples denied marriage licenses. Of these couples, three have UU ties.
So I shouldn't have been surprised by an email from the UUA this past Thursday about Rhett Baird, a UU minister in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Rhett has declared that for one year, as a matter of conscience, he will not sign marriage licenses for heterosexual couples. He'll perform weddings for heterosexual or same-sex couples, but he won't sign the certificate.
Rhett is not member of Act Up or Queer Nation. He's a genial and gentlemanly former financial officer, born in South
Carolina, raised in Georgia. A 61-year-old father and grandfather, he's been married for forty-one years to his wife, Rhonda. But when a gay minister and subsequently a lesbian minister visited Rhett's church, it dawned on him
that they could lawfully sign a marriage license but not enjoy its benefits. He'd been preaching about integrity. Now he was caught by his own.
Rhett's position is simple and powerful: "I have come to believe [he writes] that the state of Arkansas has no right to say that a love that exists between two adults has no standing in law because the gender of one of the persons is not pleasing to the state. I have come to believe that love does not come into being nor thrive and grow and sustain the lives of people to please the state. . . . I will honorably and joyfully create and officiate at religious ceremonies that
honor and celebrate the love between two people, but I will not sign marriage certificates legalizing a bond that is not accessible to all persons, without regard to gender. Couples eligible for such legal sanction may choose to seek out the nearest civil office to do the duty of the state. During this . . . moratorium and protest against what I have come to believe are unjust laws . . . I shall function only in my ecclesiastical role as an ordained minister in the Unitarian Universalist tradition and shall respectfully refrain from acting as an agent of the state. "
"An agent of the state."
As I read those words I could feel the tumblers of my conscience clicking into place. I knew he was right. When Julie and I married nearly seven years ago, we knew we were joining a restricted club. As a white, straight, middle-class, highly educated, able-bodied, and tall male, I enjoy privilege with every breath I take. I've always tried to turn my privilege to the ends of justice. So Julie and I wed, printing on our invitations: "As we work for recognition of everyone's right to marry, we invite our gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and heterosexual friends to join our celebration in a spirit of love and joy."
But it's one thing to keep a privilege while seeking to extend it to others. It's quite another to sign my name as an agent of the state legally endorsing and enforcing a law that is discriminatory and wrong. I am not responsible for the errors of the state. But I am responsible to my conscience for my conduct. I will joyfully perform religious weddings for heterosexual or same-sex couples. But I will not sign the license unless and until the Commonwealth of Massachusetts extends to same-sex couples the benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage. If heterosexual couples wish to legalize their bond, I will direct them to a justice of the peace, who can sign the license in a matter of minutes.
While I have no intention of leading a campaign, I'm hoping this stance may spread among my fellow clergy within and without Unitarian Universalism..
Whether or not it does, I can do no other. I've consulted the Deacons, the chairs of the Standing and Welcoming
Congregation Committees, the Clara Barton District Consultant, the UUA Office of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Concerns, the Massachusetts Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, and the two heterosexual couples in this congregation whose weddings I've agreed to officiate this September. I am honored and moved to have their full support.
I invite you to support and defend everyone's right to love whomever they will and lawfully to marry if that is where their hearts lead.
That, I believe, is the meaning of freedom. That is the meaning of compassion. That is the meaning of justice.
Amen.
