Marriage: What, Why, Who?
Rev. Mark Gallagher
Well, my friends, this morning we turn our attention to the subject of marriage, and I don’t believe I have ever had a sermon turn out to be so timely!
Last June, the Supreme Court overturned a Texas anti-sodomy law, effectively rendering private, consensual, homosexual behavior legal throughout the United States.
In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the right to marriage could not be denied to gays and lesbians in that state, and in New Hampshire the Episcopal Church consecrated its first gay bishop, amid great upheaval.
Last month, the city of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of California state law. This gave fresh impetus to the notion of an amendment to the U.S. constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
And this past Wednesday, Multnomah County also began issuing licenses, though within the letter of the Oregon state constitution. Immediately gay and lesbian couples began lining up at the County Courthouse to obtain licenses—over 400 each day.
First Unitarian Church in Portland conducted seven gay marriages on the first day and by the end of today will have done another seven or so. And that is just members of the church. Nonmembers are having to go through the normal process of interviews and discernment prior to the ceremony.
By reports, the scene at the courthouse is remarkable for two things: First, the length of time the wedding couples have already been together—often ten, fifteen, or twenty years. And second, not unrelated perhaps, is the elevated sense of joy in the waiting line. I presume people getting wedding licenses are, by and large, a happy lot, but here we have the added factor of the fulfillment of a dream long denied.
So it was with delight that I learned on Friday that two of our own members, Andrew Broman and Giso Gorodish, were among the happy license recipients. This afternoon I will officiate at a very small ceremony to legally solemnize their marriage, after over thirteen years of committed togetherness.
Already, critics of gay marriage are rallying in opposition, legal and moral. While it is a heady time for supporters of gay rights, there appears to be a battle royal brewing over this.
It will be a long struggle, legal and moral, just as it has been with regard to the status and rights of women and people of color.
Neither the Multnomah County commissioners, nor the legislators or this or that state, nor the U.S. Congress, nor the U.S. Supreme Court can settle these issues once and for all. Any more than the Women's Suffrage Amendment in 1919, the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, or the Civil Rights Act in 1964 settled the matter with respect to African-Americans or women.
But we may be at a significant tipping point. I have no doubt that the arc of history is on the side of acceptance and affirmation of gay and lesbian relationships, but the next year or two may very well be pivotal in framing the struggle over the next decade or two. There may be a leap forward, or there may be a serious setback.
Let me at this point acknowledge that some among us may be opposed to certain aspects of gay rights, or may be uncertain. That is okay for a Unitarian Universalist.
At the same time, the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly has been on record affirming gay rights since 1970, and has repeatedly clarified and extended that affirmation, in 1996 explicitly affirming same-sex marriage.
We are not dogmatic on the issue, in that one may dissent from the collective position without being branded or excluded. But neither are we neutral on the subject, anymore than we have been with regard to racial and gender justice.
In the midst of this upheaval over the changing definition of marriage, it's time to seriously consider what marriage is, what it is for, and who may participate in it. I seek not so much to persuade as to equip you, as citizens of the world, to think and speak on this issue knowledgably, effectively, and with integrity.
I hope you will engage this struggle. I cannot doubt that it will get ugly at various points, But we can prepare ourselves intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually to be forces of reason and compassion.
We need to find our voice on this matter, without:
Smugly and dogmatically dismissing the concerns of those with views different from our own. Without resorting to insults and name calling against those “bigots” who have a different view from our own. Without unfairly lumping together those who are merely unaware of relevant information, who are looking at a different set of information, or are anxious about the pace of social change with those who are truly hateful or truly fanatical about their religious dogmas. We must address their concerns and attempt to calm their fears, not fan the flames of antagonism. I believe this approach best serves our growth and maturation as human beings, and will be our best contribution to the evolving culture in which we live.
A little historical perspective:
In 1962, Illinois became the first state to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.
In 1967, the Supreme Court struck down state laws against interracial marriage.
In 1969, the modern gay rights movement began in earnest with the Stonewall Uprising after a police raid on a drag bar in New York.
The following year, 1970, the UU General Assembly called for an end to legal discrimination against homosexuals.
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.
In the 70's and early 80's divorce laws were changed in all states, so that it was no longer necessary to prove fault in order to obtain a divorce. With no-fault divorce, the state would no longer force a person to remain married who does not wish to.
In the 70's and 80's several of the more liberal religious bodies issued statements calling for an end to discrimination against homosexuals. In 1980, the UUA called for nondiscrimination in settling gay ministers, and in 1984, endorsed services of holy union.
In 1982, Wisconsin became the first state to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
In 1993, President Clinton attempted to revoke the prohibition against gays in the armed forces, but the adverse reaction was such that he settled for a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Through the 90's, various local governments and private corporations extended domestic partnership benefits either to all couples or only to same-sex couples (because they did not have the option of marriage).
In 1996, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that under its constitution, the state had no compelling interest which allowed it to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In that same year, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as being between one man and one one woman, and relieving states of the obligation to recognize marriages from other states. Since that time, 38 state legislatures, including Washington's, have passed similar measures.
An amendment to the Hawaii state constitution in 1998 ended their experience with gay marriage.
That same year, the Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions, one affirming that wives must submit to husbands, and another calling for vigorous opposition to homosexuality.
In 2000, Vermont became the first state to legally recognize civil unions between same-sex couples, which it defines as being identical as marriage, except in name.
So here we are. The issue of gay marriage has taken center stage during a presidential election year. Some of you will be engaged in the struggle for the right of same-sex couples to marry, and I'm glad of it. But we're not here to speak of legal issues or political strategies.
Let's talk about the issue of gay marriage itself.
The argument for it goes something like this: Two adults wish to commit themselves to a caring, supportive relationship. They wish to enjoy the recognition of the community and its institutions as a couple. They are willing to take on the responsibilities of such a commitment.
Our culture provides for such a relationship. It is called marriage. Why should they be forbidden from entering into marriage with a person of the same-sex?
So the ball is in the conservative court: Why not?
Turns out they have a lot to say about why not.
* You can't go tampering with a fundamental and universal institution like marriage. It has always been this way!
By this way, they often mean the 1950's ideal of a young man and woman falling in love and getting married with no prior sexual experience, having children, and remaining together into old age. Not only was it not altogether like that in the 50's, it has varied enormously over time.
In Concord, Massachusetts during the twenty years prior to the American Revolution one third of brides were pregnant at the altar.
In ancient and medieval Europe, the marriage contract was not about love but property. It was arranged by parents, not the young woman or man. A dowry was required to accompany a bride. And while strong negative feelings on the part of the groom or bride might be taken into account, the overriding concern was for the economic interest of the extended family. Only among the poorest of the poor was this not an accepted fact of life.
In 1800, the average American white woman gave birth to seven babies. By 1940 that was 2.1 babies.
Marriage has not been the same through all the ages. Not even in the sense of comprising one man and one woman.
In the Bible the patriarch of the Hebrew people, Abraham, and his wife, Sarah, were children of the same father. We call that incest today.
In Old Testament times, it was normal, sometimes even required for a man to take multiple wives. We call that polygamy today.
After failing to get pregnant herself, Sarah put forth her slave Hagar for Abraham to have children with. I'm not sure what we'd call that today
No, it has not always been this way.
* Next the cry is heard: Marriage is the bedrock of society! Change it and civilization will collapse! This hysteria echoes throughout history.
Chauncey Hawkins in 1907: Will the family, that institution which we have long regarded as the unit of civilization, the foundation of the state, survive? The home made by one man and one woman bound together until death do you part' has in large measure given way to trial marriage.
From the Boston Quarterly Review in 1859: The family, in its old sense, is disappearing from our land, and not only our free institutions are threatened but the very existence of our society is endangered.
Martin Luther in 1522: Marriage has fallen into awful disrepute.
- During the mid-nineteenth century a reform movement arose allowing married women to own property and control their wages, and again the cry went up. A Maryland judge declared that this, virtually destroys the moral and social efficacy of the marriage institution. What incentive would there be for such a wife ever to reconcile differences with her husband, to act in submission to his wishes, and perform the many onerous duties pertaining to her sphere? Would not every wife abandon her husband and her home?
A New York legislator pleaded, If any single thing should remain untouched by the hand of the reformer, it is the sacred institution of marriage, which is about to be destroyed in one thoughtless blow that might produce changes in all phases of domestic life.
Remember that what they were talking about mainly was that a woman's wages would not be given over to her husband to spend on drink. That was the big issue.
- The prospect of allowing divorce also spelled the end of marriage and the downfall of civilization. In 1816 Timothy Dwight, president of Yale University warned of Connecticut's new divorce law, Within a moderate period, the whole community will be thrown, by laws made in open opposition to the Laws of God, into general prostitution.
Horace Greeley Complained" There may be something better than Marriage; but nothing is Marriage but a solemn engagement to live together till death." He was willing to allow divorce advocates to establish a marriage-like institution which provided for divorce, but pleaded, give your bantling a distinctive name, and not appropriate ours. In other words, don't call it marriage. (Civil union perhaps?)
- The specter of interracial marriage was a grave threat to society and was often compared with bestiality, since non-whites were considered by some to be less than fully human.
At one point, 41 states banned interracial marriage. And it was not until 1967 that the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional. It is interesting to note that at the time of that activist court decision, 72% of American disapproved of interracial marriage. 48% believed it should be a crime.
That is significantly higher disapproval than we see today with regard to same-sex relationships.
* The next objection to same-sex marriage is apt to be that marriage is fundamentally about procreation and the rearing children.
Well, this certainly is an important matter. There are a couple problems with this, however. In the first place, this is much less true of heterosexual couples today than it was in the past. There is choice in the matter of getting pregnant, now. A fair number of couples now choose not to have children, and many more wait several years before having them. Yet such couples are considered fully married.
People have far fewer children on average and live much longer than in years past. Consequently, a marriage is apt to include many more childless years that in ages past. Even for hetero couples, it is not all about raising children.
Plus, gay and lesbian partnerships often do involve raising children, whether from previous marriages, by in vitro fertilization, or by adoption.
If marriage is fundamentally about providing a home for children, how bout we admit same-sex couples with children and exclude childless hetero couples and empty nesters?
* Next we are likely to hear that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. We don't have near enough time to deal with this in detail, but in the first place the Bible says very little about homosexuality, and then it is never in reference to a consensual, caring relationship between adults similar to the gay and lesbian relationships we see today.
By contrast, lending money at interest is condemned many times in the Bible, yet we hear no talk of bankers being excluded from the institution of marriage.
And in the second place, if your religion rejects certain kinds of relationships, fine withhold the blessing of your sacraments. No one is talking about forcing any religion to bless same-sex relationships.
But what does any of that have to do with whether the state sanctions such relationships? Nothing. The state has no legitimate interest in religious scriptures and doctrines regarding homosexuality or marriage.
* Finally we hear that same-sex marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage.
Sometimes that is just another way of saying that change mars a time-honored institution.
Sometimes it is way of saying that Gays are a bunch of frivolous and promiscuous perverts, and if they get in our marriage club we'll all get cooties.
Let's think for a moment about the sanctity of marriage.
Strictly speaking, sanctity just means sacredness. But it seems to have a slightly different connotation. Sanctity of marriage implies that marriage is something pure and set apart not to be sullied.
But the sacredness of marriage: makes me think sacredness is a characteristic marriage might have: like sacredness, usefulness, difficultness, and so on.
There is a view that any marriage, even the most loveless and abusive, has sanctity because sanctity inheres in the institution and has nothing to do with what happens within it.
If that's the deal, I don't care about sanctity. But is there, or can there be, sacredness in marriage? What about a marriage could have that quality of spiritual beauty? What makes for sacredness in a marriage? I will name four things.
First and foremost, mutual love. A feeling of heightened affection, respect, concern, and appreciation between marital partners. It gives a certain sparkle to the time spent together, and potentially to the entire experience of life. The presence of love makes a marriage sacred.
Fidelity contributes to the sacredness of a marriage. Commitments fulfilled. Coming through. Hanging in. Placing the integrity of the relationship over personal preference and convenience. It builds a powerful trust. Fidelity makes a marriage sacred.
Intimacy brings sacredness in a marriage. When two people reveal themselves to one another over time, they cannot help but gain acquaintance with the deep regions of the human experience. They get to know one another, of course. But more importantly, they get to know themselves.
Through relating intimately over time, deeper honesty and authenticity become possible. This is the spiritual journey to know and be known, behind the public charade, however subtle or crude that may be.
And forgiveness generates sacredness in a marriage. We all make mistakes and need forgiveness. Our spiritual liberation requires that we become masters of forgiveness letting go of resentment for slights and injuries. The prolonged togetherness of marriage will present myriad opportunities for the practice of forgiveness. When forgiveness flows freely, there is a palpable quality of gentleness and compassion.
Not only do we all make mistakes, we are all in some sense broken. In a marriage, especially if there is intimacy, this brokenness will be revealed. To find our brokenness met with forgiveness and compassion, to meet the brokenness of another with forgiveness and compassion (instead of the harshness and bravado which characterizes so much of life) this is an experience we should certainly call sacred.
A marriage characterized by love, fidelity, intimacy, and forgiveness exudes sacredness. I don't see what the gender of the people involved has to do with it.
You want to talk about what undermines the sacredness of marriage?
Enforcing it as a loveless social obligation. Violence and abuse in the relationship whether physical or emotional. A crude marketplace attitude about the relationship the partners trying to get the best deal possible, seeking to optimize their personal advantage. Workplace expectations which leave the couple without adequate time or energy to be alive and engaged in the relationship. Public policies which lead people to get married or end a legal marriage in order to gain access to medical benefits. Policies which lead people to refrain from marrying in order to preserve Social Security benefits. If strong, healthy marriages are of concern, let's look at what promotes strength and health in marriages and support those things, not waste energy excluding people who want to form beautiful, lasting, and committed relationships because some of are afraid of getting cooties.
We are living in a time of rapid change. Some of our friends and neighbors are very anxious because the familiar rules and distinctions which they imagine hold their lives together are falling apart.
Try not to judge harshly, my friends. Offer them your open heart and reason they may be drawn to open-heartedness and reasonableness.
Whether they are or not, you will be the better for it.