« Pastoral letter from Rev. Sinkford | Main | Via Positiva »
November 02, 2004
That All May Be Free to Wed
THAT ALL MAY BE FREE TO WED
October 17, 2004
I had a visitor this week, Pastor Kwame from Ghana. He called me because he saw my name, Nana', in the paper. In his dialect Nana' has a very special and honorable meaning, and he wanted to see if perhaps I was Ghanian. He asked to visit, and I agreed. Let me add that I checked with his local host, a minister whose name I recognized as the pastor of an evangelical church.
I liked Pastor Kwame. I experienced him as a good pastor. He wanted to come here today to participate in our service. I somehow sensed that his theology and mine would not be in sync on this topic, so I explained to him that I intended to preach on the subject of Gay Marriage, and that I was in favor of it.
His reaction was that of a good evangelical Christian pastor. He did not condemn me, nor did he condemn homosexual people. He explained to me that God had designed men and women differently for a reason. That reason was to make babies. We had a very interesting discussion, and neither persuaded the other to change their mind.
Our liberal religious tradition has a very different view. Our tradition supports people who are gay, lesbian, transgendered or bisexual. We think that all people are deserving of respect and dignity, which includes the right to marry the person of their choice.
That All May Be Free to Wed is the topic of today's sermon.
Let us begin this discussion with the idea of covenant. The concept of covenant grew out of the practice of contracting. Contract is a legal term, which involves two or more people. In a contract one side agrees to do something, and the other side agrees to do something, i.e., an employer agrees to pay a specified amount of money for the specified work accomplished by the employee.
Covenant uses the same idea, but adds another party to the contract, The Divine, or God. Our prototype for covenant is the agreement at Sinai between Yahweh and the people of Israel, "You shall follow my commandments and be my people and I shall be your God." Thus covenant involves at least two people and The Divine. It is more than a contract. Legal language evolved into religious language.
Let me specify again that I am using the word God, or The Divine, as a short reference to that which is best and brightest in your life--to that which helps give your life meaning and depth.
Another characteristic of covenant is that it involves relationship. Contract does also, but it usually involves a business relationship. When you sign a contract, it often needs a witness. Covenant is concerned with personal and social relationships. And one of the parties and/or a witness to the covenant is God. Breaking a contract is a legal concern, and breaking a covenant is a religious concern, which may involve legal matters.
My relationship to this congregation is through our covenant. When I first came here we had a start-up weekend at which we drew up a mutual covenant. We set up the guidelines for our relationship together. We did this by freely choosing to work together for the good of our community. And we have been operating under these guidelines for ten years.
Marriage is also a covenant that is deeply concerned with relationship. It is a covenant between two people and The Divine about the nature of their relationship.
When I counsel couples before their marriage, I ask them to consider carefully the words of their vows, which is the covenantal portion of the ceremony. I have samples of vows, and I tell them other sources for examples. I tell them they may choose one of the samples, or they may alter one, or they may write their own vows. However, they must pay attention to them, because this is the heart of the ceremony. They must choose the parameters of their covenant. They are free to modify or create the terms under which they enter into covenant. This is the promise they are making to each other. It is their covenant.
God, or The Divine, is also a part of this covenant, a witness to the promise. I think this is why people who have not been to church for a decade or more will search for a minister willing to marry them. At some deep level they need a representative of The Divine who will witness and bless their marriage.
Other people are also a part of the covenant. All weddings require witnesses, those people who sign their names on the marriage license. They are the representatives of the community. They stand in for the larger society as witnesses to the covenant that makes the ceremony of wedding a marriage of two people. Family members are often included to demonstrate that the couple's marriage is blessed by the families. And friends are present to lend their support and approval. These relationships are deeply affected by the covenant of marriage enacted to make two people a wedded couple.
And there is another party to the covenant. It is the state, which represents society at large. The state is involved because marriage has legal and business consequences. Married couples have many legal advantages, which include insurance for the spouse and children, the right of inheritance and tax advan-tages. I will say more about these later. For now, let us acknowledge that the state and society have an interest in the laws that govern who may and may not be married.
All states have laws regarding marriage. They set guidelines as to how old one must be, and often that differs for males and females. They define how long one must wait after receiving a license until one can wed, and when the license expires if it is not used. They may require medical exams or tests, they may require classes, and they may tighten or loosen restrictions as long as they do not inter-fere with the constitution of the state or nation.
Until recently all states stated that marriage would consist of a covenant between a man and a woman. Recently that requirement has been successfully expanded to include same-sex couples in Massachusetts by appealing to the constitution of the state.
Now this state of Michigan, among others, is attempting to pass a constitutional amendment that says that marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one woman. Michigan already has two laws on the books with that provision, but the backers of the amendment want to enshrine it in our constitution.
Do we really need to specify that there shall be one of each major gender in our definition of marriage? What is the deep theological reason behind this push to disenfranchise a significant minority of our population?
My friend, Pastor Kwame, explained it to me very carefully. "God," he said, "designed males and females to combine to produce children. Two men," he said, "cannot have children and two women cannot have children. Therefore we cannot have marriage between two men or two women." This is a very popular view, most especially in the evangelical Christian movement, and in traditional societies throughout the world.
Thus, if the purpose of marriage is only to produce children, gender-defining language is important. (Let us also acknowledge that adoption is always an option, as Heather, in our children's story, discovered in her playgroup. Some families of varying configurations choose to adopt their children.)
However, my response, and I think that of many other people, is that marriage involves much more than producing children, critical though that may be.
Marriage is also about living with a loving life partner. We know that this is a romantic notion that evolved after many centuries of more practical reasons for marriage. These include combining the assets of two families, ensuring a dynastic succession, as well as producing and caring for children.
In our over-populated world marriage is often mostly about sharing life with a partner one loves. Humans are social beings. We are designed to be part of a society. Most of us yearn to share our lives with a special person who under-stands us, loves us even when we are less than perfect, who hugs us when we are unhappy, and comforts us when we are sad. To deny this need to a group of people is not only unfair, it is, to my mind, cruel.
Marriage also provides a system of support. Partners can share their assets, both financial and personal. One partner may be the major financial support, while the other brings color and life into the marriage. One may be better at child care and the other excels at small repairs. One may be a terrific cook and the other a master gardener. In our current economic environment it often takes two sources of income to provide a comfortable home.
Part of the support available to married couples is provided by the state. We know that married people receive a deduction on their income taxes. Personally, I often wonder why widows do not receive some sort of tax credit. After all, we are single through no fault of our own. Most widows and divorcees see their standard of living go down, with no compensation. I think that perhaps we don't have a large interest group to communicate with legislators. I am sure that there are other single people who wonder about the marriage tax credit.
Our laws reflect a bias toward married couples. A long-term same-sex relationship has no legal standing when illness or death strikes one member. We have heard the nightmare stories of same-sex partners denied access to their dying partner. We have heard the stories of families of origin who refuse to allow the distraught partner to help shape the memorial service of their deceased loved one. Married couples have no such problems. Married spouses have legal right of access, and inheritance rights.
Enlightened companies have begun offering benefits to their employees who are in a committed relationship, without specifying its gender configuration. Some cities and towns are also taking care of their valued employees by providing health insurance to non-traditional families. The amendment proposal that will be on your ballot this November 2 would remove such benefits. It would also remove pension benefits for domestic partners regardless of their gender formation.
Marriage also confers inheritance rights on its partners. Laws vary from state to state, but generally allow the surviving partner to claim a significant portion of the estate of a deceased person. Unmarried partners have no such protection, and antagonistic family members can often break the will of a gay or lesbian attempt-ing to provide for their surviving spouse and children.
In addition, the institution of marriage provides recognition of a special, loving relationship. Partners often wear rings that identify them as part of a basic family unit. They are allowed to hold hands in public with no eyebrows raised or averted glances. Friends ask about their spouse openly, without having to check to see who might be listening. They can assume the support of society in keeping their relationship healthy and long lasting.
To deny these benefits to our brothers and sisters who are members of same-sex partnerships is patently unfair.
The proposed amendment permanently outlaws civil unions and domestic partnerships. That is, no partnership, whether same-sex or different sex would be legally allowed benefits.
It also takes away local control. City and county governments will no longer be able to make decisions about which policies are appropriate for their communities.
One of the scare tactics used by the proponents of this amendment is to say that soon churches will be required to marry same-sex couples. This is nonsense! No government can require a religious community to perform a sacrament contrary to their teachings. If same-sex marriage were allowed, most weddings would probably take place at city hall, although I certainly hope that more couples would find their way to our door. The amendment would not change Michigan's legal definition of marriage.
The proposed amendment would prevent public-sector unions from negotiating for domestic partner benefits— even if they have been offered under previous contracts. Thus, it would lessen union rights.
The Constitution exists to protect the rights of all Michiganders. This amendment, if approved, would not establish new rights or even affirm existing rights; in fact, it would be the first time the Constitution has ever been amended to take away rights that people already have.
I find this deplorable. Our faith has always been in the forefront of the struggle to expand civil rights. To be faced with the very strong possibility that our state will deprive our friends and relatives of rights they already possess makes me very sad.
Let us return to the idea of covenant again. We said it required the freely given consent of two people, who agree in the presence of God or The Divine to live within certain parameters in their relationship. There is nothing in this under-standing of covenant that limits it to only different-sex relationships.
We base our first principle, the affirmation of the worth and dignity of all people, on the belief that all people are created equal. We may word that in different ways. One way is to say that every person is a child of God. Another is to say that we are all more human than otherwise. (Richard Gilbert)
The love of one human for another cannot be regulated, nor proscribed. We are complex creatures, we humans. We love in many ways. Some of us are fortunate in that our love falls within the rigid guidelines of state and traditional faith. Some of us love beyond boundaries. This takes courage and commitment. Any long-term relationship takes work and dedication. One that challenges tradition-alist mores requires more of its members.
I admire a love that can survive such challenges.
I also believe that it is counterproductive to a healthy society to deliberately place challenges in the path of those who wish to build a loving life together. In my view, the world needs more loving relationships, not less.
If this amendment loses, nothing changes in Michigan. The official definition of marriage will remain that it is composed of one man and one woman. If, at some time in the future, the consensus of our society moves to embrace legalizing same-sex weddings, it could be done through legislation.
If, however, this amendment passes, then many people in Michigan will lose some of their rights and benefits. And, if at some time in the future, the con-sensus of our society moves to embrace legalizing same-sex weddings, it could only be done through amending the constitution, which is more difficult.
I intend to vote against this Proposition #2, and I hope you will do the same. My decision is based on my understanding of our faith tradition and its affirmation of freedom for all people, and the value it places on every person. I have also signed the statement crafted by the Religious Coalition for a Fair Michigan, which will be presented in press conferences in several locations on Tuesday. This is an interfaith group organized by the American Friends Service Committee. Here are the words of the statement:
"As religious and spiritual people, clergy, and community leaders, we are com-mitted to working for justice and equality for all Michigan citizens. While we are diverse in our understanding of homosexuality as a moral issue, we are one in affirming the full rights of all people and families to equal legal protections that secure and strengthen the family. Therefore, we strongly oppose consideration of any State constitutional marriage amendment or ballot proposal that would limit the rights and benefits of same-sex couples and families, and would only serve to heighten a climate of discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples and families in Michigan."
Our faith tradition encourages clergy to perform same-sex Civil Unions. This allows us to offer recognition of a covenanted relationship to our gay and lesbian members and friends. We have supported our brothers and sisters as they struggled to legalize their relationships. We continue to support them as they face the backlash of the decision in Massachusetts that allowed them to legally marry. I hope we will join them in defeating Proposition 2.
Love is too precious to be left in the hands of people who are threatened by progress. Love needs to be strengthened, supported and honored. Let us love together, and let us love all our people.
Amen.
Blessed be.
Shalom.
Saalat.
Posted by nanak at November 2, 2004 01:11 PM