Climbing the Mountain

This is the sermon I delivered at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Church - Unitarian Universalist on July 5, 2015.  You can listen to the podcast.  [Note: this is not the sermon that was planed for this week, so the description on the church's web site doesn't match.  This was a last-minute replacement due to public events.]

It was her twenty-fifth birthday.  Marsha P. Johnson had gone to a local bar to celebrate, to dance with friends, to have fun.  Marsha P. Johnson was a twenty-five year old African American Transgender woman, and her birthday fell on June 28^th.  The year was 1969, and the bar was the Stonewall Inn on Christopher Street in New York City’s Greenwich Village.  At the time, it was one of the few bars in which gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people could gather and dance with little fear of police harassment.  Stonewall was owned by a member of the famed Genovese crime family – three members of the Mafia spent $3,500 to convert what had been a restaurant and nightclub into an intentionally gay bar.  It’s said that the mob would keep track of who frequented the club so they had blackmail material at the ready.  None of that mattered to Marsha Johnson on that Saturday night.  She was having fun and she was in one of the few places that LGBTQ people could feel safe in a decidedly unsafe, hostile, world. 

At a little after 1 am that dangerous world burst into the Stonewall Inn in the form of six police officers, announcing a raid.  In other clubs at other times these raids had a predictable rhythm.  I’m quoting here from Wikipedia’s article about Stonewall, “Standard procedure was to line up the patrons, check their identification, and have female police officers take customers dressed as women to the bathroom to verify their sex, upon which any men dressed as women would be arrested.”  But that’s not what happened this time.  This time the patrons resisted and a riot ensued – a riot that is often cited as the beginning of the gay liberation movement and the modern fight for LGBTQ rights.  Less than two weeks ago, 46 years after the events of that night at the Stonewall Inn, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that marriage is a human right and that it cannot be denied to homosexual couples.  Justice Anthony Kennedy in his Majority Opinion wrote,

“The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter.”  (And that “basic charter,” of course, is our Constitution.)

This is a time to celebrate!

It’s been a long journey.  In October of 1972 the Supreme Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case challenging the legal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples as it was seen in marriage restrictions.  A few months later, in January of ’73, Maryland became the first state to pass a statue explicitly banning same sex marriage.  (Virginia came next in ’75.)  Jump ahead to 1993 when then President Bill Clinton signed into law the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, an act which defined marriage as between “one man and one woman” and which ensured that the roughly 1,200 protections and responsibilities that marriage triggers at the federal level would not be available to same sex couples.  This underscored the “separate and unequal” state inherent in “same-sex unions” which had begun to be legally recognized as an equivalent to marriage.

State by state we’ve seen this play out.  A court case here; a referendum there.  But what we’re really talking about, of course, is people’s lives.  Couples who loved each other yet whose love was seen as “other,” “different,” “evil,” even.  State by state, court case by court case, referendum by referendum they watched their lives – their love – discussed and debated, argued over and attacked, all the while just wanting, as Justice Kennedy put it, “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”   The Supreme Court’s verdict on June 26^th affirmed that “the Constitution grants them that right.”  For so many this was a day so long sought even if never fully imaginable.

Yet I can’t simply invite us to celebrate, to shout out “Love Won!” as if all of the struggle is over.  This is hardly any more a post-homophobic America than it is a post-racial one.  And, so, there have been other voices.  One of many that touched me was posted and reposted on the FaceBook feeds of a number of my friends.  I do not know David Dezem, but I’ve found his words worth listening to:

"Dear Friends: I listened very carefully this Pride weekend as person after person celebrated that "they never thought they'd see gay marriage in their lifetime." And as I listened closely -- really closely -- I heard another feeling underneath that celebration. I heard sorrow, pain and loss that we need to be aware of in the days and weeks after the party calms down. Because "I never thought I'd see it in my lifetime" also means "It wasn't available to me for most of my lifetime." So please, look out for your gay friends, particularly those who aren't in their 20's or 30's anymore, who have had to make personal, financial, medical, familial, and other life decisions without these newly acquired privileges. There's something going on there that I can't quite put my finger on: A sense of lost time, and lost loves, and lost lifetimes that are being mourned in private, away from the public celebrations. And a sincere sadness, melancholy and perhaps even depression that we really need to listen for if we want to hear it over the (equally sincere) shouts of public joy. Our country took a long overdue step towards justice on Friday. Gay Seniors and even Gay Middle-Agers are celebrating that fully, even as they recognize that for many of them, on a practical and emotional level, justice delayed is still justice denied."

I began by talking about Marsha Johnson.  Some witnesses say that she was really the one who got things going that night on Christopher Street; her resistance inspired others to resist and the rest, as they say, is history.  I should also mention Sylvia Rivera, another key figure.  She was 17, and wasn’t even in the club when the police came; she was one of the many who gathered outside.  Some witnesses said that she was the one who threw the first bottle at the police, and that’s what took the events at Stonewall from just another incident of police harassment to the beginning of a movement.  These two, Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera should be remembered as two of the igniting sparks for all that has come since.  Yet the names of neither of these women is well known today.  I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that both were women of color – Sylvia Rivera was Puerto Rican, and Marsha Johnson was African American – and that both were transgender women.  That’s worth noting.

My friend David Glasgow recently wrote that when we shout “Love has Won!” we inadvertently do several things, one of which is to suggest that “the inability to obtain a marriage license was the most important, or even the only, struggle that LGBTQI individuals faced, and all  but ignores single persons, trans persons, and poor persons categorically.”  Even as we celebrate that the circle of inclusion has widened significantly – and it has, and that is worthy of celebrating – we need to remember that there are so many who are still left out.   Transgender women and men are no more safe than they were a couple of weeks ago; LGBTQ teens are no less likely to be bullied.  And while gay and lesbian couples may now have their love legally recognized through marriage, they can still have their jobs or the housing taken away.  And now because of this ruling both gay and straight couples who have entered into legal domestic partnerships are in danger of losing their right to domestic partner benefits unless they decide to get married.

In her Opening Words Lucy quoted Claudia Black, “It is not the mountain that is moved that makes a difference. It is the little steps taken, one at a time.”  I’ve been thinking about mountains, too, but I’ve not been thinking as much of moving them as scaling them.  It’s been a while since I climbed my last mountain, and even then to a real climber the mountains I hiked would have probably been “really big hills,” but still I can remember viscerally the urge, no the need, to stop.  “Oh man … can’t we … just … take … a break?” Oh, to sit down for a moment.  To pause.  To catch one’s breath.  To take a drink of water and drink in the scenery.

And sometimes you could, but sometimes you couldn’t.  It would take so much energy to get up and get going again on a slope like that, or at this time of day, and you really just had to push on.  Oh, maybe you could pause, but only that.  A quick swig, a quick look around, and then back to the one foot in front of the other.

I want to stop here for a moment, drink in the sight of couples around the country finally free to have their love and their lives legally recognized and affirmed to be equal to that of anyone else.  But there’s a lot of mountain still ahead of us.  As the folks at GetEqual -- #More ThanMarriage – remind us,

• Black queer and trans people are subject to police scrutiny and violence everyday;
• LGBTQ people can be fired without recourse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity;
• Undocumented LGBTQ people can be deported and detained, facing abuse & torture;
• 40% of all homeless youth identify as LGBTQ;
• LGBTQ people continue to face harassment, discrimination, and violence on a day to day basis.

The mountain we’re climbing has many names – Heterosexism, Transphobia, Patriarchy, White Supremacy, Racism.  It is discrimination based on perceived ability, or age, or income.  It is fear of mental illness, or whatever form The Other takes.  In fact, fear may well be this mountain’s first name – fear and hate.

And so, perhaps, now is a good time for us to pause in our climb.  Take off our packs for a moment, maybe unlace our boots.  We can get out our water bottle and that Cliff Bar we’ve been thinking about for the past couple of miles.  We ought to take a moment to look out over that beautiful vista, the view that has opened up with those words, “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.”  What a promising landscape we can see before us.  But then we’ve got to get those boots back on, heft our packs onto our backs, and keep moving.  Oh we’ll get there.  Heaven knows how we will get there.  But we know we will.

Pax tecum,

RevWk

We Never Know

The supervisor of my chaplaincy training advised us to never assume that we know, as we enter a patient's room, how that person is feeling about their situation.  I learned this most memorably from a woman who was in the unit of the hospital for women facing some kind of serious complication in their pregnancy.  I entered her room expressing empathetic concern for her situation, asking how she was doing.  "Me?" she said with a genuine sense of happy contentment.  "I'm fine!"  She went on to say that she had three other kids at home, and that this opportunity to put her feet up for a length of time with no one making any demands on her ... well ... let's just say she wasn't complaining any.  She told me that she figured the health issues would work themselves out one way or the other, so she really wasn't too worried about that.  In the meantime, she was going to enjoy the peace and quiet.

Not what I was expecting, and a great reminder that you never know.

As marriage equality becomes ever more the law of the land, many gay and lesbians couples are choosing to get legally married.  And these weddings, as is true of most heterosexual weddings, have been a source of joy for them, their family and friends.  They even bring joy to the hearts of all those who have long advocated for equal marriage rights for all, whether they know the couple or not.  I recently realized, though, that even here I shouldn't assume a simply celebratory attitude about these weddings.  Things are almost always more complicated than that.

Some of my friends have been in committed partnerships for decades.  Some have had their unions blessed by a religious tradition, and for some the blessing has come through their own love and the love of those in their close communities.  These couples are no less "bound together" than any heterosexual who has had their "marriage" recognized by church and state.

So along with the joy, and in some cases disbelief, that these couples feel at the reality that they can now get "officially" married may well be the pain that they have to now get officially married.  And by this I don't mean that they feel compelled to get married in a legally sanctioned way but, instead, that if they want to have their union legally recognized they have to get married again.

The (still new) opportunity to "get married" is also a reminder that in the eyes of many, and of the state, they haven't been.  It was one more reminder, one more example, of the way(s) their relationships have been devalued and dismissed.  I honestly can't imagine what that has felt, and still feels, like, but I do imagine that it is a lot more complicated than a simple, "Wee!  Now we can get married!"

I want to be clear -- the right to be married has always belonged to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.  It's just that that right has long been denied to couples of the same sex.  These couples who have made formal commitment to one another have always been married.  It's just that their marriages have not been recognized by the majority culture.  It's not that same-gender couples are now suddenly free to do something they've never been able to do before, it's that the heterosexual majority has finally caught up with reality.  We -- heterosexual allies -- can be forgiven for merely celebrating this "victory."  But how can we imagine that this is not more complex for our gay and lesbian friends and family?

Those of us who are part of the majority culture, the dominant culture, the culture that sets the rules -- whether by being straight, or white, or cis-gender (and, especially, cis-gender male), or all of the above -- have the privilege of seeing only what we expect to see.  It's important for us to remember that we truly never know what it's like for someone else when we enter their room.

Pax tecum,

RevWik

An Open Letter to SCOTUS

Dear Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States,

Today you begin hearing arguments on the subject of marriage equality.  Perhaps I can be of service.  I have been making this argument for well over a decade now, and to tell you the truth I am surprised that its cogency has not yet settled this issue once and for all.  I guess that that's your job now.  As an aid, in case it's needed, here is what I have argued in letters to the editor, sermons, bulletin articles, previous blog posts, and anywhere else I find an opening:

1. The "sanctity" of marriage is none of the government's concern.  Sanctity is a religious category and as such is irrelevant to political consideration.  Religious institutions bless unions and declare them sacred; the government can only decide if they are legal.
2. The government does have an interest in regulating the contractual aspect of marriage, striving to ensure that it is effective in promoting social cohesion.  Denying gay and lesbian couples the opportunity to enter into marriages creates a two-tier system of unions which is a decidedly  less effective approach.  Bringing more people within the institution of marriage, and applying the same standards to this contract no matter the gender expression of those who enter into it, is the the most simple, and therefore most effective, approach.  
3. To the argument that recognizing same-gender unions will impinge on religious freedom the first point comes into play again.  There currently legal marriages that have not been sanctified by a religious tradition -- many people choose to be married not in a church or other house of worship but in a courthouse.  These marriages coexist with religiously blessed marriages without any infringement on a religion's ability to establish their own requirements.  Nothing would be different here.
4. To the argument that if the federal government were to overturn state bans they would be defying "the will of the people" who, in many cases, voted for these bans I would simply point out that if "the will of the people" was always paramount we would still have segregated drinking fountains.  (And interracial marriage would still be illegal.)
5. To the argument that marriage, as an institution, must be limited to heterosexual couples because its primary purpose is to create a stable environment in which to bear and raise children all that needs to be noted are the hundreds of heterosexual couples who are infertile or uninterested in raising children.
6. To the argument that gay and lesbian marriages would somehow endanger "the institution of marriage," six words:  Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?    The current high rate of divorce, and the extent of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse within heterosexual marriages would certainly suggest that gay and lesbian marriages are not the danger facing heterosexual marriages.

As an ordained Unitarian Universalist minister I have had the pleasure of officiating at both heterosexual marriages and homosexual unions.  I have seen no difference in the love, the devotion, and the commitment shown by these couples.  It seems inconceivable to me that anyone can still argue that there should be a legal distinction.

Pax tecum,

RevWik

There is More Love Somewhere

On Monday New Jersey became the 14th state in the nation in which it is legal for same-gender couples to be treated identically with two-gender couples.  Even the Governor, Chris Christie, dropped his lawsuit and acknowledged that the court had spoken loud and clear.

I have to say . . . I have never understood what all the brouhaha has been about.  Over the years I've known a number of homosexual couples and a number of heterosexual couples.  And in those years I've seen some relationships work, and others not.  I've seen loving care and respect, and I've seen dishonesty and betrayal.  What differentiated the two was not the gender expression of the couple, but the quality of the relationship.

I am honored to have met and gotten to know two of the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case that set the marriage equality dominoes falling.  They are members of the congregation I served there, and are two of the loveliest people I've ever known.  The love between them was palpable.

And recently two members of the congregation I now serve went to Washington to have their union legally recognized.  They've been together for forty-four years but it is only after their wedding ceremony that they feel they can say to the heterosexual world, "our relationship is as valid, as legitimate as yours." 

Can you imagine?  Doing the hard work of keeping a relationship alive and thriving for over four decades and, yet, being constantly told in ways both overt and subtle that your relationship isn't "real" and doesn't really "count"?  Can you imagine this?  Far too many citizens in our country don't have to -- they live it every day of their lives.

For years, now, people have said that a general acceptance of "gay marriage" will damage and possibly even destroy "traditional" marriage.  The same was said, of course, about interracial marriages until the famous Loving v. Virginia case in 1967.  It was obvious that only people of the same race should marry.  Anything else would be an affront and a danger.

And it's been said that the true purpose of marriage is procreation, the creating of a stable family unit for the perpetuation of our species and our civilization.  Well, them, older couples and infertile couples should only be allowed to have "civil unions" too, because they wouldn't be able to generate biological offspring either.

And it's been said that "the American people" are against same-gender marriages -- at least, under that name -- so that not only tradition but public opinion are against it.  But since 2004 -- a mere nine years -- we've gone from same-gender marriage being outside the realm of most heterosexual's conception to being legal in fourteen states!

If the institution of marriage was able to survive the 2000 on-air nuptials of Rick Rockwell and Darva Conger, highly publicized 55-hour marriage of Britney Spears and Jason Alexander, and the 11-year run of the Bachelor/Bachelorette franchise,  it will certainly survive it's expansion to include loving couples who just happen to share the same gender expression.

Pax tecum,

RevWik

PS -- the title of this post comes from a really wonderful hymn we Unitarian Universalists sing quite a lot.  It is an African American hymn, sung to a tune named after South African activist and martyr Steven Biko.  It's words are:  "There is more love, somewhere. / There is more love, somewhere. / I'm going to keep on / 'till I find it. / There is more love, somewhere."  And so may we all.

Musings on Marriage

It's an odd thing . . .

Tomorrow I get to officiate the wedding of two members of the church I'm serving, two colleagues (well, one colleague and one in training), and two friends . . . all in the same day.  But that's not what's so odd.  It's odd that I have anything to do with it.

I'm told that in the Catholic tradition the only one of the seven sacraments the priest does not perform is the sacrament of marriage.  That, it's been explained to me, can only be performed by the couple themselves.  The priest is merely a witness.

So it is, I believe, in my tradition as well.  Most often, in my experience at least, the wedding is not the beginning of their relationship.  I once officiated at the wedding of a couple who'd lived together for 17 years!!!  During that time they'd raised children, faced good times, and bad.  Certainly their wedding day was not the beginning of their commitment to one another.  And, so, whatever it was that made of them a married couple, it wasn't that a religious figures "solemnized" their "nuptials."

Or consider same sex couples.  In many states -- including my new home of Virginia -- two people of the same gender are not allowed to have someone solemnize their nuptials.  There is no priest or rabbi or imam to bless their union.  And yet I can attest that many of my gay and lesbian friends are just as "married" as any of the straight people I know.

And then, of course, there are myriad of examples of heterosexual marriages that are full of abuse, and infidelity, and disrespect, and which certainly seem to me to be anything but a "marriage."

So what is it that makes a couple "married"?  Simply put, it's their love.  Tomorrow I will describe marriage as "an institution founded in nature, ordained by the state, sanctioned by the church, and made honorable by the faithful keeping of good women and men in all ages."   Truth be told, though, it's all about the love that two people have for each other.  Jamie and Pam will be married because they are making of their lives a committed union, not because of the words said, or the place in which they were said, nor the person (and persons) looking on as they say them.

I do not understand why some people can't understand that the gender of the two people really doesn't matter.  I mean, I actually do understand why some folks think that.  What I don't understand is why they aren't able to see that they're wrong.

Some day they will.  Some day our children will look back and wonder at the prohibitions against same sex marriage the way we look back at the prohibitions against mixed race marriage.  When I began my ministry there was no state in which homosexuals had the same legal right to marry as their heterosexual neighbors.  Now I have to write, "In many states . . ." because now there are states that have come to see the light.  I feel certain, now, that I will live to see this change.

Pax tecum

RevWik

On the Movement for Marriage Equality

Does the world need one more blog post about Chic-Fil-A and its CEO's stand on same-sex marriage?  Isn't this one of those tempest-in-a-teapots, those much-ado-about-nothing situations that are only blown out of proportion by all the pontificating?  After all, Dan Cathy has an absolute first amendment right to free speech.  And if I want this constitutional right which I so deeply cherish to mean anything I must defend it even when the speech seems to me to be mean or hateful.  Even when I find it deplorable.  What's the old saying?  I disagree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it.

I am, after all, a liberal.  I'm a Unitarian Universalist minister, for God's sake!  "Acceptance" and "tolerance" are our hallmarks.  "Freedom" is our mantra.  It's been said that the only thing a UU cannot tolerate is intolerant people . . . and to avoid being one of those intolerant people ourselves we're willing to put up with a whole lot of things.  Sometimes we even end up defending the right of people to say and do those things.

Well, that's just wrong.

Let me say that again because I know some people think that a wishy-washy, moral relativist who "respects the inherent worth and dignity of every person" would never take a stand and say that someone or something else is wrong.

Well, that's wrong too.

My faith tradition affirms and promotes "the free and responsible search for truth and meaning," not a feckless and meaningless search for half-baked platitudes.  And while Dan Cathy certainly has the right to voice his opinions, I have a responsibility to respond with the truths I have found in my searching.  My openness to having my opinions changed as I make new discoveries does not preclude my lifting up the truths I have found and challenging the opinions of others.  In fact, it requires me to do so.  The search I am engaged in is for "truth and meaning," not mere opinions -- whether mine or others'.

So . . . there are people who feel that marriage is a sacred institution that has, since time immemorial been a covenant between one man and one woman.  There are people who feel that heterosexuality is the norm and that homosexuality is, then, abnormal.  Some even believe that there are strict moral strictures against homosexual behavior of any kind and, so, certainly against homosexual "marriage."  These people often feel that the very foundations of civilization are jeopardized by an acceptance of this abnormal and immoral lifestyle.

Here's some of what I have discovered in my "search for truth and meaning":

• Homosexuality may be less common than heterosexuality, but it is no less "normal."  Homosexual behavior has been observed in nearly 1,500 species and is well documented in 500 of them.  And evidence of its presence has been found in every civilization and culture we human beings have ever developed throughout our history.  Feel whatever you want to about it, hold whatever opinions you wish, but the truth of things is that we live in a world in which some men love men and some women love women.  (And not to complicate things, but there are also men and women who are bi-sexual, not because they "can't make up their minds" but because they are naturally and normally attracted to persons rather than genders.  In fact, there are those who argue that this is really the norm for our species . . . but I digress.)
• Marriage is not the monolith so many want to make it out to be.  Throughout our history on this planet -- across countries and cultures -- we human beings have come together in all sorts of different configurations and have held all sorts of opinions about who should, and who should not, be allowed to enter into these relationships.  These opinions have changed over time.  Even looking at one particular swath of human history -- the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition -- we see huge variations in understandings about marriage . . . many which would be considered abhorrent by modern standards.  And just looking at the history of the United States we don't have to look further back than the 1960s -- a mere fifty years ago -- to find a very different conception of marriage than we have today -- marriage between people of different races was considered amoral and illegal.  (The Supreme Court's decision in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case is fascinating reading in light of the current discussion of marriage equality.)  The formula marriage = one man + one woman has never been carved in stone; no understanding of it has.
• And even if you believe that there are religious strictures against homosexuality in general and, so, homosexual marriage in particular, the United States is not governed by religious law.  It never has been, nor was it ever intended to be.  (As lead minister of a congregation named in memory of Thomas Jefferson, I think the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom illustrates the mind-set of this nation's founders quite well on this matter, as does Jefferson's famous comment about a "wall of separation" between church and state.)  The United States is not a theocracy; "Christian Sharia" should be as anathema here as Islamic Sharia would be.  We are a nation of law, not religious codes.

So what about Dan Cathy's right to voice his opinion?  He has that right, or course.  And I applaud his willingness to put his money where his mouth is, as it were, and to financially support the organizations he affirms.  Yet it has also been sagely noted that "your right to swing your arm ends when it impacts my face."  And the opposition of the religious and political right to marriage equality is impacting a lot of faces.

As the bumper sticker puts it, "If you don't condone same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex."  Affirming the right of homosexual couples to marry does nothing to so-called "traditional" marriages.  (If our culture of serial marriage and convenience divorce has not yet destroyed the "sanctity" of marriage, if our cult of celebrity with their marriages that can be measured in days or hours has not destroyed the "sanctity" of marriage, nothing will!)  Affirming the right of homosexual couples to marry -- and I don't say "giving homosexual couples the right to marry" because I believe that they already have this right as human beings but are currently being denied it -- will not require any clergy or congregation to bless such unions.  Religions will, and should, continue to be able to create their own codes of conduct and their own internal laws.  But religion should not be allowed to dictate the laws of our land.

One final thought:  Although the discussion has been framed around the issue of marriage equality the fundamental issue at stake is equality.  Given that the United States is a nation governed by law, and given that both a survey of history and a survey of nature shows that homosexuality is no more nor less "normal" than heterosexuality, should homosexual couples be denied a right that heterosexual couples take for granted?  Should the law distinguish between and create two classes of people -- one with certain inalienable rights and the other without?

That's what we need to be chewing on these days.

In Gasho,

RevWik

10 Questions

Recently a high school student from Christchurch School in Middlesex, Virginia contacted me for help with a school project.  She was arguing in favor of marriage equality and, as one of the requirements of this project, had to contact someone who could be considered "an expert on the philosophy on this subject."  She thought that a Unitarian Universalist minister might just fit the bill.  (She thought this especially after she'd driven through Charlottesville on vacation and seen the "We Support Equal Marriage Rights" banner that hangs proudly on the front of our building!)

Tonight I answered the 10 questions she sent me as our interview.  I thought I'd share my answers here as well:

~ 10 Interview Questions ~

Why did you choose to be a minister at a UU church?

I was raised within the Christian tradition(s) – specifically Presbyterian and Methodist – but was exposed to a wide variety of religious/spiritual teachings growing up:  Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, Shamanism, the teachings of Carols Castenada, Transcendental Meditation, etc.  When it became clear that it was time to act on my long-recognized sense that I wanted to be an ordained minister, I discovered Unitarian Universalist and could see no other tradition that provided the same room and, in fact, encouragement for such an eclectic gumbo of religiosity.

What is the UU view on homosexuality?

Unitarian Universalists recognize homosexuality as one of the ways we humans naturally express our sexuality.  It may be statistically less prevalent than heterosexuality, but no less “normal.”

What is your view on gay marriage?

I find it astonishing that, once the disparity is pointed out to people, that it is not immediately obvious that the current view of “marriage is between a man and a woman” is inherently discriminatory.  I see no convincing – nor even coherent – argument that justifies limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, while I see myriad reasons for expanding our “definition” to include all couples – of any gender arrangement – who want to make a commitment to their loving relationship.

What, religiously, has influenced your view on gay marriage?

Unitarian Universalism is not a creedal religion – that is, we do not organize ourselves around specific sets of belief.  Rather, we are a covenantal religion – our faith communities are organized around shared commitment to certain principles of behavior.  The first that we enumerate is our covenant to “affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of each individual.”  I don't see any wiggle room or exceptions in that.

How do you think gay marriage fits into an American society? (ex, do you think it meshes well, do you think it’s necessary) 

It was not so long ago that Blacks and Whites were not allowed to marry, yet as we evolved as a culture we could see that these anti-miscegenation limitations were truly harmful – both for the individuals involved and for society at large.  The same, I believe, is becoming true of our attitudes toward same gender marriage.  Once again we are learning that “separate is not equal.”

Do you know of any arguments for gay marriage that I probably wouldn’t find in my research?

This is something that I wrote as part of an editorial several years ago:

As a minister, and as a husband, I am very much concerned with the sanctity of marriage.  I view each wedding at which I officiate as a holy event, and pray that no one may tear asunder those “whom God has joined.”  I agree with those who call marriage a sacred institution, and I believe that something much deeper is happening than the mere conferring of legal recognition and status.  As a traditional wedding reading puts it, “This celebration is the outward sign and token of a sacred and inward union of hearts, which religion may bless and the state my register and legalize, but which neither state nor church can create nor annul, a union created by loving purpose and kept by abiding will.”

I am confused, though, why politicians are concerning themselves with the “sanctity” of marriage, which means its holiness or sacredness.  Those are religious concepts.  The issue of the sanctity of marriage is the province of the church or the synagogue, the mosque or the ashram; it’s not the role of government.  As our nation’s founders noted, the only reason governments exist is to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That’s it.  Governments can be concerned with the legal and societal aspects of marriage, but its sanctity is none of their business.

And as odd as this might sound, it’s not even really any of my business as a minister.  The sanctity of a marriage is something between God and the couple.  Whether or not a union is holy does not depend on whether I or anyone else says it is.  It doesn’t depend on whether a book or a community’s traditions says it is.   The only thing it does depend on is whether or not it is, in fact, a holy union.  I’ve had the privilege of officiating at the unions of several lesbian couples whose obvious love and commitment demonstrated to me that theirs was a holy union indeed.  And I’ve know many heterosexual couples whose dishonesty, disregard, and outright abuse of their spouse made their so-called “sanctified” marriage anything but.   

What about against gay marriage?

Sorry, but I can’t really think of any, as I noted above, convincing or coherent arguments against gay marriage.

Why did you choose to work in a UU church in a state where gay marriage is illegal?

Three reasons:  Firstly, the job was offered to me.  (And I have seen no healthier nor more exciting congregations than the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Church – Unitarian Universalist.  How could I pass it up?)  Secondly, our congregation has taken a very public stand in support of the marriage equality movement, among other things hanging a banner on the front of our building that boldly declares our position.  Thirdly, having served a congregation in Massachusetts, where same-gender marriage is legal, I somewhat relish the opportunity to work on increasing the number of states where that is so.

How important is the issue of legalization gay marriage to you? Is there a different aspect about gay relationship legal logistics that is more important?

To be sure, there are many aspects of heterosexism that are in need of being addressed.  I am personally drawn to the issue of marriage equality for several reasons.  My Universalist ancestors declared their theology in the simple three-word phrase, “God is love.” I am then, if you will, in the “love” business.  I believe that the right to enter into a committed relationship with another person is one of life’s great gifts.  It is an unparalleled environment in which to embody this divine love and to nurture not only your own spiritual development, but also another’s, and that of the so-called “third partner,” the marriage itself.  That individuals are being denied this right simply because they love someone whom our culture currently deems to be “the wrong kind of person” offends me deeply.  Further, I find the fact that the language and veneer of religion are used to defend this discrimination – this limitation of love – is abhorrent.

How can gay marriage fit in well with major religions? (Big, broad question, I know. With vast opportunities for long answers!)

I recognize that there are interpretations of certain passages of scripture and certain elements of tradition in many different religions that appear to support a prohibition of same-gender marriage.  I am also aware that there are passages and traditions in these religions which appear to support slavery and ritual murder, as well as prohibiting working on Sundays and (a personal favorite) the wearing of clothing made from mixed fabrics.  At the same time, it seems inescapably clear that these same scripture and traditions hold up again and again the values of love and compassion.  If God made us all then we are all God’s children.  If all sentient beings have Buddha-nature than it does not matter whether you marry someone of your own or of another gender expression.  If all things in creation serve Allah by fulfilling their own nature, then this must be as true for homosexuals as for heterosexuals.  I see no contradiction with what I understand to be the core teachings of any of the great religions humanity has developed.  As the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, has summed up the primary teaching of religion:  “If you can, help people; if you can’t do that, at least don’t harm them.”

I think that this is a pretty good explanation of where I stand.

In Gassho,

RevWik