“Dear Supreme Court Justices:
RE Marriage of Same-Gender  Persons”
A Sermon for West Seattle Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
January 23, 2005
Peg Boyle Morgan

“The Court concludes that the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage and the privileges attendant thereto is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest and is certainly not narrowly tailored toward such an interest.” 
Hon. William L. Downing, King County Superior Court

Readings
Fred Craddock, a teacher, minister, and preacher, tells this story.
Years ago in the mountains of Tennessee there lived a boy whose mother was not married when he was born. In that time and in that culture, the mother was frowned upon and indeed scorned. As he grew the boy felt the love of his mother, but also the scorn of the townsfolk. At recess, his classmates would ostracize him, and he learned to keep to himself.

At 12 the boy took up going to church on his own. A new minister had come to the church near his house. He would slip into the building just as the services began, into the back row and leave before it was over.

However, one Sunday he forgot to slip out, so taken was he with the service and the singing. Before he could quietly exit, he felt the hand of the minister on his shoulder. The preacher looked at him and asked, “Who are you, son?” “Whose boy are you?” 
The boy’s heart sank. But then the preacher answered, “Wait a minute. I know who you are. The family resemblance is unmistakable. You are a child of God.” 
The preacher patted him on the back and added, “That’s quite an inheritance. Go, and claim it.” 

SECOND READING FROM Rev. Mark Gallagher, Vancouver WA
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.

SERMON
Dear Supreme Court Justices:
You have before you a major justice issue.  On March 8th, you will hear arguments for and against the right of gay and lesbian people to be issued marriage licenses.  This is not a decision like deciding about the appropriate funding for roads, or who is responsible to clean up Hanford.

This is a decision that affects the personhood of human beings.  This is a decision that in essence will result in your saying whether the love that arises between human beings who are same gender is legitimate, able to be documented by the artificial rules and definitions that we call laws.  When I think about that, I think that the government ought to get out of the marriage business all together, and let those who wish to file joint partnerships do so, for how dare we allow the ability of government to decide who is married and who is not, for real marriage is not created by government law or religious ceremony, but rather by two people who enter into it reverently and hopefully.  I have met legally married people who seemed to have little love or commitment between them, and I have officiated the commitment ceremonies of twenty or more gay and lesbian couples, all of whom embodied deep courageous love and commitment.  But such a step of getting government out of the marriage business is unrealistic, and so we must pursue equality in the law.

This issue before you is an issue of constitutional justice because the privileges of civil marriage are not being afforded to all citizens equally.

Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court wrote in a 1967 court decision for a case, ironically named “Loving vrs. Virginia.”  The case legalized the right for mixed raced couples to marry in this country---1967!  Only 37 years ago!  Warren wrote:  “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the basic civil rights of man.” 

To deny the extension of this decision to gays and lesbians is a denial of due process and a denial of the privileges legislated for those who can legally prove “marriage.”  Over one thousand state and federal statues give privileges such as ownership assumptions in our community property state, medical information and visiting privileges, federal, state and private business medical and financial benefits, and the right to not testify against one’s spouse.  Denial of these privileges is unfair.

But I know that your job is not “fairness” per se, but constitutionality.  And so we must look at those arguments before you.

There are arguments put forth by those against legalizing same-sex marriage that preserving the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage is in the compelling interest of the state, for reasons relating to religion, morality, and family stability. 

You will hear them argue that issuing licenses to same gender couples is against their religion and what they deem to be moral behavior.  To this argument, please recognize that no one religious group or organization speaks for all religions, and that many religions officially support the right of marriage for all committed couples.  Therefore, one conception of “moral and religious” should not be accepted over another.  The law should not be based on the most restrictive of religions but on free exercise of common civil rights as the Warren Court stated.

You will hear cries from some religious clergy that if same gender couples are granted marriage licenses, their free exercise of religion will be restricted. To this argument, please remind them that no one will force any religious institution to officiate weddings they choose to reject.  Furthermore, by not allowing those of us who wish to officiate legal marriages for same gender persons, OUR free exercise of religion is restricted. 

You will hear great moaning that if same gender couples are granted marriage licenses, the institution and tradition of marriage will be damaged.  To this argument may we remember that the institution of marriage has been in continual flux as to who could be married since it was named in 14th century France with the French word marier.  During the Spanish Inquisition, marriage rights were denied to Jews and slaves.  Martin Luther, during the Reformation, pronounced that marriages were not sacraments, but civil arrangements.  Thus in many places of Europe, one must first be married at city hall, and then the marriage may be blessed by the church.  In Europe and in other parts of the world, marriage used to be decided by parents, partners being chosen for their children for the benefit of the extended family wealth and social status.

In colonial Virginia the only people who could get married were Anglicans.  Of course African American slaves, and even freed slaves were not allowed to wed.  In the 1700’s you couldn’t get married if you had a handicap, such as blindness, deafness or emotional illness.  In 1924 Virginia passed a law against interracial marriage to “preserve the integrity of the white race” not unlike Hitler’s prohibition of Germans marrying Jews.  During the time of the American Revolution women who married became property of their husbands, with few rights of their own.  In the early 1960’s I remember one family that I went to high school with, where the family rule was that the eldest daughter had to marry first, before the girl my age could get married.  There is no static tradition of marriage, and serving any tradition, solely for the sake of tradition is not in and of itself a compelling state interest. 

There are arguments that suggest that a compelling interest of the state is to restrict marriage to heterosexuals to support procreation and nurturance of children.  However, laws have never required couples to have children, nor have laws prohibited marriage of persons unable to procreate.  Marriage being for procreation is an old fashioned conception of marriage.  To argue that a prerequisite for having children is being heterosexual or being in a heterosexual committed relationship, is clearly outmoded today for now with adoption and with advanced procreative medicine, single people regardless of their gender, and same gender couples may have children.  Also, research has shown that children raised and nurtured in same gender homes turn out to be at least as healthy as children raised in heterosexual homes.  And so in the words of the judge who heard the same gender marriage license case in King County last year: “The legal question is not whether heterosexual marriage is good for the replenishment of the species through procreation.  It is.  The precise question is whether barring committed same gender couples from the benefits of the civil marriage laws somehow serves the interest of encouraging procreation.  There is no logical way in which it does so.” (Hon. William L. Downing  August 4, 2004)  

And I would add that there is no logical way that prohibiting same gender couples from legal marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage.  A stable family is a stable family, but the gender of the parents does not assure stability.  To not provide marriage as an option for same gender partners creates a greater instability for their children, which seems to counter the compelling interest of the state for stable care of children. 

For the above reasons related to due process, diversity of moral views, and the best interests of adults and children, I urge you to strike down this state’s Defense of Marriage Act of 1998 and issue the order to begin allowing marriage licenses for same gender partners throughout Washington State.

Constitutional arguments aside, this case is also a matter of emotional human justice.  One of the greatest needs we have as humans is to love others, and to be loved.  Marriage, no longer a business arrangement, has now become a private, inner experience that grows out of the heart; I often say in marriage ceremonies “This day is a special one for it was conceived in their own hearts.”  And today, marriages are rooted in the radical freedom to choose one’s life partner; essentially founded on love and devotion and the desire to live out one’s life beside another.   We get to choose our life partner, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or class.  And when we do find someone with whom we have the intuitive hunch that living together with them for the rest of our lives would be wonderful, and when they agree, well then we naturally want to celebrate our hearts’ delight, publicly declaring, like the man standing in the square in Rome in the tv commercial does with a shout: “I love this woman!” 

In our society this is still not a safe thing to do for gays and lesbians.  Your decision can begin to change that.  While it seems ok to go on television and choose a mate for money in the reality tv shows, it is not ok for gays or lesbians to declare their choice of mates when their choice is based upon pure love. 

Interesting values we hold in this country.  Rather than honoring marriage as a sanctified relationship where couples of any sexual orientation might pledge mutual love, fidelity, intimacy and forgiveness, qualities of a sacred marriage that we heard in our reading, this country glorifies marriage as access to money, fame and social status. As Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands legalize marriage for same gender people, our country’s President espouses bigotry by calling for a constitutional amendment.  Recognizing the futility of that, he gained what political points he needed during the election and now has backed away from that objective.  But, it is still not safe to declare that you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or questioning your sexuality. (GLBTQ for short). Too many among us must be very careful on their jobs when talking over the water cooler about the romantic weekend they had, or about the trip they are planning. 

In the movie Four Weddings and a Funeral, with Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell, there were two lesser known characters, Gareth and Matthew, middle aged men who no one seems to know are in a long term committed relationship, until Gareth dies.  It was during the funeral scene that their deep love is shown, …and their common humanity.  There Matthew makes his first formal public declaration of love for Gareth.  He wasn’t able to declare his love in a public marriage ceremony.  But here at the funeral, he does not hold back.  Deeply mourning, Matthew reads aloud to all present this Auden poem:

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He is Dead,
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk,  my song;
I thought that love would last for ever:  I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now:  put out every one,
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun,
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods;
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

I know that you, Honorable Justices, need to make your decision based upon constitutional grounds, and I am confident that the constitutional grounds are there for you to declare same gender marriage as a civil right, but I also know that your decision goes way beyond that. 
For without legal same gender marriage, same gender life partnerships are not legitimatized in the eyes of society as a whole, and without same gender committed life partnerships being legitimatized, gay and lesbian people are being told that they are not children of God, which is sending the message that they are not whole and good and precious people.  The little boy in our story feared another person demeaning him.  But he was saved by the beating heart of love.

African American author Alice Walker said:  “Love is not concerned with whom you pray or where you slept the night you ran away from home.  Love is concerned that the beating of your heart should kill no one.”  It is time for our society to stop the killing the hearts and souls of our GLBTQ citizens.

Our Universalist heritage stood for the belief that all people are universally good in the eyes of God, regardless of who our parents were, or who we loved, or what we did.  Now in this age, I believe that WE are the hands, and hearts and eyes of God, and it is up to us to see this good news of universality. 

Your Honors, your decision affects us all, for your decision represents us all in this democracy.  Your decision touches us all, gay and straight and bisexual, for any state that denies a civil right to a particular group of people, is a scary place for all of us to live.  Such denial shows a lack of respect for the common worth and dignity of all people.  Such denial shows an arrogance.  Such denial shows a power move that denies economic and social advantages to some of the best among us.  Such denial is oppression, not unlike the oppression that all minority race people experience—racism being still an unresolved problem in our country. 

Not unlike all the oppressive “isms” we are still fighting in this country.  And there is no hierarchy of oppressions.  We need not choose one to fight over another.  We do need to stand up when the moment calls for us to speak up for others who are oppressed.  For our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, that time is now in Washington State.

I hope and pray that you make the just decision.  I hope and pray that you make what I see as the constitutional decision.  We are counting on you to do the right thinking and to do the right thing. 

So may it be. 

Sincerely,

Rev. Peg Boyle Morgan, Minister
West Seattle Unitarian Universalist Fellowship