Love is a Many-Gendered Thing: The Importance of Same-Gender Marriage

Rev. John Millspaugh
February 8, 2004

Life partners Julie and Hillary Goodridge remember it with painful clarity: something their then six-year-old daughter Annie told them two years ago. In Hillary’s own words:

“[I asked Annie who she knows that love each other], and she listed off a whole group of people, and I realized each of these groupings were heterosexual married couples. And so I said to Annie, ‘Well, what about Ma and Mummy? Don’t we love each other?’

And she said, ‘You don’t love each other.’”

And I said, ‘What do you mean?’ And she said, ‘If you loved each other, you’d be married.’”[1]

How to explain to a six year old child? How could Hillary and Julie explain that they could not marry because one of them had a gender not pleasing to the government? Would it help Annie understand if they started the story at the beginning of Hillary and Julie’s partnership, twenty three years earlier? How they had considered themselves married, but had to spend thousands of dollars drawing up legal documents, attempting to approximate the surprisingly complex legal relationship of marriage?

Or should they start with the story of Annie’s own birth? How Hillary was kept outside a hospital room while Julie underwent an emergency Caesarian section on the other side? The only people allowed inside, a nurse told her, were the spouse and immediate family members.

Or should they begin the story after Annie’s birth? How Annie as a newborn had serious complications, and was taken to the neonatal intensive care unit, and Hillary could not see her child, because she had no legal relationship to her. Should they tell Annie that Hillary finally had to cry and lie her way into seeing both her newborn baby and her partner?

Or to explain their relationship should they say what Hillary said in a Nov. 2003 interview [with the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee]:

“If Julie were to die tomorrow, it is not clear that I would have any say as to what to do with her body. I have no legal relationship to the person closest to me, we are not considered “next of kin” in the eyes of the law.” “Paperwork we have created to try to make up for that does not begin to provide what one marriage license provides. While I think social support and public recognition of relationships and weddings is great, I am way past the time in my life when that would mean a lot to me personally. Civil marriage, to me, is about having the economic and social security other families take for granted. And it’s about providing gay and lesbian couples with the dignity of recognition and the rights that go along with that.”

When Annie asked Hillary and Julie why they were not married, They were spurred to go down to city hall and applied for a marriage license. They were denied. Hillary and Julie Goodridge, along with six other couples who had been denied, filed suit to be married.[2] On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same- and opposite-sex couples must be given equal marriage rights under the state constitution – the oldest living Constitution in the world.[3]

Anticipating criticism of their decision, part of the court’s opinion read, "Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race…"[4]

This bold stance, in spite of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union pronouncement that marriage must be defended as only applying between a man and a woman.[5]

Religion and politics meet. Our house of worship, UUCSC, is a sanctuary from dogmatic religious or political thinking and creedal requirements. All are welcome here, whether they are politically conservative or liberal or completely elsewhere. Each of us, we believe, has the right of conscience, even if your conscience differs from mine or your neighbor’s in the pew. Each of us has “the breathtaking responsibility of determining what is true for ourselves and, with humility, being open to new revelation.”[6]

You will never hear a particular candidate or party endorsed, I hope, from this pulpit or by this congregation. But I also hope you will never see this place as politically irrelevant, or our Unitarian Universalist faith as apolitical.

We are morally obliged to act upon the truth we perceive and the values we cherish. At least for me, and I hope for you, “it is not enough to have nice thoughts about the inherent worth and dignity of individuals, or insights about how all life is connected . . .There is too much pain, too many violations of human dignity, to many atrocities against Life . . . to be satisfied with ideas.” “Religious individuals and groups have played a prophetic role in public life throughout history by calling attention to oppression, demanding change, and holding leaders and institutions accountable for their actions and policies.”[7]

“The only issue ever before a religious organization is not shall we involve ourselves in social concerns, but how shall we express and implement our social concerns.”[8]

The question of same-gender marriage. Let’s look at the current political reality through the lens of our religious values. And what are those values?

Well, they differ for every person in this room, but for almost all of us, I’d wager that they’d include a commitment to following, in whatever language might resonate for you :

• Respect for the inherent dignity and worth of every person.
• A belief that diversity is the plan of the universe.
• The conviction that beneath all human diversity, what unites us is more important than what divides us.
• Confidence that sexuality is the Spirit of Life’s good and life-affirming gift to us all, and that it is time for a new attitude toward sexual morality and justice.
• That our view of human sexuality has evolved to the point that we can move beyond the old double-standards…that we can move beyond a so-called morality that focuses its concern on particular forms of sexual expression, which are the obsession of pornographers and prudes alike. That it’s time for a sexual ethic based instead on relationships, on caring, on justice. That it's time for a single standard of responsible conduct for all of us.[9]

That’s the religious lens. Let’s look at the political reality. We each may draw our own conclusions.

In 1997 the General Accounting Office determined that there are more than 1,000 rights, benefits, obligations and protections afforded by marriage.[10]

Those states which now allow civil unions or domestic partnerships provide some or most of those rights to same-gendered couples. Many claim that civil unions are the equivalent of civil marriage. In fact, in the wake of the Massachussetts ruling, Massachusetts legislators opposing the marriage of same-gender couples scrambled to introduce “civil unions,” thinking that this would satisfy the court. Civil unions are purported to be just the same as marriage with two minor differences. First minor difference: marriage is for straight people, and civil union is for gay and lesbian people. They’re “separate, but equal.” Secondly marriage and civil unions are just the same except that the ever-evolving institution of marriage has been around as long as human history and is recognized in all cultures, whereas domestic partnership was invented by the state of Vermont four years ago.

Civil unions are a major legal step forward for gay and lesbian couples, but they’re simply not equal to marriage.

In the wake of the attempt to pass civil union legislation, just this past Wednesday, February 4, the Massachusetts high court ruled that nothing short of gay marriage would pass constitutional muster.

Those that claim that marriage and civil unions are “separate but equal,” miss the point. Legally, only marriages are recognized across state lines, under the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause. If a couple with a civil union move to a different state, their civil union vanishes, and so do the rights, benefits, obligations and protections that come with it, for the adults and the children.

In addition to the legalities, marriage has a social and cultural importance that is difficult to overstate. Marriage is probably the most significant personal commitment two people can make. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other’s side. It represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people grow up dreaming of falling in love, getting married and growing old together, just as much as the next person. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual families will not be truly equal until they, too, can receive marriage licenses.[11] As American history has proven, a separate but equal system does not ensure real equality.

The Massachusetts court noted in its opinion, Without the right to marry, one is "excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws… The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason."[12]

Of course, there will always be those who claim that discriminating against same-gender couples in the matter of marriage is quite rational. You’ve heard the arguments. It’s been said that that as psychologically unfit as people, not to mention as parents. On the website of the Family Research Council’s Center for Marriage and Family studies—their website called “no gay marriage dot com,” their director is quoted as saying, “Homosexual behavior is directly associated with higher rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence.

There is no reason to reward such behavior by granting it society’s ultimate affirmation—the status of civil marriage—or any of its benefits."[13]

Let’s face it, a significant percentage of the American population holds that view. Many of us were raised with that view. If that view were true, there would certainly be cause for concern. The only thing is, it’s not true. Not at all.

By 2002, the nation's leading child welfare, psychological and children's health organizations had issued position statements declaring that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. Many also have condemned discrimination based on sexual orientation. These statements came from the

• American Psychological Association in 1976,
• American Psychiatric Association in 1997,
• American Psychoanalytic Association in 2002,
• Child Welfare League of America in 1988,
• North American Council on Adoptable Children in 1998,
• American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002,
• American Academy of Family Physicians in 2002,
• And the American Bar Association in 1995,

As if that were not enough, in 2001 the American Sociological Review published a meta-analysis of 20 years worth of studies of gay parenting.

The conclusion? That the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child’s mental health and social development.”[14]

“According to conservative estimates from the 2000 census, there are more than 1 million children being raised by same-sex couples in the United States. . . “One thing that both sides of the marriage issue can agree upon is that marriage strengthens families. Children are more secure if they are raised in homes with two loving parents who have a legal relationship with them and can share the responsibility of parenthood. Without the ability to establish a legal relationship to both parents, children of same-sex couples are left without important protections, such as Social Security survivor benefits. These children should not be penalized just because their parents are gay.”[15]

As a congregation, where do we stand? I’ll tell you. We stand at a critical point in history. In 1996, Congress passed what they called the “Defense of Marriage Act”, or DOMA, which says marriage only can exist between a man and a woman. Since that time, 37 states have passed their own DOMAs, limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Yet, marriage for same sex couples will be available in Massachusetts in about three months. According to the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause, states are mandated to recognize marriages performed in other states.

In the coming months and years, the national and state DOMAs are sure to come into conflict with the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause. This is becoming one of the civil rights issues of our times. Not only in this country; gay and lesbian marriage are now legal in two Canadian provinces, Ontario and British Columbia. We will watch with interest how this all unfolds.

But as religious people, I hope we do more than watch. Gay and lesbian marriage is more than a symbolic issue; it has a real and significant impact on the lives of millions, adults and their children.

In the coming days, I invite you to reflect on the political involvement to which your heart calls you. I invite you to support and defend everyone’s right to love whomever they will, and lawfully to marry if that is where their hearts lead. I invite you to reflect on your religious values, which may include the convictions

• That every person has inherent dignity and worth,
• that diversity part of the majesty and beauty of the universe,
• that what unites us is more important than what divides us.
• that sexuality and family life is the Spirit of Life’s good and life-affirming gift to us all, and
• that it’s time to move beyond the old double-standards toward a sexual ethic based on relationships, on caring, and on justice.

In the coming days, I invite you to be open to revelation and listen to where your heart is leading you. And in the coming years, I invite you live your religion out loud.

May our lives be filled with faith, hope, love, and joy, as we serve the ever-expanding Spirit of Life.

Shalom, Salaam, Namaste, Blessed Be, and Amen.

[1] Transcript available at Nightline on Same-Sex Marriage, 11/18/03.   (Return to article)

[2] Transcript available at Same-sex marriage advocate Unitarian Universalist Service Committee web page Goodridge interviewed by UUSC.    (Return to article)

[3] Human Rights Campaign, “Frequently Asked Questions: Goodridge et  al. v. The Department of Public Health”   (Return to article)

[4] Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Slip Opinions, Hillary GOODRIDGE & others vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another;   (Return to article)

[5] George W. Bush, 2004 State of the Union Address;   (Return to article)

[6] From an undated, untitled sermon by Rev. Sarah Moldenhauer-Salazar on religion and politics. I also consulted Fred Small’s “Why Gay Marriage Matters” (Feb 2, 2003) in writing this sermon.   (Return to article)

[7] UUA Washington Office for Advocacy, “The Real Rules: Congregations and IRS Guidelines on Advocacy, Lobbying, and Elections”   (Return to article)

[8] Rev. Clarke Wells as quoted by Moldenhauer-Salazar.   (Return to article)

[9] This paragraph is excerpted from a speech I co-wrote with UUA President John Buehrens, which he delivered at the Millenium March on Washington for Equality, April 30, 2000.   (Return to article)

[10] “Linda,” “The Gay Marriage Debate: What do we know and how do w know it?” October 12, 2003   (Return to article)

[11] This paragraph adapted from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, “Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions—What’s the Difference?”    (Return to article)

[12] Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Slip Opinions, Hillary GOODRIDGE & others vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another    (Return to article)

[13] Peter Sprigg, “Questions and Answers:What’s Wrong with Letting Same-Sex Couples ‘Marry?’”    (Return to article)

[14] “Linda,” “The Gay Marriage Debate: What do we know and how do we know it?” October 12, 2003    (Return to article)

[15] Center for Policy Alternatives, “Civil Marriage Equality,”    (Return to article)