Clergy Stand Up for Marriage -- Same-Sex and Otherwise

The conventional wisdom is that religious people oppose marriage rights for same-sex couples. The conventional wisdom is wrong. This Unitarian Universalist minister is thrilled that I can now perform legal marriages for lesbian and gay couples in my home state of Connecticut. And I am hardly alone.

Today in California, my organization -- the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing -- is announcing that more than 2,200 ordained clergy from across the country are calling for full equality for same-sex couples in both religious and civil marriage. In an "Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Marriage Equality", they call for "marriages based on responsibility, equity, and love, without restrictions based on the biological sex, procreative potential or sexual orientation of the partners."

This is quickly becoming the mainstream position. The clergy who endorsed the "Open Letter" represent a cross-section of American faith, including local priests, ministers, rabbis and imams from every state in the country, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. They come from more than 50 faith traditions, from Roman Catholic to Eastern Orthodox, American Baptist to United Church of Christ, as well as Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist and Interfaith.

Nationwide, in both secular and religious circles, support for marriage equality is growing. The reason, I believe, has partly to do with society's embrace of lesbian and gay people, but even more so with the understanding that same-sex marriage is actually a pretty traditional idea. Marriage equality is a means of strengthening families and encouraging stable, respectful relationships. It fulfills the biblical call to do justice and to love our neighbors as ourselves. It allows clergy to solemnize marriages according to the dictates of their own faith, without the government favoring one religious belief over another.

On Election Day, voters in California will decide whether to keep marriage for same-sex couples legal, while voters in Arizona and Florida will decide whether to enshrine marriage discrimination in their state constitutions. These citizens have an opportunity to stand for fairness, in matters of family and faith. I pray they make the right choice.

Comments

[MeritRs]

As the core social institution of our society, marriage in the United States should be defined as it has been in every civilization around the world for thousands of years: marriage is the union between a man and a woman. People of faith who believe in God also know this is stated in the Old Testament to the New Testament. Recently reported a San Francisco elementary school took first or second graders to see a gay marriage. This is desensitizing our youth to grow up and think that this is acceptable, children should not be exposed to that, I am shocked that was allowed, and if I was a parent of that child I would sue the school, those children’s right’s were violated! As long as society allows this, this will continue to spread into every area of life. Look what as happened to abortions, now woman use abortions as a form of birth control. Marriage is protected by our Constitution and for the minority that decides to be liberal and live that kind of life, they should not be trying to force the rest of us to accept it. Celebrity role models, movies and TV have played a huge part in desensitizing our youth with corruption. What does God want from you? To be Just, have Mercy and Walk humbly with your God. Micah 1-7.

[LisaLisa1234]

As a member of the clergy, I look at things a little differently, and I have only seen a few who agree with me.

My thoughts are, as an avid believer in the separation of church and state, to remove "marriage" from the legal language, and that all unions--he­terosexual­, homosexual, and even (gasp) polygamous (for adults only)--be given equality as "civil unions"...with all the legal rights (and responsibilities) associated with them.

Let the term "marriage" be given by the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. A commitment, before God, until death do they part.

I believe we all are served in a society where commitment and stability are not only allowed, but encouraged--whether or not someone agrees with another's morality.

[mbuitron]

I completely agree. If one reads the California Supreme Court decision, it was about using the same definition for all couples, not a referendum on gay marriage. That way the religious institutions could have their word, and gay folks can some rights.
My argument is fleshed out a bit more here:
http://imoralist.blogspot.com/2008/11/letter-to-harassed-christian.html

[Retrofuturistic]

What we need is to get to the point where we DON'T CARE what the "clergy" thinks about any of our decisions about our private lives. Or anything else, for that matter.

[mommadona]

I've always thought this 'argument' came from the wrong direction.

Why religious affiliations did see this as an affront to their spiritual duty is beyond me.

MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS RITUAL....the recognition of that ritual by the 'government du jour' is only for COMMUNITY AND CIVIC needs - ie: home ownership/­children/e­conomic processes.

The GOVERNMENT has no basis or right to decide what MARRIAGE is...THAT is up to each religious group's interpretation.

You don't need a JUDGE to get married.
You don't need a POLITICIAN to get married.

The 'LICENSE' issued by the 'state' ACKNOWLEDGES THE RELIGIOUS RITUAL - NOT the other way around-and only for CIVIC process needs.

As a Universal Life Priestess - I'd be happy to be the one who ties the knot for any soul mates that wish.

[mommadona]

"Why religious affiliations did see this as an affront to their spiritual duty is beyond me."

Meant to type "Why religious affiliations DID NOT see this..."

[DragonMama]

Thank you Rev. Haffner for representing our faith so wonderfully (I'm a UU in Cleveland, Ohio). This is how I explain things to people who have trouble wrapping their minds around the necessity of marriage equality:

When people who love each other make a legal and spiritual commitment to spend their lives together, it does not in any way affect my heterosexual marriage.

When a child in my son's classroom has to go without, arriving at school hungry, cold and hurting because their family is trying to make ends meet while maintaining separate health care policies for the child's same-sex parents, my son's classroom environment suffers.

When the surviving partner in an elderly gay couple is suddenly and unexpectedly widowed, leaving them unable to keep their home because our government doesn't give them surviving partner benefits, my neighborhood suffers.

When talented gay and lesbian couples leave my state for ones that will legally recognize their marriage, my regional economy suffers.

Stresses like my son's classroom, my neighborhood going downhill due to more empty houses, and loss of talented workers CAN have a bad impact on heterosexual marriages. If you can't support marriage equality because it's the right thing to do for "them", support it because it's the right thing for your own heterosexual marriage's stability.

[OtayPanky]

I'm 100% in agreement with your position - but you're optimistic view of American clergy is unwarranted.

The state of the same sex marriage debate can be accurately gauged by looking how the big denominational groups approach the question of homosexuality generally. And the bottom line is that it remains morally unacceptable as a behavior to most of the big denominations: the Roman Catholics, the Evangelicals, most of the mainline Protestants, the Orthodox and Conservative Jews (if I am not mistaken).

Happily, for those gays and lesbians who do want to marry, or to attend faith based communities, there are options that have emerged in our society. But we're not there yet - not in our civil discourse, nor in our religous discourse either.

It's important to see things as they are - not as we wish they would be.

[AnotherTry]

How can Obama/Biden be against same-sex marriage AND Prop 8? How stupid do they think we are?

[Kerris]

Thanks for this article and the encouraging stats about the numbers of open minded clergy.

On the issue of voting pro or con these ammendments, I voted absentee in Florida and was shocked at the wording of the proposal to create a straight-only marriage ammendment. I am a pretty well educated person, but I could barely parse the tricky language used -- I could barely tell whether to press "yes" or "no" if I wanted this damned ammendment stopped. The language seemed to be deliberately confusing -- why not just clearly ask the question "Should an ammendment be made to the Florida constitution to ban gay marriage or any marriage other than one between one man and one woman?" Then voters could answer yes or no with a clear mind..... as the wording stands now, I can see many people not being sure how they are voting. This is the kind of thing that undermines democracy -- not the silliness over Acorn.

[LeeAlex]

Thank you, Rev. Haffner!

In my church we are now performing marriages. All marriages. Opposite sex and same-sex. I have yet to see a straight marriage dissolve before my eyes, despite the predictions of a few visitors who have tried to save us all from the fires of hell.

When you think that some couples have been together 20 years or more, it's heartbreaking to realize how badly their civil rights were trod upon. I've been in a couple of situations of being in the middle as a family has refused hospital visitation rights to a partner and it's ugly, ugly, ugly. I've heard of another situation where one partner died and the family ransacked the house while the surviving partner was at the hospital in grief.

I stood with one of our church couples as they applied for a marriage license the first day they were legal in California. As a seminarian, it is the least I can do, to witness to a declaration of love between two of God's beloved children. Even better is seeing the adoption of children going through for these newly wedded couples and knowing that they have all the rights a heretofore typical family would have. May all those now taking the step to become a family of two or more realize peace and contentment. It's long overdue.

[thebigbike]

Well, Rev. I wish you all the best, you have a tremendously rocky row to hoe here For many of us same sex oriented people we continue to wait to hear your colleagues in this postion visibly publicly and LOCALLY confront their fellow "believers" and "faith communities" who demonize us. But keep up the good work!

[DragonMama]

Try walking into your local Unitarian Universalist church if you have one, or United Church of Christ. UUs generally aren't specifical­ly/overtly Christian (Christianity is just one part of the Greater Truth we strive to understand - other parts come from other world religions as well as individual insights historical, contemporary, and within our own walls). My mother was raised UCC but I was raised unchurched, as was my husband. He is an Atheist, I am a Theist, we are both openly accepted and very active members of our UU church, as well as our gay and lesbian friends. Our congregation just publicly acknowledged and celebrated the 40 years of loving union between 3 gay men. I am inspired by their union and true partnership, it's so above and beyond what I was raised with in terms of respect and stability.

[progressivepam]

In my very conservative neighborhood in CA, it is the local UU congregation and the local United Church of Christ who are organizing the No on Prop 8 campaigns. Very, very active. And wonderful communities.

[llisa]

Bless you, Rev.

[johnnyjust]

There are many religious people. Jesus railed against the religious leaders. His love is for everyone, but unfortunately many are called, few are chosen. Religiosity won't save the atheist.

[polyfoamworkshop]

There really is nothing wrong with same sex marriage, it is a way of life for many. The thought that it would unravel the institution of marriage between man and women is truly outdated and wrong. We as humans must evolve beyond superstition. There are many ways to have a loving family.