Marriage Equality Is a Theological Necessity

New York - As people of faith and leaders of religious institutions in New York City, we support ending the exclusion of our gay brothers and sisters from civil marriage. Opponents of marriage equality too often attempt to use arguments about religion to denounce equal civil marriage laws. As Christians, we believe it is crucial for us to support the freedom to marry for loving and committed gay couples. In fact, we believe it is a theological necessity, and we call on our state legislators to take action to end inequality now.

Our support for marriage equality is motivated by our religious commitments, not in spite of them. Our Christian faith teaches us the uncompromising, unconditional love of God for all people. Bound together by that love we are all deserving of dignity, equality, and justice. But, because of our belief in the universal capacity to sin, we are suspicious of merely private efforts to enshrine equality, recognizing that all people and all groups are susceptible to prejudice, error, and mistreatment of and by others. Children of the Protestant Reformations, we believe that the state exists to uphold absolute and unequivocal equality under the law for all persons. As religious communities continue to wrestle with interpretation of sacred texts about the meaning and ordinance of marriage, our gay brothers and sisters deserve the same dignity, respect, and protections under the law as different sex couples receive in our state and our country.

Marriage equality and religious freedom are not in conflict. When states grant the civil rights of marriage to gay couples, religious communities still maintain their right to recognize whichever relationships they see fit as a religious community. We believe that debates about the meaning of Christian marriage can only take place honestly when the state provides equality and fairness for all. This is all the more true because there is no one Christian position about marriage: many different interpretations exist within our traditions, and it is a challenging task within Christian communities to discern our way forward despite theological differences. While we welcome theological discussion about the religious understanding of marriage, we insist on full, equal civil rights for all couples who wish to share their lives in committed and loving relationships with one another.

Imagine, on any given day, couples from myriad faith traditions entering churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, even beaches and backyards to wed with the blessing and rituals of their religious communities -- but the legal contracts that bind them by the power of the state all look the same. In a land of true equality, civil marriage contracts must be open to all loving couples who seek to undertake the promises and responsibilities of life-long partnership.

The dedication to upholding religious freedom through civil equality was reaffirmed in the Iowa Supreme Court's decision which ended marriage discrimination against gay couples in Iowa. The ruling stated, "[W]e give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage -- religious or otherwise -- by giving respect to our constitutional principles....The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires."

We've also learned from nearly five years of marriage equality in Massachusetts that religious freedoms are not endangered because civil equality has been upheld. In Massachusetts the institution of marriage is being strengthened by loving and committed gay couples receiving marriage licenses from the state. At the time of this writing, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine have joined Massachusetts in ending marriage discrimination against gay couples. It is time for New York to take action and support marriage equality.

As ministers and people of faith, we call on the legislative leaders of New York to decisively end marriage discrimination in our state. We call too on our fellow Christians to engage in robust theological discussion within our communities about the meaning, value, and role of Christian marriage without resorting to tactics of fear-mongering and civil disputes.

We stand with our legislators as people of faith in support of fairness for all families. Attacks will come, cloaked in the language of religion, from those who oppose equality. But speaking as committed Christian leaders in New York, we support the promise of civil freedom and equality. We cannot abandon civil rights protected by the state without endangering the very ground for religious freedom. Ending the exclusion of gay couples from marriage will strengthen families and provide loving, committed couples with the full equality under the law that our faith teaches us is requisite for any just society. As people of faith we call for full marriage equality and give thanks to God for the civil government that will allow it.

Comments

[Athena123]

I grew up in a conservative evangelical christian home, but rejected christianity about 10 years ago. I am now an atheist. From this perspective, I am surprised and pleased by this article. The church is famous for blocking equal rights - they supported slavery and oppression of women because the bible condoned these practices. The same arguments are now being used to oppress gays and trans-gendered, and I'm glad the progressive christian movement seems to be a "gentler, kinder" brand of christianity. However, I am also confused because it does seem to be against the bible's teachings. How does a progressive christian accommodate these tolerant and civic-minded belief systems with the bible? Is it a matter of picking and choosing which parts of the bible will be followed?

[castaway5555]

Reading Tom Wright's "Justification" - his chapter on Galatians - p.133 - Paul's demolition of the usual social/eth­nic/religi­ous markers - a whole new family in the Messiah - I keep thinking there's theological grist here for the "theological necessity" of marriage equality.

I really appreciate your positive take on Christian commitment - (of which I am one) - that we believe in marriage equality because of our faith in the Messiah and not in spite of it. For too long, the "evangelical" wing of the church has defined the terms and set the bar - they're wrong, and I think they know it (as evidenced by the fidgety aggression), but don't know how to get out of the corner into which they've painted themselves.

It's time for progressive Christians to define the terms and set the bar (really low, so that everyone can come into the kingdom!).

Excellent piece of writing - thanks so much!

[SJBrown]

I don't get the reference to the evangelical wing of the church reference. Are you talking about a particular faith tradition or a subset of Christians in general independent of faith?

I have never heard of a "marriage equality" message from any denomination.

I'm not a church goer any more, has it changed so much that the church is preaching equality in marriage between a man and a woman AND support for marriage equality as a union between any two people independent of gender?

[Andrew Murphy 1]

Brilliantly Written! Well Done! As a UK citizen with an American boyfriend who is having to consider leaving the country he loves for the man he loves I commend you! Here we have equality of marriage however in a way which allowed the many religious people unlike yourselves to retain "marriage". We call it a Civil partnership and states every law in the UK about marriage, married people etc must now be read to mean marriage or civil partnership. So in every aspect of law we have the same rights as married people. To me this is sensible because I dont care what you call it if I get to live my life in peace with my man.

I hope you are preaching this message to all of your people and changing some minds so maybe one day we can live together a country we both love.

P.S. for all of those people who use children as a weapon here. Children are not an essential part of marriage, many heterosexual couples marry and choose not to have children, one does not preclude the other. Even and if they do choose to have children, I have a straight friend who had 2 mothers who turned out brilliantly, no parents are perfect, be they straight, gay, black, white, fat, thin being a good parent depends on the people, not one characteri­stic...you will get awful gay parents, you will get amazing ones no different from heterosexual parents...­.

[JohnBisceglia]

"P.S. for all of those people who use children as a weapon here" -

LOL. I hear ya. I use the example of children as an argument FOR marriage equality.

There are SO many children in gay-led families and there are a multitude of blended families who love and raise children (some are society's abandoned/unwanted children) - marriage inequality hurts these families in countless ways. When inequality separates a mother and her child or keeps a daughter from seeing her mother in the hospital, that is evil harm due to the legal hatred of our families. Our children.

I also wonder how all of these anti-gay amendments (as in PROP 8) have affected children's development. Did ANYONE consider children's psychological well-being as these youngsters saw signs FOR or AGAINST their Mommy? Against their own family? Signs everywhere that were YES or NO - your family wins or loses - again, we're talking about how SAFE children feel in the world. It is child abuse.

I thought it was criminal to wage psychological warfare on tax-paying citizens by giving them LONG-OVERDUE civil rights - and then allowing society to vote them away. Revolting. Worth a revolution, at least in thought, if not in action.

[SJBrown]

The state required marriage licenses for marriages performed in the church. For hundreds of years the state licensing was directly linked to church liturgy and required a minister's name as part of the licensing process.

I can't find any deliberate redefining of marriage into a civil model. What I do see is that the state decided to end the requirement for a minister to perform the ceremony. Civil marriage--the state performs marriages ceremonies in addition to licensing. In my home state, that wasn't until 1963.

We need to accept that the state licensed religious marriage contract and it was between a man and a woman. It then took on a civil version of the same. It is was it is.

The state can create a license for other relationships and has without a debate on existing contract/license.

If we admit that the history of marriage is not grounded in a heterosexual vs. homosexual dynamic maybe we can create a reasonable civil marriage/p­act/partne­rship license/contract.

Equality in marriage has to be more than access to a license with the word "marriage" on it. Marriage certainly isnt' equal for men and women today. Are the authors suggesting the church advocates for equality in marriage between a man and a woman?

BTW. The state does not require love, children, religion, or sex in a civil marriage.

[LeftRight]

The state NEVER required a minister to perform the ceremony, a justice of the peace was able to do so, which includes judges, etc...

[SJBrown]

The state required marriage licenses. The requirement for the license was the name of the minister. I don't think it's on the license anymore.

So what is your point? Are you saying that the state never licensed religious marriage ceremony/contract?

[Pema]

Equal rights or no equal taxation! dont ask dont tell says to me dont bother signing up.

[TryToBeFlexible]

How about this? If your religion forbids YOU from marrying someone of the same sex, then you don't do it. Otherwise, mind your own business, and keep your fanaticism to yourself. It embarassing to everyone else.

[Pema]

hold on trytobeflexible (try harder) show me where the new testiment says no, you cant because it doesnt. you cant legislate morality, people who tried to do that the last several years have a party that is dieing like a model T.

[LeftRight]

TryToBeFlexible was BEING flexible here, they said that no matter if your religion says to not be gay, that means that you yourself can not be gay and leave the rest of us ALONE!!

[AnotherTry]

"In the end, it is not the words of our enemies that we remember. It is the silence of our friends" -Dr. Martin Luther King

This quote does not apply to you two. Thank you deeply.

[johnbdonovan]

This is confusion cloaked in the language of religion. What's really at stake here are the rights of all human beings to have both a masculine and a feminine parental influence as they are growing up. That's when love has its maximum impact. Gender matters, especially in child-rearing. Anyone who says that you just add one guy to another and have the equivalent of a mother in the package is just talking nonsense.

[TryToBeFlexible]

So? Has nothing to do with civil rights for gay citizens. In fact, it is your personal cherry picked opinion. Lots and lots of criminals, psychopaths, and other forms of evil persons and Republicans had a mom and dad raising them. Lots and lots of nice well adjusted people had only mom, or only a dad, due to death, divorce, or whatever. Many kids are raised by both a mom and dad, and the mom and dad are not married.
So, you claim that "what is at stake here" is the "rights" of all humans to have a mom and dad? So, if the dad dies, how are you going to fulfill this right? Snatch the kid from the mom, and give him to an intact mom/dad couple? What about kids with no mom or dad? And no straight mom/dad couple willing to adopt them? Should they just wait around their entire childhood waiting for your definition of "perfect"?
What about kids who have a mom and dad, and the dad is abusing the kid, or forcing incest on the kid? Is this still such a perfect situation? This is better than having gay parents?
What about the kids that will never even be born, if gays decide not to do the surrogate thing because they can't get married? Is never having been born better than having 2 dads, or 2 moms?

[johnbdonovan]

Policy should be based on the general rule not the exceptions. My grandmother had neither mother nor father growing up and she did okay, but we shouldn't conclude from this that people turn out fine without parents. Over 90% of boys in the inner city without fathers have run-ins with the law versus just 10% of boys with fathers. We can always say, "Well, what about that 10%? Look at them!" But we should be looking at them only in contrast to the 90%. And the problem isn't just for lack of a extra mother but because of the demonstrable masculine characteristics that restrain boys, especially when they're older. Gender matters; we play with that fact at our peril.

[goodnightandgoodluck]

There you go again, spouting all that nonsensical bs.

I have a question you should be able to answer, being such an authority on child-rearing and gender roles. If I have both a mother and a father but my mother (biologically female) identifies as a man while my father (biologically male) identifies as a woman, are we still okay in your eyes? They have no interest in the traditional roles of their given sex; mom hates to do laundry and dad can't stand watching baseball. Dad sews my buttons back on and mom taught me how to build a tent. Should I assume they know nothing about their new gender roles and consult a "real man" about building a tent? Are my buttons doomed to fall off again?

You say "gender matters" but you don't allow for the idea that gender can be separated from sex. Gender is a social construct, an idea of what it means to be of a certain sex. Beware those who see life in black and white, surely life is nothing but shades of grey.

[johnbdonovan]

You can find a lot of odd things in the world, including women who are stronger than the average man physically. What I'm talking about is the general rule, which is that men bring masculine characteristics to the upbringing of a child and women bring feminine characteristics to the same crucially important endeavor and is lack of one or the other that is very often a serious handicap for a child, and so it has always been worth it for society to bend over backwards to support male-female marriage and not any one of the several alternative sexual arrangements that are being approved of these days, such as cohabitation, adultery, and homosexual couplings. Live and let live but don't support any of these with marital benefits and honors.

[gaydm]

I also like my BIC razor, it helps me keep my face freshly and neatly clean shaven. It feels so much nicer outside in this southern hot days when I am down on the docks getting fresh dinner.
well since i realized that, and have read in that good book I will get stoned to death, be sent to blazing he%%fire, I decided heck why not just be who god made me, as he made me, and add gay to my list of sins against Leviticus's poo poo's. I guess one more deadly sin can not be any more deadly to me. But I do know LYING to fit in is not going to get me anywhere either.

[gaydm]

I live and grew up in a coastal area of the country where the seafood industry is big business. I love to go to the docks and buy fresh shrimp by the quart, blue crab can be caught right from the docks near where i live. Heck we can even get a cast net license and get our own fresh caught shellfish supper. I love fried, or sauteed, shrimp. My BFF is a great cook and fixes a fabulous crab soup. And not to mention those great get together low country boil parties. I choose to do these things. I love to eat these foods. I feel bad that Leviticus does not like them so much, but the he probably just did not live long enough to try Boy Friends crab soup.
I also love my polyester cotton blend clothes, i wear to these events. I choose to wear them, because I like to wear them. And there again my Boy Friend can pick out such fabulous clothes for me. To bad Leviticus could not see us in our finest cotton blend church going clothes. BUT we choose to wear them anyway.

[walks]

why, i bet you plant a mixture of flowers in your flower beds, as creator does in the fields but as leviticus claims can get you stoned! wonder if creator should be stoned as well?

[gaydm]

Well no not quite, i don't have a field, as I live in an apartment complex, but we do have a fantastic selection of potted plants, and hanging baskets of flowers. Do they count as well?

[WonderingRadical]

Rev. Jones, Rev. Braxton, I couldn't agree with you more - civil equality with equal protection under the law, along with robust, respectful discussions among religious communities.

I agree that as long as there continues to be the subjugation of wisdom to irrational fear... any understanding is still a goal a long way off. I too wish that the only virtue being touted in this debate was the unity and love of a healthy family life as a product of a committed relationship.

Our legislative leadership has a job to do... and our religious authority their own duties to keep... two duties and two domains of discussion. It's disheartening to witness responsibilities becoming misguided and entangled - both sides desperately seeking to save the other from itself.

In your call for a robust theological discussion within the religious domain... I would love to hear a well thought out and all-inclusive discussion on all that is meant in a scripture passage that never fails to raise a brow with me: Mt 19. ...all of it seems intimately appropriate to this issue, but I especially struggle with the last few lines on the whys and why nots of marriage.

[llisa]

So are you doing all this "calling on" the legislative leaders and fellow Christians by actually saying this TO them?

Because, for the most part, they aren't reading Huffington Post.

[Michael Isaacs]

I know that Serene Jones has called on "legislative leaders and fellow Christians­." You can read that call and see instructions for action at http://www.utsnyc.edu/marriageequality .

I also think you might be surprised at the number of "fellow Christians" read the Huffington Post.

[MinNash]

Conservatism is a lifestyle choice of prejudice backed up with prooftexts.

Kudos to Brad & Serene. Nashville appreciates your courage!

[carsntrucks]

You are both sell outs. Be honest. YOU support gay marriage. Don't use your religious beliefs to be ironic. You're two liberals who happen to be men and women of the cloth. Nothing more.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Same can be said of any man or woman of the cloth who uses the Bible to hate.

[carsntrucks]

True enough.

[mercury613]

The Pharisee has spoken.

[carsntrucks]

How meta of you.

[JohnFromCensornati]

What a shame for you that your world is shrinking. Enjoy it little person.

[carsntrucks]

That idea went out in the 60s when we discovered plate tectonics. TRY AGAIN

[John Bisceglia]

My partner and I want to get married at his Christian Church; he's Christian (left, 'natch), and I'm a bad Buddhist. He has been a member of First Christian Church in town here for almost 15 years now. Why does America deny us? He's a Vietnam Vet and involved in home care and community service, and I'm the neighborhood piano teacher - we're such awful people.

And WHY hasn't ANYONE asked President Obama or Joe Biden why they haven't connected the dots?
WE DESERVE AN ANSWER NOW! No human could read about the REAL hate we experience and still want to deny us rights, unless you are evil.

Connect the Dots - Revised for OBAMA -
http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/2009/04/connect-dots-america.html