A Sermon by the Rev. David W. Spollett
First Church, United Church of Christ
Fairfield, Connecticut
March 14, 2004
Saul, still breathing murderous threats
against the disciples of Jesus Christ,
went to the high priest and asked for
letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so
that if he should find there any followers
of the Way, whether men or women, he could
bring the back to Jerusalem as prisoners.
But on his journey, as he neared Damascus,
a light from Heaven suddenly blazed around
him, and he fell to the ground. Then he
heard a voice speaking to him,
"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" he asked.
"I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,"
was the reply.
"But now stand up and go into the city and
there you will be told what you must do."
Acts 9:1-6 (Phillips)
The experience of Saul on the Damascus Road teaches us about the dynamic nature of faith, belief, and closely held assumptions. Saul set out on one mission, and found himself, when it was all over, on a very different quest indeed. He had started out breathing threats against the followers of Jesus. But after being blinded by the heavenly light, he traveled on to Damascus where Ananias ministered to him so that his sight was restored. Saul commenced to proclaim the good news of God's love. Once a persecutor, Saul became a preacher. He received a new calling as an apostle, whose preaching would give shape to this new movement.
Keeping Saul's experience in mind, I want to talk with you today about marriage, its importance in our religious tradition and society; the positive power of marriage for the individuals involved and for society; and to offer some insights on the changing understanding of marriage in our society.
When I decided to preach on this topic and set the date for this sermon, I did so in response to a proposed resolution before the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ in support of equal marriage rights. My interest was also increased by the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court that provides for the issuance of marriage licenses to same gender couples in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Let me state at the outset that I view marriage as an institution of singular importance in our religious tradition and within society. Marriages and families form the bedrock upon which our individual lives are built and help society structure itself around essential issues.
Officiating at weddings is one of my most important functions. The time I spend with a couple in preparation for their wedding and marriage is very important for them, for their families, for the church, and for our society. Weddings often stand as a high point in people's lives.
Let me pause here to note that I am struck by the small number of weddings that occur at First Church on an annual basis. Given the fact that we are a congregation of 1,100 adults and 300 children, with an average high school graduating class of 25 to 30 young adults, I would expect that we would have more than 10-12 weddings performed at First Church annually. Perhaps this is not surprising given that the 2000 census showed that only one-half of all adult Americans are married. When one considers the important nature and function of marriage in our society it seems remarkable that only one-half of all adults live in a marital relationship.
As you know, our church recently celebrated the 10th anniversary of being an Open and Affirming congregation. When we declared that our congregation "is open to and affirming of each individual as a child of God, celebrating the total identity of each person including his or her race, ancestry, class, gender, physical/mental ability or sexual orientation," we made it clear that we subscribe to the Biblical ideal of radical inclusivity. This declaration and policy helps to instruct and inform my thinking on the nature of marriage.
Our Open and Affirming identity, of course, is completely consistent with our history of progressive thinking in which we apply the Biblical principles of justice and peace in our daily living and through involvement in social action and reform. As an Open and Affirming church, we must consider carefully the nature of human relationships, including marriage, even when those relationships may fall outside the traditional norms and definitions of our society.
With regard to the question at hand let me offer some background remarks. When clergy officiate at a wedding we undertake that responsibility with dual roles. First, we are agents of the State of Connecticut. Individuals who desire to be married present a marriage license issued by the Town Clerk pursuant to the laws of the State of Connecticut. The issuance of this marriage license is the State's certification that these two individuals may enter into the legal relationship and contract of marriage. Clergy, among others, are empowered to solemnize the relationship by such marriage rites. When I sign the marriage license for a couple at the end of their wedding, I do so on behalf of the State of Connecticut.
The second role that clergy play is that of spiritual leader. In this role, which is distinct from the legal responsibility, we call upon God's strength and wisdom to support and guide the couple and invite them to enter into a covenant relationship, as distinct from the legal contractual relationship. This covenant of marriage is one of abiding love and is based on the religious vows of the couple and their prayer that God will be a sustaining presence in their relationship.
As you know, our church has a policy of offering religious ceremonies of blessing and commitment for same gender couples that desire to enter into a committed faithful relationship. At such ceremonies I function in the second role, that of spiritual leader, for same gender couples who want the blessings and guidance of God to support them in a covenantal relationship. These commitment ceremonies are not weddings, since no marriage license or marriage contract is allowed under Connecticut law. I am not empowered to function in a legal role, on behalf of the State of Connecticut.
The question before us is "Should the rights and responsibilities of marriage be made available only to couples of different genders or also to couples of the same gender?" A lot of hot air has already been expended in response to this question and no doubt a lot more will be expelled in the coming months. My hope this morning is not to add to the effluence of rhetoric, much of it foolish, but to try to offer a calm assessment and a word that I believe is consistent with our religious tradition.
I recognize that faithful people are not necessarily of one mind on this question. Good people of deep faith with the best of intentions can disagree on this and on other important social issues before us. None of my remarks should be construed to suggest that those who disagree with me are "opposed to the gospel." Let me be clear that I view this as an opportunity to advance open, respectful dialogue.
A great deal has been said recently about the "sanctity of marriage". As I have stated, I view marriage as a sacred institution and understand it to be one of the most important elements in the stable and effective functioning of this or any society. At the same time, I want us to be careful about how we use the term "sanctity of marriage", particularly when it is used to suggest that the current norms and practices of marriage are somehow eternal and have been immutable through the ages.
A brief reflection on human history, and certainly the Biblical record, would remind us that this is not the case. If the modern "institution of marriage" was based solely and completely on Biblical principles, as some have mistakenly suggested it is, then the law of the land would provide for multiple wives with one husband and for the keeping of concubines; any marriage in which the bride was discovered not to be a virgin would be nullified and the woman executed; marriages between people of different faiths would be prohibited; divorce would be practically excluded; and the punishment for adultery would be stoning unto death.
The patriarchs were in many cases polygamists or kept concubines. The marriages of Jacob, Leah and Rachel, and how those marriages came to be, are certainly far outside our current understanding and norms of marriage. Jacob, married to the sisters Leah and Rachel, also fathered 4 children with Bilhah and Zilpah, slaves to Leah and Rachel. King Solomon in all his wisdom had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Nearer at hand, until very recent history marriage was in many respects a legal contract not between a man and a woman, but rather between one man and another man: the father of the bride and the groom. Marriages were essentially a contract by which the property, the bride, was transferred from one man to another man. The rights of women in marriage were severely limited and the legal rights of men were broad and expansive, often including the use of force and violence to exert the husband's will over his wife. This former, and at one time binding, understanding and practice is completely contrary to our own today.
As late as 1967 in 16 states of the Union, marriage was restricted to individuals of the same race. The marriage between separate races was expressly forbidden and this prohibition was forcefully and violently imposed. The anti-micegenation laws of our nation were very different from and indeed contradictory to our contemporary understanding of the nature of human relationships and of human rights.
Each time marriage has changed and evolved over the ages to a new form or standard, predictions of doom and destruction have been abundant. Yet the "institution" has survived. Predictions have been turned on their heads as human understanding advanced, knowledge increased, hearts opened and social norms became inclusive and respectful of human rights.
Even still we do know that the "institution of marriage" is in trouble. The divorce rate has risen dramatically in the past generation to the point that now 50% of all marriages end in divorce. I recognize that in many instances, divorce is a reasonable response to a very unworkable and untenable situation often involving abuse. No one "likes divorce" but it is often necessary. That said, however, I must also say that the fact that half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce does raise very serious questions about the nature of our society's support of this "sacred institution", and concern about how individuals understand the promises and vows that are made in a wedding ceremony.
Our religious tradition does not have a strict prohibition of divorce, unlike many churches. In fact, a very sizeable percentage of the marriages at which I officiate are instances where a previous divorce makes it impossible for the couple to be married in their own church. They come to us, because of our progressive and inclusive theology and our welcome acceptance of the reality of their lives.
At the same time that divorce rate between heterosexual married couples has been increasing, the move to monogamy, commitment and fidelity has been increasing among gay and lesbian people. The stereotype of gays and lesbians in the 70's and 80's was of licentiousness, hedonism, and sexual experimentation. Contrary to that stereotype, gay and lesbian people are asking to be bound by the commitments, rights and responsibilities of the legal institution of marriage. Rather than asking for the sexual freedom which is extolled and promoted by the media-entertainment complex, these individuals are asking for social support to live in a committed, loving legal relationship with a person of the same gender.
Quite frankly, most of the gay and lesbian people that I know are living in committed relationships with one other individual. Most of them have done so for many years, in some cases for scores of years. They participate actively in their community, in social organizations, in this and other churches, and are an asset to their friends, their families and their communities. Their relationships enrich the lives of individuals, the people around them and our society. Their fidelity to one another stands as a very profound example to us all.
In reading the news reports over the past few months, I have been struck by the stark contrast between the behavior of one of America's most noted entertainers, Britney Spears, was married in a legally recognized marriage that ended in divorce a mere 57 hours later. Shortly after Ms. Spears' escapade, two ladies, Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, 79 and 83 years old respectively who have lived together in a committed loving relationship for 51 years, were united in marriage at San Francisco City Hall. I have to ask myself, "Who poses the greater threat to the "sanctity" of marriage, Britney Spears or Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin? Who exemplifies the ideals of love, fidelity, commitment and trust?" Surely Phyllis and Del demonstrate by their lifetime commitment the high ideals that stand at the heart of this matter.
The sociologist and ethicist Don Browning and the social theorist Elizabeth Marquardt recently posited that marriage is "a way to help society regulate and achieve a complex set of desires and goals: sexual activity, procreation, mutual help and affection, and parental care and accountability." (New York Times: March 9,2004, p. A25)
On each of the points raised by Browning and Marquardt, it seems to me that the extension of marriage rights to same gender couples will not hinder nor detract from society's goals and interests, but will rather assist and advance the achievement of those goals. Marriage rights for same gender couples will provide for social cohesion, not detract from it. It will advance the cause of stable families and homes, not destroy them. It will secure the rightful exercise of their civil and human rights by fellow citizens, neighbors and friends: the people with whom we already work, worship and associate in positive and productive ways.
No one familiar with American society in the 21st Century can doubt that we are deeply confused about the whole question of sexuality. This confusion pertains to us all. Equal marriage rights and responsibilities will provide a way for society to help all individuals cope with and express their sexuality in personally productive and socially productive ways. Why restrict that benefit only to heterosexual couples?
One of the traditional functions of marriage is the creation of families. Not all marriages result in children either by choice or by circumstance, yet marriages in which children are not present are no less marriages than those in which children are present. Not all couples want or can have children, for many different reasons, but for families with children, this fact is a key component of the marriage relationship.
Families are created in a variety of ways including birth, adoption, foster parenting and melding of families. It should be noted that state adoption laws are far more advanced than marriage laws. Children are currently being raised in gay and lesbian families across our nation. Children are provided loving, stable and positive homes by their non-straight parents. You are well aware of how loving and devoted gay and lesbian parents are providing loving families and homes for children in this community and around the nation. Certainly those families would be supported and strengthened by the extension of legal marriage to these parents.
Commitment in the marriage covenant is the critical ingredient in assuring mutual help and affection between the marriage partners. The stability and viability of relationships is enhanced by social structures and norms. This support of marriage, the public acknowledgement that comes with the institution, and the ready understanding and acceptance which marriage entails, provides a key element in helping married couples weather the difficulties and vicissitudes of life and fulfill their marriage vows. Equal marriage rights will strengthen relationships, and thereby our communities, by supporting the fulfillment of the commitments that loving individuals will make to each other.
I am hard pressed to understand how extending marriage rights and responsibilities to same gender couples threatens in any way the role and function of marriage in our society. The "sanctity of marriage" is not an abstract principle but is found in the love and fidelity expressed by real people living in committed relationships. Nicholas Kristof in a recent column in the New York Times wrote "it seems to me that the best way to preserve the sanctity of American marriage is for all of us to spend less time fretting about other people's marriage - and more time improving our own."
The fact that individuals, whether they are gay, straight or lesbian, want to be married should be a welcome sign in our society. In the face of rampant individualism, this commitment to live in a faithful relationship with another individual should be welcome. My marriage, as a heterosexual male, is instructed, inspired and strengthened by observing my friends, same gender couples, who live in a committed faithful, loving relationships, currently without the social structure, norms and support of marriage. How much more will we gain in a society in which the rights of every individual to live in such a committed relationship are recognized and protected?
Does this position constitute a change in the way in which society operates? Yes, obviously it does. Is that fact an argument against gay marriage? No, it is not. Is it possible to suggest that the Bible explicitly condones marriage for same gender couples? No, it obviously does not. But, is it possible to read the Bible and recognize that the principles of justice command new understanding and interpretation in every age? Absolutely, yes. Such re-interpretation lead our spiritual forebears to condemn slavery, despite the fact that it is clearly condoned and supported in Scripture. New thinking lead to the recognition that women's rights were equal to men's, in opposition to the subservient role for women prescribed in Scripture.
Our entire religious tradition is built upon the notion that God's truth continues to reveal itself in myriad and unexpected ways. Our faith is predicated on the notion that in Christ the covenant with God is opened up to the entire world, even gentiles such as us.
The Commandments of the Torah, to love God with all our heart, soul and mind and our neighbors as ourselves, are as binding for us today as they were in ages past. Jesus' awareness of the inclusiveness of God's love forms the bedrock of our Reformed tradition of progressive religion and social reform. It was the people of Puritan New England who shaped American society and democracy, and set us on the path to national independence. It was in the churches of our tradition that women were welcomed into the pulpit and first ordained on this continent. The movement to abolish slavery was lead by God-fearing women and men who faced down the oppressive social, economic and political structures of their day. The twentieth century civil rights movement found its beginning and ongoing support in the churches and synagogues of our nation.
Speaking, acting, and organizing for social change; striving for the realization of the human family; working to ensure that the rights of every individual are respected: these attributes are essential to our identity as a church. Such efforts necessarily contradict the prevailing social norms and prejudices. We depend on God who gives us "courage in the struggle for justice and peace," as we embrace our identity as the bearers of God's grace, which is radically inclusive.
Hear these words from the Apostle Paul in Romans, Chapter 12.
With eyes wide open to the mercies of God,
I beg you, my brothers and sisters, as an
act of intelligent worship to give your
bodies as a living sacrifice, consecrated
and acceptable to God. Do not let the
world around you squeeze you into its
own mold, but let God remold your minds
from within, so that you may prove in
practice that the plan of God for you
is good, meets all God's demands and moves
toward the goal of true maturity."
Romans 12:1-2 (Phillips)
The Apostle Paul knew from his personal experience on the Damascus Road that God calls us to new understanding, and thereby to new decisions and action, all the time. God's truth is eternal, but our understanding is limited by our experience and knowledge, by our fears and hatreds. Our understanding of God's truth grows as we grow. And that growth comes from being open to God who tries and tests all the human assumptions and conclusions that we create. The fact that we are feeble and frail, that our thinking is twisted by prejudice and selfishness, that our lives are weighed down by sinful pride, means that we must be constantly open to the renewal of our minds and the regeneration of our spirits. Paul encourages us to embrace new understanding, to let God re-mold our minds and hearts and lives from within. We do not need to be squeezed and constricted into the molds and practices of the past. We are free; indeed we are called, to consider anew the nature of all human relationships, including marriage.
God is not static; God is dynamic. Divine light and heavenly voice called Saul to new understanding and a new vocation as Paul, the Apostle to the gentiles. That same light shines today; that same voice speaks even still, inviting us to a new understanding of the nature of God's love and the radically inclusive invitation to count all God's children as precious and equal. Equal not only in God's sight, but equal in rights and responsibilities in society. To see anew, with God's eyes, with God's understanding, with God's love. Amen.
