Sound and Fury
By Robert Layne
Gentlepersons:
There has been much “sound and fury” concerning persons
of like gender advocating and, at times, effecting legal and societal
acceptance of their life-long, committed, and loving relationships.
These folks want to be married, in the fullest sense of the term.
They demand their marriages be legitimized. This is a highly controversial
and confusing issue. Consequently, I offer the following three-fold
comment upon what I see are the three distinct, extremely important,
yet deeply inter-related, issues.
Part, the first: SYNTAX
It would calm the rhetoric of both sides if all parties would use
the correct language. It is not “sex” that is descriptive
of, or the binding principle between, two persons in a loving and
committed relationship. Sexual intimacy is a benefit of most unions.
Yet, if that particular act is the sole basis of a relationship,
it is a corrupt covenant. Sexual activity fluctuates, diminishes,
and sometimes vanishes within a loving relationship. No matter what
the medication, sexual inter-action is not steady enough to be the
primary source of commitment and dedication for any relationship.
This is true for homosexual relationships as much as for heterosexual
relationships. When describing either the word “gender”,
i.e., “same gender relationship”, or “contrasting
gender relationships” should be the operative term of differentiation.
Whether male/female, or male/male, or female/female it is “genders”
that are uniting. It is either same or contrasting genders that
seek to be wed, to enter a legal covenant, to be married in the
eyes of the government and society. Remove the term “sex”
from the description of relationships; tell it like it is.
Part, the second: MARRIAGE
In my 30+ years as an Episcopal Parish Priest, I’ve presided
at hundreds of weddings. Those wonderful gatherings ranged from
an extravaganza with fifteen attendants each for the lovely bride
and handsome groom, to tiny, quiet, private events with but five
present: the Priest, the bride and the groom, and two witnesses.
All were powerful moments: dreams were born, hopes proclaimed, and
lives mutually offered.
But….I never married anyone!! As a priest of the church, I
presided, with ritual and ceremony, over an action that was totally
effected by the couple. I led them through the vows, helped them
exchange symbols (their rings), and then proclaimed the effect of
what they had just done: I pronounced them married. The final act,
as the presiding Priest and minister of the Church, I bestowed upon
them the blessing of God and His Church. Then, as an officer of
the State, I signed the “Marriage License” attesting
that indeed the couple had married each other. At no point, did
I marry anyone; nor did I ever make a claim to have done so. The
couple married each other!
If such is true, is it not equally possible for two persons of the
same gender to affect such a relationship? As I read the description
of “marriage” given by the four couples in the Eagle’s
Sunday, February 9, 2004, edition, the common denominator is a voluntary
commitment to each other, declared openly, and lived faithfully.
The young bi-racial couple, soon to be married, affirmed that they
“want their children to know what a healthy marriage looks
like”. I applaud their hopes. I also remember when such a
marriage was unthinkable; by law the races were to remain separate,
and therefore, pure. Remember the powerful musical, “Show
Boat”? It was the first brave attempt to point out the cruelty
of miscegenation. In the 1967 ruling by the US Supreme Court, it
was stated that “ the freedom to marry resides with the individual….and
cannot be infringed by the state”. Allowing people the freedom
to choose and commit to others of their choice, regardless of color,
was affirmed by the highest court in the land. It was long overdue.
A couple married for 62 years, credited their time-tested commitment
to each other to the guidance and support of their Church. Another
couple simply eschewed the legalities and formalities of “getting
married.” They had lived together faithfully for eight years
and saw no reason to “legitimize” their decision.
Finally there was a “same gender couple” who had “recited
life-long vows” years ago. For them, they were married ‘in
God’; yet still denied ‘in society’.
All experience relationship, love, and fidelity very differently,
but all affirm in common their voluntary decision and commitment
to shared life for life. Are then only the senior couple married,
and the bi-racial couple about to be married? In my experience,
those couples who “give themselves to each other by solemn
vows, with the joining of hands and the giving and receiving of
rings” are pronounced married. Only then, and if desired and
approved, they additionally are given the blessing of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit.
This divine blessing is always a “grace” and not a right.
But with or without it, the couple is declared married. I know of
no Church that requires couples married by civil authorities, devoid
of such blessing, to be re-married in the Church. No Church requires
that civil marriages receive the blessings of God, in order to be
recognized as married. Marriage does not demand Church participation
or sanction. This year my wife and I celebrate our twenty fifth
anniversary. We attribute our love and marriage to the active participation
of the Lord Jesus. I would offer this resource to everyone, but
I would force it on no one. Many marriages would never subscribe
to our experience. But all are acknowledged as married, and are
so recognized by society.
Some would demand a Biblical basis for marriage. Though I personally
recommend a spiritual dimension to any lasting relationship, the
biblical image leaves much in question. God did create Adam, and
then Eve to be his helpmate: male and female He created them. But
marriage was understood and expressed in a far different way than
it is today. Men “owned” their wives; men had many wives
with whom to dally; men and women were married by mutual agreement
of families, with little or no consideration for those directly
involved. Marriage was a family, political, economic, and legal
relationship. A spiritual dimension (other than obedience by the
wife) seemed of little import. Most western societies have come
to the realization that the best paradigm for stability in society
and lasting success in relationships is a 1 + 1 = a fuller 1. Marriage
has been restricted to an exclusive covenant between one person
with another person. It is interesting, however, that one insightful
person opined that Americans continue to practice polygamy. We just
do it in sequence, rather than all at once. A quick check of the
divorce rates seems to lend credence to his theory.
Finally, there are recognized “common law” unions. There
are “palimony laws” demanding responsibility and accountability
of un-wed couples, which have lived a married life, even to the
procreation of children. Marriage is a very complex and diverse
relationship, viewed very differently by many. No Church, government,
or secular organization, must be allowed to define this very complex,
freely chosen, and widely experienced human institution in rigid
and fixed parameters.
Marriage is the coming together of two, mentally competent, adult
persons, who first personally and privately, and then publicly,
vow to live a life of exclusive commitment and dedication “‘till
death them do part.” Then with vows lived out legally and
peacefully to the benefit of society. Hopefully, couples will seek
the blessing of God and His Church. But, should they choose to “go
their own way”, they must be afforded the full civil liberties
guaranteed every citizen; they must receive full legal protection,
and full legal sanction. Whatever gender combination enters into
a marriage, their relationship must be a afforded the same dignity
as are like relationships of every citizen of the United States
of America. This is constitutional heritage of every American.
Part, the third: CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT
Of all the inequities, real and threatened, against homosexual
persons, this ‘proposed’ legal action is the most heinous.
To employ the law to deprive law abiding citizens of their constitutional
rights is a danger to every citizen. If such stripping can be done
to homosexuals it can be done to any minority that the majority
fears or seeks to punish. This is “legislative tyranny”.
Sadly there are precedents for such discrimination. The “Jim
Crow” laws of the nineteenth century (1877) that legally declared
African-Americans less than equal citizens set the stage. The tragic
and impossible doctrine of “separate, but equal” was
approved by the Supreme Court (1896) and held sway until overturned
in 1954. It is impossible in a democracy to have “separate,
but equal.” The act of separation denotes and insures inequality;
it creates second-class citizens at best, and humiliates and diminishes
fellow human beings, at worst. To deny homosexual persons their
freedom to peacefully relate, cohabitate, and create families is
to deny a basic constitutional freedom. The proposed Constitutional
Amendment limiting marriage to only contrasting gender relationships
is to codify inequality and oppression, as did such laws in the
past.
Even more frightening, is the parallel between this proposed Amendment
and the Nuremberg Laws of Germany adopted in 1935. These horrific
statutes that denied equality and equal protection under the law
to a whole race of humanity, were based upon the Jim Crow laws then
in force in the United States. The rational’ was the government’s
desire to “assure the purity of German blood, and protect
the German honor.” They were designed to protect the “values”
of the German people. As I hear the proponents of a Constitutional
Amendment rationalizing and defending their efforts, I can hear
an echo of “clicking heels, and marching boots.” The
Patriot Act, currently in force, is a dangerous crack in the shield
of “liberty and justice for all.” The proposed Constitutional
Amendment would surely widen the breach, and further the encroachment
of despotic dictatorship. In a sermon preached in 1932, Pastor Dietrich
Bonhoeffer prophesied the dangers of making “national security
an idol.” He later died in a Nazi concentration camp a victim
of that idolatry.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, recently
preached:
“The Jesus I worship is not likely to collaborate with
those who vilify and persecute an already oppressed minority…
I could not remain silent whilst people were being penalized for
something about which they could do nothing: their sexuality …to
discriminate against lesbian and gay people on the grounds of their
sexual orientation is as unacceptable and unjust as Apartheid ever
was.”
The amending of the Constitution as proposed by some will insure
such cruel discrimination.
A further dimension to this wave of paranoia being leveled against
homosexuals is the utter mean-spiritedness of those so afraid. How
can Republicans, who for years bemoaned government intrusion into
the lives of private, law abiding, citizens now call for a law that
would bring the government directly into the most intimate area
of human life: marital relationships? How can Republicans deny,
denounce, and defeat legal restrictions on “automatic/semi-automatic
guns” (the real weapons of mass destruction) on the basis
of “right to privacy” guarantees, and now advocate the
government defining and controlling whom a person can wed. Same
gender relationships are not, in any sense, a threat of violence,
suffering, and death as are these Republican protected firearms.
One of the most despicable means to seduce public support is to
identify a supposed danger and threat and then accuse and target
a minority group as the source and basis of that danger and threat.
Is this not also an echo of the 1930’s?
As mentioned above, my wife and I live a deeply committed, dedicated,
and loving marriage. Our children are witnesses to this and even
have expressed a desire to emulate the relationship they’ve
seen us live. We all are very sure that no same-gender relationship
in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, San Francisco, or just
down the street will have any effect upon our loves or their foundation.
It would appear that those who cry the loudest about same-gender
marriages impacting their family values must be themselves involved
in a family that has little or no roots, is fragile and vulnerable
to any differing style of marriage, and must depend upon government
proclamations to define and protect their values. They must have
very shallow loves.
I would offer that the true threat to the value, sanctity, and stability
of the institution of marriage is rampant throughout the heterosexual
culture. From “half-time shows with repeated crotch grabbing
and humping”, to celebrities who get “married”
on a fluke for 24 hours and then laugh about it, to idolized stars
who live their “palimony” lives, having children, and
changing partners like at a square dance, marriage is graphically
devalued by heterosexual examples. The continuing arrogant sport’s
hero who establishes and then lives out a very self-serving morality,
with indiscriminant sexual activity, poses a much greater threat
to any cherished model of faithful marriage. Two same-gender persons,
living peaceful, productive, and private lives will never be such
a threat.
Same-gender couples deserve the right to marry; to be equal citizens
of American society. They deserve to be left alone to live their
lives in love and peace In this “land of the free, and home
of the brave” who marries whom is no one’s business
but the persons involved. By guaranteeing that freedom there is
nothing to fear. For the sake of all Americans, the push to adopt
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting marriage
to two persons of contrasting gender must be defeated. To discriminate
against one, is to discriminate against all. After all the suffering
endured defeating such tyrannical injustice, one would think we’d
have learned. |
