Sermon, Forty-Seven Theses - Unitarian Universalist Church in Reston

FORTY-SEVEN THESES

A sermon for the Unitarian Universalist Church in Reston, Virginia
February 14, 2010
The Rev. Evan Keely, Interim Senior Minister

In October of 1517, a monk in the German university town of Wittenberg publicly presented a paper entitled Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum. It criticized the sale of indulgences, which were a form of penance instituted by the Roman Catholic Church: by purchasing these indulgences, the faithful were assured a reduction of their time in Purgatory. This monk, just a few days shy of his thirty-fourth birthday, had not intended to revolutionize western European religiosity and transform the course of history, but the ninety-five theses contained in this declaration by a young Martin Luther did, in fact, have a profound impact upon the world.

The word “thesis” in modern parlance conjures for many of us images of weighty papers composed by graduate students, but Luther’s theses were simply aphoristic thoughts expressed in a sentence or two. He was speaking out on an issue of justice, morality and spirituality that became the lynchpin of dramatic social and religious change in his day. In that same spirit, as both a professional religious leader and as a heterosexual man in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage, I feel called to respond to the arguments that have been made against same-sex civil marriage, and to enumerate some of the religious, legal, social and moral foundations of my views in the following forty-seven theses:

Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage cite the Israelite law codes as the reason for this discrimination. Yet no community on earth, with the possible exception of some ultra-Orthodox Jews, even attempts to adhere to all these laws, nor does anyone propose codifying any others of these laws in our civil legislation.
Nowhere in the Israelite law codes is lesbianism prohibited.
One law of ancient Israel appears to not only prohibit male homosexuality, but to mandate capital punishment for committing homosexual acts [Lev. 20:13]. No one who would consider enacting this in our civil legislation would be taken seriously by anyone of good will.
In Genesis, the hallowed eponymous ancestor of the Israelite nation takes two wives (polygamy) [Gen. 29:23,28], both of whom are his first cousins (incest) [Gen. 28:2]; he also fathers numerous children by his wives’ handmaids, to whom he is not married (fornication) [Gen. 30:4,9]. Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage cite Biblical passages to bolster their arguments, yet they do not concede that polygamy, incest and fornication are sometimes tolerated in Biblical narratives, nor do they consequently propose civil legislation to grant these practices the same benefits currently enjoyed solely by heterosexual, monogamous marriage.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage declare that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity by virtue of the aforementioned Levitical laws, even though Christianity at its founding made an effort to dispense with most of the Israelite holiness code [e.g., Gal. 3:23-26].
The Bible does not speak with one voice on the subject of homosexuality. For instance, David’s relationship with Jonathan is clearly open to several interpretations, one very reasonable one being that their relationship is loving, mutually supportive, and sexual [e.g., 1 Sam. 18:1, 2 Sam. 1:26].
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage cite New Testament passages which appear to decry homosexual behavior. Yet no community on earth obeys all the commandments and proscriptions of the New Testament. Jesus frequently and quite explicitly denounces private wealth and economic inequity [e.g., Mark 10:25], yet we see how this is flouted. “Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak” [1 Cor. 14:34] is routinely ignored (for which we should be thankful indeed).
It is not clear why some Christians place such importance upon opposition to homosexuality when Jesus is completely silent on the subject in all four Gospels.
The Bible is not, nor should it be, the basis for civil law in a democratic republic in which religious institutions and the State are strictly separated. Our civil laws prohibit murder not because the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill,” but because it is in the best interests of the common good to outlaw murder. The elimination of this discrimination against same-sex couples would also be in the best interests of the common good.
No one is proposing that any religious institution should ever be compelled by law to perform or sanctify same-sex marriages. This is a matter of civil law.
It may be argued that the arguments of religious persons (such as myself) in favor of same-sex civil marriage constitute an inappropriate intrusion of religion upon matters of civil law, but this is not so. All citizens, religious or not, have a right and a responsibility to participate in matters of public concern. Religious groups in favor of same-sex civil marriage tend to address it principally as a civil rights issue, which it principally is.
It has not been adequately demonstrated that continued legal discrimination against same-sex couples promotes the general welfare. In a society in which the principal purpose of civil law is to uphold the people’s liberty and foster the common good, the question on this issue is not, and should not be, “Why should these privileges be extended to same-sex couples?” but rather, “Why should this discrimination be perpetuated?”
From the hateful legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson we learn that “separate but equal” is an oxymoron. Same-sex civil unions, such as those currently practiced in the state of New Jersey, are a step toward equality, but these do not constitute equality. Same-sex civil marriage is equality.
This is a matter of individual freedom. Any person who opposes same-sex civil marriage ought to refrain from marrying a person of his or her own sex. There is no good reason why the aversion of some individuals to same-sex relationships should be codified in the civil laws of a free society.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage fear that if the door is opened to same-sex civil marriage, legal questions will subsequently be raised about other kinds of relationships, such as polygamous ones. Indeed, this concern is probably not altogether misplaced. Nevertheless, we must recognize that same-sex civil marriage is its own issue, and if other issues surface in the course of the debate, they must be dealt with separately.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage complain that granting marriage equality to same-sex couples would defy long-established tradition. That something has been perpetuated over a long period confers neither goodness nor necessity upon it. Mighty evils have endured for great lengths of time.
Opponents of same-sex civil marriage who warn that the institution of marriage will be irreparably harmed do not adequately explain how or why this will happen. I am in a heterosexual marriage. No one has adequately demonstrated how or why same-sex civil marriage has been in any way harmful to my marriage, my family, or me.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage declare that the purpose of marriage is procreation. If this were true, it would also follow logically that civil marriage should legally require couples to have children, or that civil marriage of the elderly, the infertile, or those who choose not to have children also ought to be opposed.
Same-sex couples, can, of course, procreate. While it is true that two men or two women cannot by themselves biologically conceive children, neither can infertile heterosexual couples who ultimately do conceive by means of medical intervention. Yet no one seriously considers civil legislation to ban fertility treatments.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage argue that children will be harmed by same-sex civil marriage insofar as children are said to benefit most from being raised by two married, opposite-sex parents. Yet no one is proposing legislation that would require widowed or divorced parents to remarry.
Same-sex couples can and do raise children in healthy, constructive environments, just as children are often raised in healthy, constructive environments by persons who are not their biological parents. It is more reasonable to believe that children benefit most from being raised in circumstances in which they are loved, well cared for, encouraged, and kept safe, whether by two married heterosexual parents or by others.
It is more reasonable to suppose that the stability and legal status conferred by civil marriage will, in fact, be more beneficial to children who are being raised by same-sex couples, to the couples themselves, and to society as a whole.
Children will no doubt benefit by living in a society whose laws are less discriminatory, more just, and more reflective of a spirit of toleration, as will all persons of every age, sexual orientation, and family/marital status.
As long as same-sex civil marriage remains prohibited, same-sex couples have no choice but to live together in relationships that can never be legally recognized. This cannot be conducive to a happy, healthy relationship or to a contented family life, although many same-sex couples and their families persevere despite it. But there is no good reason to deprive any same-sex couple of that societal support, should the couple desire it.
The institution of heterosexual marriage ought to be honored and revered, but not idealized. Many heterosexual marriages are marred by abuse, dishonesty, infidelity, and other ills. There is no reason to assume that same-sex civil marriages will be any worse, or any better.
The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Great Britain and the US states of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa as well as the District of Columbia have instituted same-sex civil marriage; heterosexual marriage does not appear to be in any greater jeopardy in those places as a result, nor does the general welfare in those places appear to have been adversely affected.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage claim that same-sex civil marriage will encourage homosexual promiscuity, thereby increasing the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases. It is not clear how discriminatory legislation promotes public health. It is more reasonable to assume that education and adequately funded medical care are more likely to counter the spread of illness.
No one is concerned that opposite-sex civil marriage increases promiscuity in heterosexual persons; indeed, many view marriage as an antidote to promiscuity.
The idea that same-sex civil marriage will increase promiscuity, and consequently the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases, is less logical than the assumption that allowing same-sex couples the same privileges as heterosexual couples will, in fact, have the opposite effect: that being supported and affirmed in their relationships the way heterosexual couples can be will actually discourage self-destructive behaviors, not increase them.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage openly acknowledge that they believe homosexuality to be inherently wrong, and that that the legal prohibition on same-sex civil marriage ought therefore to be perpetuated. Any individual is, of course, entitled to believe according to his or her conscience. But civil laws based on the personal prejudices of individuals, even if such individuals represent a majority of persons in a given population, are incompatible with the mission of a civil government to uphold the people’s liberty.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage cite the promiscuous behavior of some homosexuals as evidence that homosexuality is evil, and that the prohibition on same-sex civil marriage ought therefore to be perpetuated. Yet no one cites the promiscuous behavior of some heterosexuals as evidence that heterosexuality is evil, nor does anyone make an analogous argument that, for instance, prostitution, pornography, and the like are evidence of the evils of heterosexuality, and that opposite-sex marriage ought therefore to be prohibited by law.
No one asked me if I or my fiancée was a virtuous person when we applied for, and received, our marriage license. Unrepentant convicted criminals have access to the benefits of civil marriage, as long as they are of legal age and are marrying a person of legal age and of the opposite sex.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage warn that homosexual persons sexually abuse children, and that the prohibition on same-sex civil marriage ought therefore to be perpetuated. It is true that sometimes children are sexually abused by homosexual persons, yet it is also true that sometimes children are sexually abused by heterosexual persons. No one cites the latter phenomenon as evidence that heterosexuals represent a danger to children by virtue of being heterosexual, nor proposes that heterosexuals should therefore be denied civil marriage benefits.
Many things regarded as morally wrong by large numbers of individuals are not unlawful. Adultery, lying, and verbal abuse are things many people would judge wrong, yet they are not necessarily prohibited by law.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage warn that homosexual persons will be in a better position to “recruit” others to homosexuality if same-sex civil marriage is permitted. This notion of “recruiting” necessarily rests upon the assumption that we can choose our sexual orientation. We can, of course, choose how we act, but we do not choose our sexual orientation. At no time did I decide that I would be heterosexual; I simply am. Same-sex civil marriage will have no effect upon the numbers of persons of any particular sexual orientation.
Same-sex civil marriage will grant legal acknowledgement to the equality that has always existed in reality: that lesbian and gay persons are just as good, and just as flawed, as heterosexual persons, and that same-sex couples are just as good, and just as flawed, as heterosexual couples.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage suggest that homosexual persons will enter into marriage more frivolously than heterosexual persons. The fact that this does not bear up under observation notwithstanding, when a heterosexual couple enters into marriage frivolously, no one cites their doing so as evidence that heterosexuals are too irresponsible to take on the responsibilities of matrimony. No civil official asked my fiancée and me how serious our commitment to each other was when we applied for, and received, our marriage license.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage argue that it will encourage under-aged persons to experiment with homosexuality. No one is concerned that the legal protections conferred by heterosexual marriage encourage adolescents to experiment with heterosexuality. It is not clear why a legally codified system of bigotry protects children from engaging in any sexual activity before they have reached sufficient emotional maturity. The best protection for young people is not arbitrarily discriminatory legislation, but raising them in an atmosphere of caring and giving them accurate, age-appropriate, honest information about human sexuality.
Some opponents of same-sex civil marriage argue that being homosexual is inherently the cause of much distress and suffering on the part of those who are themselves homosexual. For instance, it has been observed that gay and lesbian teens are far more likely to use drugs, or to attempt suicide, than heterosexual teens. Such opponents of same-sex civil marriage do not appear to consider that it is not homosexuality itself that causes these problems, but attitudes toward homosexuality in this society, of which opposition to same-sex civil marriage is a very significant example. Homosexuality does not cause mental health problems; being hated, abused and legally discriminated against often does.
The assertion that marriage as an institution will be irreparably harmed by same-sex civil marriage is not more frequently challenged because it assuages the discomfort many feel about homosexuality. If this assertion is, in fact, challenged, and challenged repeatedly, patiently, rationally, and compassionately, it will be revealed to be of very little substance.
Opponents of same-sex civil marriage have not articulated any reason why mutual love cannot exist between two adults of the same sex. That being the case, there is no reason why that mutual love should not enjoy the same legal benefits and protections that the mutual love of heterosexual married couples enjoys.
While no person, regardless of his or her sexual orientation, should presume to dictate to others how the difficult journey of “coming out” should be traversed, those who do “come out” do nevertheless offer something beneficial to humankind: they put a human face upon an often-feared and misunderstood phenomenon, namely homosexuality. The more that people are personally acquainted with gays and lesbians, the more likely they are to become more tolerant, and ultimately more accepting. It is not entirely unreasonable to hope that same-sex civil marriage will encourage more people to “come out,” thus creating a more tolerant and accepting society.
That same-sex civil marriage will foment tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, of course, is precisely the thing that many opponents of same-sex civil marriage fear. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion on any matter, but the laws of a free people ought to defend against intolerance and exclusion, not codify them.
Some persons cannot tolerate having the bedrock of their worldview shaken by dramatic social change. This is understandable. It is not, however, sufficient reason to perpetuate an injustice.
Other forms of discrimination, evil as they are, can be at least partially explained. For instance, Jim Crow segregation was a system created by whites who feared economic competition from African-Americans. This was a great wrong, but an explicable one. Heterosexuals need fear no competition of any kind from same-sex couples. There is no rational, explicable cause to oppose same-sex civil marriage.
Heterosexual marriage will, in fact, be enhanced, not harmed, if same-sex civil marriage is legalized throughout the republic. Humankind benefits when people who love each other are permitted to enter into relationships that are supported and affirmed by the society in which they live.
The response to those who oppose same-sex civil marriage must ultimately be one of compassion and resolute, patient persuasion. It is hypocrisy to advocate for others’ freedom to experience loving relationships by being derisive, supercilious, or hateful. In advocating for all those who love, may we also be a people blessed by love who bless the world with love.