Gay Marriage or Opposite Marriage

As a colleague recently said: "I'm not for gay marriage. I'm for equal marriage." When we are done laughing at Ms. Almost America for displaying her bigotry, and lack of facility with words, on national TV, we might begin celebrating the wonderful progress we've seen lately. More and more people, and more and more states, are realizing that denying some families the legal protections that come with marriage is unfair, undemocratic, and wrong.

I am filled with joy from the recent decisions in Iowa and Vermont and any step toward equal rights for all people. At the same time, I am surprised to find myself feeling uncomfortable with the way in which church and state are entangled around this issue. Oddly, I find myself agreeing with the spirit of the protest from conservative Christians who do not want the state telling them what sacred rites they can perform (which, of course, legalizing same-sex marriage would NOT do.) Bottom line, I don't want religious representatives to be able to administer functions of the state, nor do I want the state showing up in the form of rules or paperwork, in the midst of sacred rites. 

Our country needs a distinction between sacred marriage and civil protections for families. A wedding is a ritual that has historic, social, and for many, religious meaning. This is completely separate, for me, from a visit to the courthouse or a lawyer to fill out some paperwork and establish certain legal obligations to one another, and to register for legal benefits from the state.  (The many rights and benefits of legal marriage)

When my wife and I got married. We had a ceremony in a church, surrounded by a hundred family and friends. My 88 year-old grandmother walked me down the aisle and a minister solemnized our union. I have felt married, and acted married, since that day. It wasn't a "gay marriage." It was a marriage in every sacred sense of the word.

We tried stopping by the courthouse to get the legal paperwork taken care of but were refused: two women were unable to get a legal marriage in NY in 1998. (This is the case to this day.) We saw a lawyer, spent some money, and were able to establish some of the protections for our family that are automatically accorded any heterosexual couple who marries. When I have the right to visit my wife in the hospital if she is sick, when she has the right to parent the child I'm a parent of, when someone like Karen Ann Quinlan can go home to her wife, without the interference of her parents, we will have equal legal rights. 

When my cousin wanted me, as a student minister, to solemnize her marriage I agreed, but after talking, we agreed that they would separate the ceremony from the legal process. Each time I talk with a couple about their upcoming wedding, this same conversation comes up. Why break the two processes up into separate actions in separate locations? Is it solidarity with same-sex couples who must travel to another state or country to establish legal marriage? Is it commitment to the separation of church and state? Both are true. 

I'm grateful that I've been unable to sign that state paperwork for the several years I've been officiating at weddings. It has forced me to consider if I even want to do that when I can. Meanwhile I will speak up for equal rights and for separation of sacred marriage from civil contracts and rights. I will open the conversation with any couple who is considering marriage. I will keep an open mind, but for now, I don't wish to demean the sacred ceremony with legal documents.