A victory for marraige equality: some thoughts on the California Supreme Court decision

Yesterday the California Supreme Court struck down two state laws limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman, ruling that same-sex couples have the right to marry. The 4-3 decision is likely to have an influence on future state and federal decisions, not to mention the influence it might have now on the Presidential election. I am personally thrilled by the decision. I am happy for loving, devoted couples in California and elsewhere that will be able to take advantage of this and practice their right to marry. I'm proud of the judges who ruled on the side of love and fairness.

Some excerpts from their decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald George:

In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

And:

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children... Because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship...

This is by no means the end of the struggle, however. Conservative groups have apparently amassed enough signatures to get it on the ballot, maybe even for this fall. Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage said: "The court was wrong from top to bottom on this one. The court brushed aside the entire history and meaning of marriage in our tradition.” Brian Brown, executive director of the organization's California chapter, said this: "Thanks to the more than 1 million Californians who signed petitions, these out-of-touch judges will not have the last word on marriage. California voters will.”

During the Civil Rights era, courts "brushed aside" traditions and laws that permitted racism and hate. That's simply not a good enough reason. And I knew that people would condemn the decision as a ruling by "out-of-touch" and "activist" judges. By the way, the CA Supreme Court has a reputation for being conservative, and three out of the four judges voting in favor of same-sex marriage were appointed by Republican governors. Anyway, we have judges so that they can guard against oppression of the minority by the majority, and we have them to act as independent decision-makers and interpreters of the constitution. Good for them.

Why people devote so much time and energy to excluding loving, committed couples from enjoying the social, emotional, and legal benefits of marriage is beyond me. It disgusts me. The little patience I do have for such people comes from the fact that I once believed that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Some great blog posts over at HuffPo really sum up what this means and how important it is. Sara Whitman writes:

As a lesbian, I have never felt protected by the law. When we went through the process of second parent adoption in Massachusetts for our three boys, each time I had a lump in my throat. The laws were created to keep people like me away.

No more.

California has taken the next step in the fight for equality. Without question. There are many more to take before LGBT people are seen as equals in the law, equals in this country on both state and federal levels.

And there will be backlash, threats of the end of the world. Funny thing is, we're still all alive and breathing in Massachusetts. Heterosexuals are still getting married -- and divorced -- at the same rate as always. The biggest difference is a lot of kids, like mine, have their families protected.

Rights guaranteed.

Because it's not about "gay marriage." It's about equal access to a legal institution that has been created to ensure committed couples are protected. It ensures the children of that couple are protected under the law. There have been thousands of legal precedents based on the institution of marriage that simply cannot be replicated by a new term, or new legal definition.

Joan Garry quotes the above excerpt from the decision and writes:

Did you get that? The word "marriage" IS important. Calling it something else implies that it is not of comparable stature or equal dignity. Calling it something else just for same sex couples implies that the parallel institution is a mark of second class citizenship. (Note to self: send copy of these last two paragraphs to Clinton and Obama campaigns)

So what's the moral of the story today? We are reminded that when we make a strong case (thank you to NLCR, Lambda Legal and the ACLU) in front of fair minded judges, judges who are doing their jobs, judges who, regardless of who appointed them, evaluate cases with integrity , we win. And we are all reminded that "separate but equal" has never cut it in America. Because "separate" is simply not equal at all.

Just a few more thoughts. John Nichols at the Nation says that this will make gay marriage an issue in the Presidential election, and that Democrats need to not wimp out on this. They should take a principled stand and live up to the reputation that it is the party that supports gays and lesbians. He notes that Senator Feingold of Wisconsin has always taken a strong stand for gay marriage, not just civil unions, and won by over 300,000 votes, despite coming from a state that narrowly passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

The campaigns have made careful and predictable statements. Clinton and Obama basically said that they support civil unions but that marriage should be left up to states. McCain basically said that it should be left up to states, but implied that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.

Two good articles on gay rights at Religion Dispatches

Yesterday I happened across this great website called Religion Dispatches, "a daily online magazine dedicated to the analysis and understanding of religious forces in the world today, highlighting a diversity of progressive voices and aimed at broadening and advancing the public conversation." I really like what I've read so far. As a grad student I read a lot of scholarly work on religion and society, but this website is appealing because it is in a less formal, more opinion-based format and deals with very current issues. I've added it to my list of favorite websites on the side of my blog and I suspect that it will inspire a lot of blog posts from me in the future.

I found two articles on the topic of gay rights yesterday that I really enjoyed. The first, written by Michelle Wolkomir, discusses the cancellation of a special workshop on religion, homosexuality, and therapy to be put on by the American Psychiatric Association last month. Apparently, there was tremendous pressure from gay activists to cancel the event, which was going to include two evangelicals: Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at an evangelical college in western Pennsylvania. Some activists saw the workshop as an attempt by religious conservatives to influence the APA on their stances toward homosexuality. Notably, Gene Robinson, a well-known and openly gay Episcopal bishop, withdrew from the event, saying that the event would lend credibility "to that so-called reparative therapy movement."

In her article, Wolkomir laments that the debate over gay rights is based around the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or not:

Neither gay nor ex-gay advocates challenge the stigma imposed on homosexuality, and they reduce the debate to an all too simple formula: If no choice, then rights. If choice, then no rights. Given this framework, activists on either side of the debate busy themselves trying to find religious and/or scientific proof for something that is, as of the present moment, simply unproveable—the origin of sexual desire. This formulaic choice/no choice framework of the debate keeps people from asking the truly important question that should be the heart of the matter: in these democratic United States, do mutually consenting adults have the right to freely, without coercion or sanction, choose their sexual partners? If the answer is yes, then no rights of citizenship can be withheld for this choice. Why people make the choice they do (or whether they have a choice) matters not at all—at least not for acquiring rights and privileges.

I think Wolkomir makes a really good point here. She's basically saying that whether you're born that way or whether you choose it doesn't really matter. What matters is what it means to live in a democratic, free society and whether consenting adults should have the freedom to choose their sexual partners. However, I have two main problems with her argument. First, she is really letting people who don't agree with the science or who oppose the research itself off the hook. She's also saying that science can never help us on this issue. I disagree with her on this. We should draw on multiple sources to understand our world, our society, our psychology, and our sexuality. Science is one of those sources and will, I believe, contribute to the debate in the future. My second problem with her argument is that she misses the point that for people on both sides, it is more than a matter of individual rights and choices. Some on both sides believe that the collective moral health of society is at stake. Opponents of gay rights believe that recognizing homosexuality and expanding gays' rights will lead to moral decline and will undermine the sacred institutions of marriage and family. Supporters believe that we cannot be a free, just, and responsible society until everyone is granted the rights they they are entitled to. Also, many religious conservatives undoubtedly would agree that gays and lesbians can choose whatever partner they want, as long as they keep it to themselves. When the issues of civil unions and gay marriages are in the picture, things change. These are social issues.

The second article was written by Evan Derkacz. He notes that a recent email alert from the Family Research Council, a Christian Right think tank and lobbying organization, had a tribute to Mildred Loving, a black woman famous for her successful challenge of a state law banning interracial marriage. Here's an excerpt from Derkacz's article:

The FRC devotes a significant portion of its tribute to Loving to caution readers: "Although homosexual activists are fond of portraying the Lovings' victory as a precedent for their cause, the Loving case didn't alter the definition of marriage but affirmed it by allowing any man to marry any woman. The nation is indebted to Mildred for a legacy that so aptly lives up to the couple's shared name."

There are at least two critical things to keep in mind while reading this. First, the embarrassing, then the meat. It's not just "homosexual activists" who see parallels in the Loving case—it's Mildred herself. On June 12, 2007, the 40th anniversary of the Loving case (a decision handed down just months before MLK was killed in Memphis, by the by), Mildred penned a public statement that included these liberal sentiments (full PDF here; italics mine):

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

Second, and perhaps more important, is the tendency for conservative groups to adjust their views to give the Groundhog Day-like impression that to believe in what is (now) the culturally appropriate view is eminently "conservative" (as in: "traditional," "unchanging," or "objectively true").

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is, these very welcome props to Mildred Loving and her husband Richard are deeply, abidingly, and intrinsically progressive values. They are the values of those whose sense of justice transcends the tunnel vision of time; of those who have both the vision to question received wisdom and the guts to express it.

Amen.

Religious Identity and Unitarian Universalism

I spoke in a Sunday service a couple weeks ago and I just thought I'd let people read what I said if they're interested. It was a lay-led service and several other "young adults" spoke, too. It was a really nice service. I realize it's a bit long for a blog post, but here it is if you're interested:

When I stopped attending Mormon services in 2006, it was at the end of a long period of life-transforming questioning, doubting, and longing. I was excited and relieved to be doing what I thought was the only honest and sincere thing I could do. Yet, I had a feeling, even a fear, that when I left Mormonism, I was probably leaving religion altogether. As someone who values religion deeply and has even decided to make a career of studying it, I was saddened by the prospect of no religion in my life. Thankfully, a little over a year ago I found this place.

Now, over a year later, I pause to reflect on where I’ve been and where I’m going. The topic of today’s service came out of personal reflection and several conversations I’ve had with others on a challenge that I believe faces many of us. I speak of the fact that we sometimes describe our faith by what it is not instead of by what it is. Earlier, Tina and I performed a goofy skit illustrating this tendency. Sometimes when I tell people about this place and my involvement here, I find myself asking or at least thinking something like “Where else would an agnostic, post-Mormon intellectual go?” The problem is that this only implies that I am UU by default – maybe because no other place would take me. While that may be true, I don’t want to be UU merely be default – because I happen to not be anything else.

I often think of an experience I had in this place. I once heard someone, when asked why they come here, say because “it doesn’t offend me.” I don’t doubt that this is true for many of us, maybe even myself. What a relief it is for many of us to find such a place. But is this really the best reason to be here? Are we always so on guard here in this place of religion that we seek to merely not be offended?

I wish to speak today on constructing a positive religious identity as Unitarian Universalists. I recognize and appreciate that such an identity will be different for each of us. What I share today is the process I have begun to go through to do this for myself.

The sociologist in me recognizes that groups always define who they are in part by identifying who they are not. Groups set clear boundaries and create what are called negative reference groups – groups we look to help us determine what we are not . We all do this everyday and this is an important and natural part of social life. But in the religious sphere, what happens when we rely only upon this means of figuring out who we are and what we believe? The Unitarian Universalist in me believes that it may serve as a barrier to personal, congregational, and denominational growth.

I believe that in order to connect my beliefs to action and to use religion as a source of guidance, inspiration, and hope, I need to ground myself in a positive religious identity. Doing so goes beyond defining what I don’t believe, and into defining what I do believe, and, perhaps most importantly, what I’m willing to do to achieve it. I believe that in our faith and in our congregation we have some tools to help us. Religious Education classes like Articulating Your UU Faith, Building Your Own Theology, and Owning Your Religious Past are designed to help us explore and define our beliefs and our religious identity. Some of us are stuck in a spiritual rut, still looking back at where we’ve come from rather than where we’re going. Each of us will create a positive religious identity in a different way, but it’s something I believe we all should do.

Some of you may say “Yeah, but why a religious identity? I’m not a religious person.” Some of you may feel uncomfortable calling yourselves religious or maybe even uneasy calling Unitarian Universalism a religion. I can sympathize with this – by conventional standards I’m probably not religious, either. But to construct a positive religious identity is to ground ourselves in this religious tradition of Unitarian Universalism, its rich history, its exciting present, and its yet-to-be-determined future. Let’s not let the word religion scare us away. UU minister and former UUA president Forrest Church defines religion as “our human response to the dual reality of being alive and having to die.” Humanist professor Anthony Pinn defines it as “that which provides orientation or direction for human life” along with “motivation for living and acting in accordance with this orientation.” Let us have a say in what it means. To borrow from Forrest Church and Anthony Pinn, let Unitarian Universalism be our response to life, and our orientation for living fully.

A month ago I attended the spring conference of the Joseph Priestley District of the UUA. The keynote address was given by Rob Keithan, director of the Washington Office for Advocacy of the UUA. Rob’s address was called “Who do we think we are?” and focused on the need for a strong, focused, but humble and grateful religious identity as UUs. Rob insisted that we not shy away from calling ourselves “religious.” First, he pointed out that, well, technically, we are. But Rob said that there’s another, deeper way in which we are a religious people, a way that I had never considered. Our beloved first principle, which emphasizes the worth and dignity of ALL people and which drives our commitment to social justice and love, is a faith statement – something that can’t be proven or tested, but that we accept on faith. You could probably make the same case about the other principles.

I believe that as individuals and as a religious movement we need to construct a positive religious identity because others continue to try to narrowly define religion in a way that is not in keeping with our religious ideals and principles. Some in the Religious Right identify secular humanists, religious liberals, gays and lesbians, the ACLU, and others as “the enemy,” and assert that somehow despite the wisdom of our founders and the language of their founding documents America is a “Christian Nation.” Others, part of a “new atheist” movement, put ALL religion squarely in the crosshairs. Based on worn-out, oversimplistic, and intolerant arguments, these authors have tried to make the case that the world would be better off without religion. I believe that we are poised to offer an alternative voice in the debate over religion. I think that Unitarian Universalists see religion as a tool. A tool that can be used for good or ill. We see in religion the potential to heal, unite, inspire, and motivate. We also see in religion deep and meaningful expressions of history, culture, and art. We see it as an expression of what makes us human. We refuse to give up on religion. A positive religious identity as Unitarian Universalists would position us to provide this sort of viewpoint and challenge those who would more narrowly define religion in order to attack those with whom they disagree.

There are claims, often found in UU jokes and sometimes offered by much more conventionally “religious” individuals, that Unitarian Universalism is an empty faith, so devoid of theology and so concerned with political correctness and inclusiveness that it ultimately says nothing at all. I do not believe that UUism is empty and meaningless. We have made a deliberate decision to have no creed. This allows individuals to embark on their own religious journeys, guided and informed by our common goals and shared principles. Second, our commitment to inclusiveness poses challenges, but ultimately we believe that it is the only way to be fair, just, and loving.

So what should a positive UU identity look like? It will no doubt look different for each of us, but I believe we share much with each other in terms of beliefs and values, and the obvious place to look is the seven principles, a set of powerful beliefs and values that under-gird what we do in our faith and what we seek to accomplish. Let us reflect on these often and commit to more fully live up to them.

My personal religious identity has been heavily influenced by religious humanism and religious naturalism, and more specifically, by a view described by Reverend William R. Murry in his book Reason and Reverence as “humanistic religious naturalism.” Combining religious humanism’s confidence in human potential and its emphasis on ethical living with religious naturalism’s view of humans as merely part of a larger, natural world worthy of reverence and human care, Murry describes a religious perspective that “promotes an ethical life in which one thinks and acts from a larger perspective than one’s own egoistic interests, a life that affirms the worth and dignity of each person, a life filled with wonder and reverence for the extraordinary magnificence of the natural world and human creations.” This is a pretty accurate description of my own religious identity as a Unitarian Universalist.

But what’s your religious identity? Why are you here in this place when you could be somewhere else right now? What beliefs and values motivate you and ground your commitment to working for a better world? Despite your best intentions, do you still sometimes find yourself defining who you are as a UU too much by what you are not and by what you do not believe in?

These are important questions, and I hope that this service will make each of us pause to consider them. Let us be grateful for our faith, Unitarian Universalism, and seek to ground ourselves in a positive identity that will further our commitment to social justice, ethical living, and living in love. So may it be.