UUA CHAPEL SERMON
March 11 2003
The Rev. David Pettee
UUA Director of Ministerial Credentialing

Do I Hereby Pronounce You?

I want to thank Chris May for patiently nudging me to lead this worship. This is the second time I have preached from this pulpit. The first time was nearly a decade ago, when I met with the Ministerial Fellowship Committee. I can still recall noticing this brass plate, discovering this had been Channing's pulpit and thinking silently to myself: what am I doing here?

Over the past several weeks, the question of whether same sex couples should being able to legally marry has taken on greater interest. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments regarding this matter last week, with four of the seven couples who filed this action having UU connections. The UUA web site has been proving excellent coverage of this issue, partly inspired by the news of several UU clergy, Rhett Baird in Arkansas and locally, Fred Small, Jay Deacon, John Buehrens and Bill Sinkford, all whom have declared they will no longer sign marriage licenses.

I have watched these developments with excitement and hope. You see, the issues behind this struggle are quite familiar to me. This October will mark five years since my conscience dictated that I could no longer in good faith, sign marriage licenses.

The source of my epiphany came at the intersection of two manifestations of my professional calling. The stories I share come with the permission of those involved. For most of the last decade, I served a ministry of hospice care in the San Francisco Bay area. A most poignant moments came when the surviving partner of a gay couple was finally able to scatter his partner's ashes, into the waters of the Golden Gate.

After Phil had died, his father, a prominent Dallas attorney, convinced the mortician that he was now in charge. He even had the slip that proved he had paid the airline freight charges, to ship Phil's body back to Texas for burial. Phil's father was ready to exploit the reality that the protections of marriage were unavailable to his son and his partner Gary, despite a loving and stable relationship of nearly twenty-five years.

Fortunately, Phil had heeded my counsel and signed an advance directive that legally put Gary in charge when he was no longer able to make decisions. Yet, it was only after Gary and I met with the mortician to educate him about the legal implications if he did not respect Phil's wishes, did the mortician finally and angrily relent, and allow Gary to take over.

It was an awful dispute. We were both drained and exhausted. Why did Phil and Gary have to fight just to say goodbye?

Over the upcoming weekend, I planned to relax at the wedding of one of my closet friends in the ministry. I sat in the Mills College chapel-in-the-round as a guest, an unfamiliar role for a minister! The two brides glowed with joy, basking in the love of their families and friends, as their union was celebrated by two Unitarian Universalist colleagues. In due course, we were reminded that the ceremony held no legal status.

I must confess to you that I rarely cry at weddings. Maybe it's hard to be sad when you realize that the cost of the flowers is ten times what your remuneration will be. But on this otherwise memorable day, I was tearful, reminded again that same week that marriage is indeed a special privilege. I remember thinking: what could possibly be wrong about these two women, deeply in love, wanting legal recognition for the lifelong commitment they were making? How could society be harmed by this act?

I couldn't stop asking myself: what is really at stake when a minister officiates at a wedding? Could it possibly be more than blessing a new union? Or guiding a couple and two families through a fragile rite of passage, with a most uncertain future?

As I sat quietly, I felt suddenly ill at ease, and felt something shift inside, stirred by the memory of my grandfather Pettee. He had taught me that with privilege comes responsibility. I finally understood what he had been telling me about the importance of being a descendant of Roger Williams, that seventeenth century religious rascal, who three hundred and forty five years ago this winter, fled for his life from Salem, in hopes of building a new community where others could practice what he called 'soul liberty' without interference from the state theocracy.

My willingness as a member of the clergy to help legalize marriages has important repercussions. To me, the seemingly innocent and neutral act of signing a marriage license actually represents a silent collusion with the state, which extends the numerous privileges of marriage only to heterosexual couples.

I now believe that when I sign a marriage license, I am simply reaffirming the state-sanctioned discrimination against same-sex couples, who are categorically denied the privilege to make their unions legal. In another way, when I sign a marriage license, I obscure the lines that separate church from state. I now contend that a minister signing a marriage license is like an attorney leading worship. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

Some fear the loss of heterosexuality as the unifying tenet of marriage should gay marriage prevail. They caution us about a slippery slope toward societal ruin. I would urge anyone who feels similarly concerned to read What is Marry For? published by Beacon Press. You'll no doubt enjoy, as I did "the strange social history of our most intimate institution."

The timing of my awareness was providential. In early 2000, as President of the Pacific Central District UU Ministers Chapter, I was able to successfully organize my colleagues to unanimously oppose Proposition 22, a hateful ballot initiative the regrettably succeeded in amending the California state constitution to make marriage legal, only between a man and a woman.

I might imagine that some of you may wonder if this is worth all the fuss. In 1997, the United States General Accounting Office documented that were at least 1049 federal laws which offer benefits, rights and privileges based upon marital status. These laws govern such things as the assumption of a spouse's pension; bereavement leave; child custody; divorce protections; adoption; domestic violence prevention; insurance breaks; and medical decisions on behalf of one's partner, to name but a few. When interviewing me, many couples understandably want to know why I've taken this stance. On the most basic level, I am incarnating our second principle: justice, equity and compassion in human relations. It's my experience that when most people are enlightened, it's more difficult to actively participate, even silently, in perpetuating institutional discrimination.

Though not have always agreed with me, most couples admit that as a minister, my charge is to celebrate the religious and sacred dimensions of the ceremony. For those who respect my position, most choose to participate in a short civil ceremony, when picking up the license.

Initially after taking this stance, I episodically felt reluctant to push the issue, challenged by my own internalized homophobia. My resolve finally strengthened for good, after I was chastised by an angry groom, that I make an exception in the spirit of 'keeping everybody happy.' I thought more about my two gay cousins who fled Massachusetts for California in the 1950's, no longer able, or willing, to keep everybody happy.

I have wondered why this form of civil obedience has not been more freely embraced by UUs. Those who seek a traditional grounding will be comforted by the words of Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford, an early practitioner of our congregational polity, who wrote "marriage is a civil thing and found nowhere in ye word of God it is tied to the ministrie." [sic]

At other times, I have wanted to imagine what would happen if many more clergy publicly stated their refusal to sign marriage licenses. But I say this in full appreciation that this is not a decision that ought to be made lightly-- it is not a 'cause' to be joined, like simply signing a petition at GA. The stakes are big.

I share with you the results of an unscientific and anecdotally based survey to find out why there is hesitation. What seems at the root of the resistance, not surprisingly, is the pervasive evil of homophobia, and its unending capacity to evolve. Some of my bisexual, gay, lesbian and transgendered colleagues are reluctant to take this stance, out of the apprehension of being accused of being a self-serving, or one issue minister. Some other colleagues have suggested respectfully that there might be special circumstances that argue for a more traditional position. Over the last five years, I have not discovered any exceptions.

I know other colleagues who are supportive, but struggle with the work of obtaining congregational support. They have shared revealing remarks from well meaning, but fearful congregants. The risk of inconveniencing parishioners does exist, but I don't know how we can upset the standing order, without making somebody unhappy. It is also true that some congregations are financially dependent upon annual outside wedding income. They fear that others will rent elsewhere, if the minister refuses to sign marriage licenses. The issue quickly becomes economic.

I must ask in response: how many new members would be attracted to our churches, if they knew how serious we were in being welcoming congregations? Wouldn't we attract the kinds of people we want into our leadership? Many more people would come to a UU church that was willing to be prophetic about challenging this pervasive form of discrimination. It's a faith stance that I take, but hey, the way I see it, that's my job!

On one memorable occasion, a couple demanded that I preach a homily why I would not sign their license. I was embarrassed by this request, and was even more surprised when my remarks were received with enthusiastic applause. At another wedding reception, I was urged by the bride and groom to explain my position. I was so moved and heartened by how many of their guests sought me out to talk more thoughtfully about this issue. It made me feel so hopeful!

May the Supreme Judicial Court be both wise and courageous later this year, and affirm that our gay and lesbian family members and friends be granted the legal right to marry. May we continue in our efforts to support the mission of the UUA Office of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and/or Transgender Concerns: to be put out of business.

May it be so. Amen!

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100