CLGS

(Note: This was written on the day the California Supreme Court issued its ruling to uphold Proposition 8, which restricts civil marriage to one man and one woman.)

It is a sad day for both church and state. In the name of religious values and religious freedom,
civil rights have been denied to an entire class of people.

I must begin with a confession. My actions over the years have helped confuse people about
what marriage is and what it is not. There are two kinds of marriage: civil marriage and religious
marriage. People can have either one or both. I have known couples who, for various reasons,
have sought a religious blessing for their relationship even though they did not get legally
married. They were committed to one another but unwilling to abide by the rules and regulations
set forth for people who marry. There are those who have had a civil ceremony and not sought a
religious blessing or sacramental ceremony.

But many people do both at the same time, thus confusing the issue. An ordained member of the
clergy officiates at their wedding, often within the context of a certain tradition, and then
pronounces them to be married and signs their license. Until the passage of Proposition 8, this is
what I did.

As a citizen, I think the government can make a compelling argument for encouraging and
allowing people to enter into the contract of civil marriage. Legally married people are
immediately subject to a myriad of contractual understandings which apply to assets and
offspring and many other things. Certain rules (and protections) are immediately put in place in
the event things don’t work out. All of this is presumably designed with the common good in
mind.

Given the nature of legal marriage as a legal contract with both rights and responsibilities, it
makes sense for the state to take age and mental state into account when issuing a license. I can
think of no compelling reason, however, to allow discrimination on the basis of gender. I say
gender rather than sexual orientation because we have never asked applicants about their sexual
orientation, only about their gender assignment.

It would help clarify the nature of civil marriages if the rights and responsibilities were clearly
spelled out when people decide to enter into a civil contract and if only government employees
oversaw such matters. Clearly, the use of religious language in such contracts is inappropriate.

Many people speak about preserving the “sanctity” of marriage. To sanctify is to bless or to
consecrate or to make holy. This is not the role of the government. God help us if it ever is.
Whether or not individuals assign this authority to a religious institution is up to them but
religious institutions frequently claim this function and authority and individuals often recognize
and respect this authority.

Religious communities have long been free to bless or curse relationships based on the religious
affiliations of people, whether or not they have been divorced, their participation in counseling or
classes, their willingness to take certain vows etc. Whatever decisions we make about civil
marriages, this freedom must be maintained. Overturning or defeating Proposition 8 would not
have impacted this freedom, in spite of claims to the contrary.

As a Unitarian Universalist minister, I will continue to offer religious wedding ceremonies to
committed couples whether or not the state deems them worthy of a contract. I no longer serve
as an agent of the state by signing civil marriage licenses. I hope other clergy will join me and
that eventually the government will preserve this function for government employees. Perhaps
this will help clarify what civil marriage is and is not and we will no longer have people
successfully subverting the civil rights of others in the name of religion or religious freedom.

As a minister, my deepest belief is that love actually is not in need of sanctification, even from a
religious institution. Love itself is what sanctifies and I never cease to be humbled and awed in
the face of its power to sanctify and to overcome fear. I was reminded of that this morning as I
stood with Jean-Claude Rivalland and John Wullbrandt at the Government Center waiting for
the Supreme Court decision. They were married in San Francisco, only to be told that it wasn’t
legal and then they were married here on June 17. I met them on that day because Unitarian
Universalists from around the county were there to celebrate with people and to sing, “Standing
on the Side of Love.” They asked me to come and be with them this morning. They have been
together for twenty years and they do not need their relationship sanctified. What they need is to
have their rights and responsibilities recognized and upheld.

Nineteenth century Unitarian minister Theodore Parker said, “The arc of the moral universe is
long, but it bends toward justice.” These words were echoed by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. Our work to bend the arc continues. And there is nothing like love to do just that.

Jan Christian received an M. Div. from Pacific School of Religion in 2002 and has served as the
minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Ventura since that time. Prior to ministry,
she worked in Arizona’s justice and social service systems and taught in the College of Public
Programs at Arizona State University. She can be reached at minister@uuventura.org.