Sermons & Pastoral Resources

Loving in Dangerous Times: The Crisis and Opportunity of Same-Sex Marriage

The Robert and Dorrie Moon Lectures
Sacramento, California
May 16, 2004

by Dr. Karen P. Oliveto

Having just come back from General Conference, I find myself wondering: Just when did love become so unfashionable for the Church of Jesus Christ?

The call came to my office in the early afternoon: "The City is issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples!" The date was February 12, 2004. A quick check on-line confirmed my parishioner's call. Two hours later he called me back, "Karen, will you marry me?" (ah, how confusing these days are!) "I am in line, and trying to reach Sean." Without a moment's hesitation, I said yes.

I have known Michael and Sean for many years, have provided them with pastoral support as they decided to expand their family through adoption, and have walked with them through the emotional valleys and mountaintops as they went through the adoption process. Now, as they sought legal recognition of their relationship, we were about to share in another major milestone as pastor and parishioners.

We rendezvoused at City Hall and found a quiet spot to do the ceremony. We stood and faced each other, and then, taking a deep breath, began the ritual. Tears welled as the familiar words were recited. As we finished the ceremony, and the couple kissed, we stepped back, looked each other in the eye, and realized that we had just stepped into history. The personal act of covenant-making had become a political act of justice-making.

Some refer to the period when San Francisco issued marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples as our "Winter of Love." It was a magical moment, a kairos event, when the love and exuberance of the thousands of gay and lesbian couples who crossed the threshold at City Hall poured out into the streets in an unprecedented display of unity and goodwill. From legislative chambers to church pulpits, voices across America have strongly reacted to San Francisco's commitment of ensuring equal rights for all members of society. Religious language has peppered the public discourse regarding marriage, blurring the lines between civil rights and ecclesiastical rites. Religious and political leaders alike have publicly vowed to protect the sanctity of marriage. These are dangerous times. And like all dangerous times, it is both a crisis and an opportunity.

What is most fascinating about the evolution of same-sex marriage is that this was not high on the "must-have" lists of most gays and lesbians. In fact, those seeking marriage rights were derided by one lesbian comedian as having "mad vow disease". However, once the doors to SF's City Hall were opened, gay and lesbian couples descended in droves to receive legal recognition of their relationship. Having tasted equality, these same couples that had never before given a second thought to marriage, have vowed that they will never accept anything less for their relationship. Like a quaint trend, holy unions have become so 20th century.

Why the shift? Why have lesbians and gay men embraced that which was once barely considered? For a simple reason: marriage was seen as the sole possession of heterosexuals. When one grows up as a gay or lesbian child and youth, marriage is seen as an institution that is the supreme legitimizer of heterosexual behavior. Think about the primary message we give children and youth about the relationship between sexual expression and marriage: "Save it for marriage." If one's sexual orientation is not heterosexual, then marriage is not an option. One becomes a sexual outlaw, one for whom the law does not apply. For gay men and lesbians, this has included marriage laws. As a result, most gay men and lesbians never saw marriage as a legal option. Standing outside the law, they never had a sense of deprivation, that the norms and values of marriage were being withheld from them.

But within the last year, several societal shifts resulted in a change of attitudes, both towards gay men and lesbians, and how gay men and lesbians felt about marriage. First, was the striking down of sodomy laws. With the US government no longer dictating American sexual practices between consenting adults, lesbians and gay men inched closer to the mainstream.

Secondly, our northern neighbor's actions this summer drew attention to heterosexism's role in creating inequality. When Canadians looked at their constitution and actually realized that equal rights were really meant for all citizens not just some, they realized that they had no choice but to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

The shock waves of the action of what is often seen as the 51st state reached far below Canada's southern borders, directly into the heart of the gay/lesbian community. Couples who had never thought about marriage surprised themselves by asking, "Do we or don't we?" and taking sudden vacations northward.

The Massachusetts Supreme court decision gave the commonwealth of Massachusetts 180 days to prepare to grant marriage licenses to lesbian and gay couples. They also gave them 180 days to find a loophole against doing it. Justice has thus far prevailed, and as of tomorrow, legal marriage will be an option for same-gender couples in Massachusetts. But it was SF's Winter of Love that ignited the imaginations and hearts of lesbian and gay couples. Over 4000 couples came to SF to exchange vows and acquire legal recognition of their relationships. And this spark ignited wild fires of love in Oregon, New Mexico, and New Paltz, New York. Once seen as off-limits, gay men and lesbians are saying "I do and I will" to marriage.

As a pastor, I can't help but note how having access to marriage has changed the relationships of those gay and lesbian couples who have exchanged vows. Most of the couples within my congregation who were married had had holy unions. All were surprised at how the experience of marriage changed how they look at themselves and their relationship and how others look at them.

Many of the couples have framed their marriage licenses and have tried to find the right place to hang it in their home. And then they sheepishly realize they have never seen a straight couples' marriage license hanging proudly in their home. The acquisition of this new right is not taken lightly. It is cherished.

Dan and Bill have been together for more than a decade. They were the couple I married in worship at Bethany. The Bethany community had nurtured them through illnesses, and they had nurtured us with Methodist meatballs for coffee hour and pamper parties for our UMW. When they were interviewed by CNN, they simply glowed on screen as they talked about how much getting married meant to them—they were legitimized as family, and from now on, whenever one of them was hospitalized, for they both have HIV, the other would not be barred from the hospital room. But when they were asked by the reporter about what would happen if a judge determined that their marriage license was invalid, both fought back tears—they couldn't imagine this precious, newly acquired right being taken away from them.

In the course of a few short months, the gay lexicon has changed. While at General Conference, I caught up with a United Methodist friend who had come to SF to be married and who couldn't wait to introduce me to her wife. Where once lesbian and gay couples referred to each other as partners, confusing many straight people who wondered what kind of small business the partners owned, now they have claimed the words spouse, wife, and husband. Words are powerful. Friend, partner, lover…none of these words convey the fullness of meaning implicit in spouse, husband, wife.

Others report that it has been most surprising how their straight friends and family have treated them. Even couples who have previously had public holy unions have realized that holy unions are not easily understood or held in the same estimation as marriage. When newly married gay San Franciscans returned to their work places, businesses and offices were turned into wedding receptions by supportive co-workers, eager to join in the celebration. Parents acknowledged their gay and lesbian children's relationships in a deeper way. And our capitalist culture identified new consumers and is now aggressively marketing to gay and lesbian newlyweds, a sure-fire sign that gay marriage is not an aberrant fad.

There is a strong commitment to never going back. If gay men and lesbians have learned anything these past few months, it is that separate will never be equal. Holy unions, civil unions, domestic partnerships—all are second best, the consolation prize that offers little consolation.

This newly invigorated civil rights movement has created a cultural crisis. Just who gets to define marriage? What is it we are protecting marriage from when we seek to deny it to gay and lesbian people? How does gay/lesbian marriage challenge our understandings of gender and sexuality? President Bush has been emphatic that what is at stake is the sanctity of marriage and that it is his duty as president to protect it. I respectfully disagree. Mr. President, your role is to ensure that the rights of our constitution are shared equally among all American citizens, that no one group is the sole possessor of some rights that are denied others. It is the government's duty to protect the human rights and civil liberties of all.

It is the church's role to protect the sanctity of marriage. The church needs to get out of the government's business, and get back into its business of recognizing the movement of God in our day, for what God seeks to bless, we ought not to get in the way. Extending marriages rites to gay and lesbian persons will not spell the decline of the institution of marriage. Extending those rights to slaves did not spell its decline. Extending those rights to interracial couples did not spell its decline. There will always be individuals who find the mystery of love moving in their lives, drawing them to another, finding that their lives are more meaningful together than they ever could be apart. Contrary to what the President has stated and what General Conference has implied, gay and lesbian marriages are not "WMDs"—Weapons of Marital Destruction (Kate Clinton).

I am amazed by those voices intent on protecting marriage. Given that the current divorce rate for marriages is at 50%, you have to wonder what exactly marriage needs to be protected from. I know of very few things we put our trust and faith in that have a 50% success rate. Would you fly a plane, drive a car, or hop a train if you knew it had a 50% chance of actually making it to your destination? Would you put your clothes in a washing machine that only worked 50% of the time? Would you have a surgical procedure that had a 50% rate of failure? There is something amiss with matrimony, but it is not the fault of gay and lesbian people.

Perhaps this is where gay and lesbian marriage provides us with an opportunity. I married Mitch and his partner on February 14. As he told a reporter, "Every morning I look down at my ring, and I remember the promise I have made to God and to my partner Rick." Gay and lesbian people, who have had their relationships legally denied for so long, have much to teach heterosexuals about commitment and covenant. It is amazing, given the lack of societal support and structures that gay and lesbian relationships have been able to survive and thrive at all. What lessons about covenant and commitment do gay and lesbian couples have to share with us?

Gay and lesbian couples also bring to the institution of marriage a heightened sense of the privilege of marriage. Since there have been no cultural road maps leading gay and lesbian people to marriage, one truly must enter into it with intentionality when one chooses it. Roles and rules are not pre-defined, but each relationship takes on the nuances, strengths, and weaknesses of each partner. Gay and lesbian marriages, which are not subject to the same kind of gender roles of heterosexual marriages, can provide all of us with an opportunity to ponder marriage with fresh perspectives and new eyes. In the long run, this kind of reflection can only enrich our understanding of marriage, its role and purpose in society as well as its significance in the lives of those who choose it.

Love has become so unfashionable—it is in terribly short supply these days. It mystifies me why any thinking adult would want to limit covenantal love between two individuals. Supporting love anywhere strengthens love everywhere. Extending legal marriage to gay and lesbian couples can only strengthen, not weaken, the institution of marriage.

Unfortunately, that is not the way The United Methodist Church sees it. The first two petitions that the plenary adopted at General Conference were on family and marriage. We narrowed our understanding of family to include a father and mother, snubbing not only gay and lesbian families, but all those parents who, by choice or circumstance, are parenting alone.

The second petition defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, and urged United Methodists to work against all civil laws that would widen that definition. Having lived through San Francisco's Winter of Love, having many different forms of families within my congregation, including most recently the adoption of children by two gay couples, and standing as we all are, on the eve of legal gay marriage in Massachusetts, I find the legislation passed at General Conference to be both arrogant and offensive. How dare The United Methodist Church, or any church which follows the teachings of Jesus, seek to limit family and covenant. Jesus expands our traditional notion of family and kinship. "Who are my brothers, my mother? All who do the will of God is my family." And Jesus shows us that the highest form of relationship we are to strive for is that of covenant. We are to be a people who live in covenant with each other and with God. In spite of what some may argue, marriage is a covenant that need not be limited by gender.

Oh, if only these were the only things that happened at General Conference.

I have returned from General Conference deeply concerned, not only for my own ministry at Bethany, but for all churches across our denomination that welcome all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to participate in the faith community. I am concerned about our annual conference, and its historic commitment to ministry with, by and for g/l/b/t persons. And I am concerned about the western jurisdiction, which has been further marginalized to the point of tokenism.

While some look at the statistical data of the voting trends of General Conference, and say that there are hopeful signs that the church is changing, ask any gay or lesbian person, or those who minister to them, if in fact General Conference offered any hope and most would have to say no. Because while the margins narrowed, the restrictions against g/l/b/t United Methodist laity and clergy increased. When a noose is tightening around your neck, cutting off your air supply, the fact that not as many folks voted to hang you is of little comfort.

While the "Will and Gracification" of American culture continues, with gay and lesbian people gaining visibility and legitimization in and through American pop culture, mainline churches continue to divert God's will and limit God's grace. Divert God's will from extending justice, setting free the oppressed, limit God's grace by refusing to see it in lives that are vastly different from the majority.

As the rights and visibility of gay men and lesbians increase in American culture, The United Methodist Church is heading in the opposite direction. Loopholes in The Discipline that allowed pastors to care for their gay and lesbian parishioners as well as enabled gay and lesbian pastors to serve in a don't ask, don't tell environment have been effectively eradicated. As gay men and lesbians enjoy public visibility, the church is requiring them to go more deeply in the closet. For many, this is simply not an option.

I am particularly aware of this as I reflect on the weddings we celebrated at Bethany. Legal marriages are very public affairs, with a public record and witnesses. Holy Unions, on the other hand, are very private, at one time almost secretive affairs. Unlike holy unions, marriage demands one to come out. As a pastor, I have found holy unions to be both joyous and heartwrenching. Joyous because there is always joy when two people seek to live in covenant together, who desire to unite their lives with God at the center. In the 21 years I have performed holy unions, I have ached for those that were done with no family present, no witnesses, behind closed doors.

In 1991, I received a most unusual call. A muffled voice asked me, "Are you Karen Oliveto, and do you do holy unions?" "I'm Karen, who are you?" I asked. "I'll call you back later." Click. The phone went dead. I did receive another call. Jane was from a small town in the Midwest. She and Pat had been together for seven years and wanted a holy union. Through a most elaborate grapevine, Jane had heard that I perform holy unions, so they wanted to come to San Francisco.

Like straight marriages, I always have several pastoral sessions with the couples I work with. Since they were in the Midwest, I asked them to first make a tape for me, talking together about who they were, how they had met, and how their relationship had blossomed. About a week later, I received a cassette tape in the mail. As I listened to it, they said they were taping in their car. With Anne Murray softly crooning in the background, they told their story.

What broke my heart was how deeply in the closet they were. Both had very high visibility public service jobs and they feared the loss of those jobs if they came out. One had children, and was afraid of losing them if her ex-husband learned about her relationship. They chose to come to San Francisco for their holy union because they felt it would be far enough away from the Midwest that it would be safe. When they came to my campus ministry center for the ceremony, one of them walked around outside the building to see if they would be visible by those passing by. That's how deeply afraid they were. And their fear and lack of community broke my heart. Love can never exist in a vacuum. It needs the support of others in order to grow in healthy ways. I have performed too many holy unions where there was not one family member present, just a handful of friends.

For those of you who have been married, try to imagine that day without your family present. Needing to find not the prettiest place for the ceremony, but the safest, knowing that some churches disallow ceremonies for your kind. Knowing that if word of your special day reached some people, it could cost you your job, your family, your status in the community.

In contrast to holy unions, marriages are by their nature communal experiences of blessing and celebration. The United Methodist Church, by refusing to allow a pastor the right to officiate at the wedding of a gay or lesbian parishioner, has cut off any possibility for pastoral care to be offered to gay and lesbian people at one of the highest moments of their lives. A marriage ceremony cannot be closeted simply to protect a pastor from what is now a chargeable offense.

At the same time, The United Methodist Church is forcing gay and lesbian pastors to be even more deeply closeted than ever before. This is occurring in an era when young people are coming out at an increasingly earlier age, and in comparison with older generations of queer people, with virtually no closets. As a result of the increased restrictions on gay and lesbian clergy, we will see fewer gay and lesbian young people answer their call to ordained ministry through The United Methodist Church. The cost of ordination within this denomination, which includes the lack of recognition of one's family and the self-denial of one's very personhood, will be too great for a generation of young people who have never been limited by the borders of closet living. The cost to the church as a result of these restrictions is a loss of called and creative individuals whose ministries can further the mission of the church.

Frequently when I am typing quickly, I make an error and wind up typing "Untied Methodist Church." These days, it seems more of a prophetic message rather than a typo. At a breakfast meeting of Good News at General Conference and later at a press conference, Rev. Bill Hinson outlined a proposal for the splitting of the church. He cites those of us in the West as one of the factors which caused him to call for this split. As he said at the breakfast: "Our friends in the Western Jurisdiction have left us. Our covenant is in shreds. And when I speak of covenant I'm not talking about the trust clause. I'm talking about a sacred trust that is much deeper and more binding. Through the years such a trust could be counted on to keep us faithful to what we have discussed, voted on, and placed into our Book of Discipline. All of that has now changed. More than that, our friends who have broken our covenant feel that they themselves are broken, because the votes of this Conference have largely gone against them, they feel disenfranchised, they feel we are doing spiritual violence to them, and have told us clearly that we are not truth tellers. In addition they are seeking autonomy from the larger body. They garnered more than 300 votes in an attempt to do things their way with regard to ordination in the Western Jurisdiction."

Hinson talks of three things: a breaking of covenant, the victimization that he perceives the West feels, and what he perceives as the West seeking autonomy so that our ministries can be inclusive.

First, the question begs to be asked: just who is breaking covenant with whom? I contend that The United Methodist Church has broken covenant with every gay and lesbian member and their families. There is no other group we have legislated so thoroughly against. We believe that within every baptized Christian is a promise from God waiting to unfold. Except when it comes to gay and lesbian Christians. If we don't want gay men and lesbians to live out the vows made at their baptism, maybe we should reject infant baptism and instead only baptize adults who pass a certain number on the Kinsey scale of sexual orientation.

I also believe that the rest of the denomination is breaking covenant with the church in the West. This is not about victimization as much as it is about an abuse of power by the majority. The West has a long history of ministry to those who have come here to escape the provincial attitudes found in other parts of the country. We have had our own understandings of ministry broadened by the diversity of races, cultures, and lifestyles found in our region. Over the past three decades, we have had our ministries increasingly limited by General Conference actions, particularly ministries related to g/l/b/t persons. It is from this place of decreased ecclesiastical rights that the West is responding, trying to maintain the ministries we have always done, as well as respond as agents of God's love and justice in an ever changing cultural context. It is through these lenses that we interpret the Discipline, not to undermine its authority, but to have it under gird our ministries.

I confess that I heard very little honest conversation at General Conference. We couldn't name honestly our differences nor could we name honestly the evil of war and violence found in these current days which beg for the church's prophetic voice. Perhaps the closest we came to being honest was when Bill Hinson was invited to the floor of conference to speak on the last day of conference. Mind you, the headlines in every paper that morning screamed denominational schism. Instead of apologizing for undermining the work of General Conference, Hinson continued to detail his schism proposal.

This could have been the opportunity for tremendous honesty. As with any relationship which has soured, whenever one member of the relationship finally dares to name what neither has wanted to speak aloud, there is the possibility for honest communication, a chance to name unmet needs, to offer a possibility of healing, and an opportunity to see if this relationship really can be saved.

Instead of seizing the opportunity put before us, representatives of all five jurisdictions as well as the central conferences quickly came to the floor to propose a statement of unity. Instead of suspending the rules of order so true holy conferencing could occur, the body had two speeches for, two speeches against, and then 95% of the delegates voted to stand behind this statement of unity. Instead of engaging in theological triage, a band aid was placed on the hemorrhaging body of Christ.

We in the West as well as progressives throughout the church had a chance to speak boldly our truth: that we are committed to The United Methodist Church, but the church needs to be committed to us as we seek to do ministry in a unique cultural environment. Instead, we succumbed to the seduction of cheap grace without doing the hard work unity in the face of differences requires.

Where does that leave us? Mark Tooley of UMAction is clear. He and others are working towards a split. He and others knew that General Conference delegates would not move towards a split, because most delegates are, in his words, "institutionalists." Instead, by proposing a split from the sidelines of General Conference, he and others are committed to bringing this notion to the people sitting in the pews. You can be sure there is a carefully crafted plan to put this all into motion so that the church can take the shape and form they believe it is called to be.

And what are we doing? What is our plan? What kind of church are we committed to being a part of and building?

I will not speak on the strength or weaknesses of scriptural hermeneutics by evangelicals. I do, however, understand this: for the evangelical, accepting the notion that homosexual behavior is normative is unthinkable. As Don Williams wrote in The Bond that Breaks: Will Homosexuality Break the Church? "For the church at this point to surrender to gay advocacy and gay theology and thus to give up her biblical faith would bring not only disaster upon herself, it would bring more havoc to the world as well. If the church simply blesses homosexuality, the hope for change in Christ will be destroyed." There is a line in the sand that evangelicals have drawn that they will refuse to cross lest the church for them cease to be the church.

My question is to us progressives. Where is our line in the sand? When does the church cease to be the church for us? How many gay teenagers must commit suicide before we recognize the human cost and social ramifications of the church's anti-gay stance? How many gifted gay and lesbian pastors must quietly leave their ministries before we decry the church's sin? How broken must the body of Christ be before we are willing to say it is no longer an agent of God's grace and love? When does our commitment to unity cause us to compromise too much on our fundamental understandings of community, covenant, and church?

Are we guilty of being institutionalists, intent on maintaining a façade of unity when the foundation is crumbling beneath us? Will we abide by the letter of the law or will we celebrate the many diverse ways God calls God's people to engage in ministry? Will we maintain a life-denying policy of don't ask, don't tell, or will we create an environment where every child of God can speak the truth of their lives? Will we tolerate leadership that invites duplicity: pastor your people, do their holy unions, do their marriages, just don't talk about it or we will have no choice but to enforce the Discipline? Will we celebrate the many forms love takes, or will we seek to limit its expression in the world?

We have a lot of decisions to make in the coming months. They are not easy, but no one said following Jesus was easy. These days are indeed dangerous.

These are times, in the aftermath of General Conference, when it feels as if love is unfashionable. Throughout the two weeks, I saw a denomination denounce rather than embrace love. But it's not just our church. Each day the media is spoon-feeding us hefty doses of hate and fear, both contra-indicated with love. For every swallow, the heart tightens, hardens, clamps tight. Compassion and empathy are cast aside as character flaws. When love is unfashionable, what is a lover to do? When love is unfashionable, what is one who is a follower of Jesus to do? When love is unfashionable, what is one who seeks to know God to do?

To those of us who are insufferable lovers, who seek to overcome evil not with evil but with love's power, who seek to keep it forever in style, Alice Walker offers this advice:

While love is unfashionable
Let us live
Unfashionably.
Seeing the world
A complex ball
In small hands;
Love our blackest garment.
Let us be poor
In all but truth, and courage
Handed down
By the old spirits.
Let us be intimate with
Ancestral ghosts
And music of the undead.
While love is dangerous
Let us walk bareheaded
Beside the Great River.
Let us gather blossoms
Under fire
—Alice Walker

The church of Jesus Christ knows something about living unfashionably. In days when love has been unfashionable, Christ's church has lived unself-consciously unfashionably. The church throughout the ages has understood the world, with its myriad hates and biases and privileges and customs, for all its complexities, and has loved through it all, living out the fullness of truth, that the most precious commodity in the world is love, the only thing that can show us a hint of the face of God is love, that the only thing worth risking one's very life for is love and love alone. While love is unfashionable, let us live unfashionably.

My brothers and sisters, let us love one another. Let us love the children, let us love the aged. Let us love the friend. Let us love the stranger. Let us love no matter the orientation, or race, or creed.

My brothers and sisters, let us love one another. Let us love those with whom we disagree. Let us love those who seek to limit our ministries. Let us love those who cannot understand our ministries and let us love those to whom we are called to minister.

My brothers and sisters, let us leave no one out of the circle of love, because whenever we choose NOT to love, our relationship with God becomes broken, and with it, we become impotent to change the world.

My brothers and sisters, let us love one another. Let us wear the mantle of love even when it grows out of date. When being a lover is considered naive and out of touch, may we flaunt it in the faces of the powers and principalities that be. When love is unfashionable, let us live unfashionably.

Then, living such faithful lives, shall we see God's face, and hear God's voice, whispering to us, loving us, enabling us to love even more deeply, boldly, passionately. In these dangerous days of crisis and opportunity, when love is unfashionable, let us live unfashionably.

back to top