For Better or For Worse: 

Some Thoughts on Same Sex Marriages

A Sermon by the Rev. James R. Bridges

Unitarian Universalist Congregation at Rock Tavern

January 11, 2004

 As a minister, there are some tasks that I really enjoy doing.  Some of them I think you already know of.  While it is true that one of my great joys is welcoming new members into a Unitarian Universalist congregation, I must confess, I have an even greater joy.  I immensely enjoy the work of officiating at the marriages of couples.  I view it as a perk, or a side benefit, of entering the profession of being a Unitarian Universalist minister. It truly is a high for me, presiding over an exchange of vows such as the following: 

                                     I give myself to you

                                    To be your wife.

                                    I promise to love and sustain you

                                    In the covenant of marriage,

                                    From this day forward,

                                    In sickness and in health,

                                    In plenty and in want,

                                    In joy and in sorrow,

                                    As long as we both shall live.

Those sentiments are inspiring.  They speak of commitment, of community, of family, of love and dedication. 

Even though statistically I know that over 50% of marriages may end in divorce, I still find it meaningful and rewarding to engage a couple in exploring the meaning of their relationship, why they want to become married, and how best to give shape to an expression of their relationship in a public ceremony.  I find it moving and supremely meaningful work.

A bit more about myself.  Basically, I am a straight male, but I have never been the stereotypical jock.  However, being raised in the somewhat socially conservative Midwest, I confess that I have had some homophobic feelings in my background, feelings that I really had to struggle with and explore.  And I have done that work.

In talking with colleagues, I discovered that I am not the only one with somewhat ambivalent feelings about homosexuality and various sexual acts.  One colleague has a hang-up on the use of the word marriage – it can only be used with a man and woman.  Another has a hang-up about anal sex – even though such is practiced by heterosexuals as well.  Still another one has not a problem with the sexual acts, it is more a repulsion to same sex kissing.  We each have our own hang-ups.  They are there – but we do not give into them.

The first time I was asked to officiate at a same sex service of union, I felt a bit awkward, it being the first service of that type that I had performed, but I welcomed the opportunity to grow and learn.  The service went off well, and I was moved at seeing both the joy and happiness in the couple, as well as in their guests.  The couple had already been partners for something like ten or 15 years, and they wanted to make the relationship official – at least in the eyes of a religious body – and among their friends and relatives.  It was a deeply affirming event for them, and I was proud to be part of it.  I was affirming their relationship, sanctioning in some way.

But, I was struck also by the unfairness and injustice of it, for it could not be official in the eyes of the state and the law.  And that just was not fair, I concluded.  They loved each other.  They were committed to each other.  They were life partners.  And yet, they could not obtain legal recognition of their special relationship.  I immediately saw a parallel between some of those old laws which banned interracial marriages.  Was this lesbian couple any less human than a heterosexual couple?  Did they have less rights?  In the moral scheme of things, I think not.  In the legal framework, in contrast, they most certainly did have less rights.

Then, not too long ago Vermont passed their domestic partnership law.  While withholding the term marriage, the law extended almost all the benefits of a marital relationship to same sex couples.  I viewed that as a step in the right direction, but still not there.  I was even more heartened and excited by the Massachusetts court decision which demanded that the legislature of Massachusetts   create a marriage law which was constitutional, i.e., a law under which same sex couples would not be discriminated against.  My reaction was an emphatic YES!           

Of course, we now have the conservatives and the Christian right rearing their heads to fight this change in status, much as they did back in the 1950’s when the push was on for full human rights for African Americans in the United States.  Perhaps some of you can remember when the Bible was used to support discrimination and segregation, with references to the mark of Ham?  I am worried, to be honest, that they may even win this skirmish in the ongoing battle for civil rights for gays and lesbians, for the prejudice seems entrenched in the American populace, with more than a 50% majority in opposition to full marital rights for gays and lesbians. 

At least some of this resistance, if not most of it, is based upon select Bible passages which at first glance often seem to condemn homosexuality and related behaviors.  So what exactly does the Bible say about homosexuality? As any of us may run into conservatives who spout these verses of scripture, I thought it might be helpful to review these texts from a scholarly perspective so that we can meet the issue head on in discussion, should the need ever arise.

Before looking at the text, however, remember that there are basically two different ways of looking at the Bible:  the conservative, fundamentalist way looks at the Bible as written by men who were divinely inspired by God.  The Bible is inerrant, without error, and gives the Truth for all time.  They view the Bible as the literal Word of God.

The liberal religious view, on the other hand, sees the Bible as having been written by men who were attempting to understand their world at a given time and place.  While their writings are divinely inspired, they also reflect the limitations of human understanding at the time they were written.  Thus, current scientific knowledge did not enter into their writings, nor did our current understanding of human sexuality.  Indeed, the prejudices of the times can also be seen in their writings as, for example, when slavery is mentioned in a matter of fact manner.

The first point that must be made is that there was no concept of homosexuality at the time the Bible was written.  Indeed, sexual orientation was not studied until around the 1950’s.

Secondly, if you read certain selections in English of the Bible, you will read texts that seem to condemn homosexuality.  Yet, if you read those same texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, you will find condemnation of specific forms of homosexual activity, such as prostitution or rape, but the texts are silent about committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.  Let me repeat that – the texts are silent about committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.  The texts say nothing about it at all, neither in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures.

Now to the Bible.

Turning first to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19: 1-9,

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom.  When Lot saw them, the rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground.  He said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; they you can rise early and go on your way."  They said, "No; we will spend the night in the square."  But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.  But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and o ld, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot.  "Where are the men who came to you tonight?  Bring them out to us, so that we may know them."  Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg  you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.  Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."  But they replied, "Stand back!"  And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge!  Now we will deal worse with you than with them."  Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down. 

This passage is almost always interpreted by conservative Christians as being a condemnation of homosexuality. Both cities were destroyed by God because of the attempted homosexual behavior of the men towards the guests of Lot.  Indeed, the legal term sodomy comes from this story.

However, there are certainly different readings on these verses.  For one thing, the men were attempting homosexual rape, not consensual sex with the angels.  Even more revealing is how other voices in the Bible reference this story.  For instance, the Prophet Isaiah, in chapt. 1, condemns Judah, likening it unto Sodom.  However, what he accuses Judah of is rebelling against and deserting the Lord, of being ignorant, of being unjust and oppressive to others, of engaging in idolatry and meaningless religious ritual, of committing murder, of  being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, etc.  No where is there mention of homosexual activities at all in Isaiah 1!

Jeremiah 23:14 reads:

among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.

Note that he talks about adultery and lying.  Homosexual activity is not mentioned.

Ezekiel also mentions Sodom – in Ezekiel 16:49-50:  “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."   Again note that sexual activity is not mentioned whatsoever.  It was their arrogance and haughtiness, along with their lack of concern for the poor and needy which caused their destruction. 

In Matthew 10:14-15 Jesus states “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.  Truly, I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”  The implication is that the people of Sodom were inhospitable.

Luke 10: 7-16 is a parallel passage with the same meaning.

So the Bible itself seems to view the Sodom and Gomorrah destruction as not due to homosexual acts, but for other reasons.

Our next Biblical verse is Deuteronomy 23:17 in the King James version, which reads: “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”  This has been interpreted to be a general condemnation of all male homosexuality.  However, once again, this verse does not really refer to homosexuality.  The New Revised Standard Version translates the text as “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute.”  Cult and temple prostitutes were commonplace among pagan religions at the time.  The Hebrew word under question is Qadesh, which refers to temple prostitutes – NOT homosexuals.

In four different verses spread between 1 Kings  and 2 Kings, the word Qadesh is again used.  In the King James translation, sodomite appears.  The living bible talks of “homosexuality,” but other translations correctly refer to temple prostitution.  In the Bible, temple prostitution is to be wiped out.  These verses are not a condemnation of homosexuality when the words are accurately translated.

Leviticus 18: 22 presents more of a challenge.  It reads “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.”  There are many different subtle analyses of the text, exactly what it means, and to what it refers.  One can come to a conclusion that the text refers not to homosexuality.  Personally, I view such highly technical debate as a dead end.  I prefer to note that this verse falls within the holiness code, where all the rules reside which were reportedly dictated to Moses by God.  If we are going to take a literal interpretation of this verse, we had better take literal interpretations of the rest of the code as well, obeying each of the 644 rules given by God to humankind.  For example, Leviticus 19: 27 mandates:  “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard,” yet all the men present here today are guilty of disobeying that rule.  Likewise, Leviticus 20: 10 states “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.”  We no longer pay attention to that rule.  Why then do we put so much attention on the law against male homosexual behavior but ignore almost all other laws transmitted to Moses by God?  I would suggest it is because of residual prejudice.

Turning to the New Testament, in Romans 1:26-27 one reads:  “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions.  Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.  Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Conservative religious people view these verses as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.  There are numerous ways the wording can be interpreted and argued, just as one can do with the verses in Leviticus, but personally, I find it simplest, and perhaps most authentic, to note that other verses of Paul speak approvingly of the oppression of women and of slavery.  I note that Paul wrote to specific congregations for specific reasons, and generalizing from anything Paul wrote can be dangerous.   Paul clearly was a product of his times; his theology was clearly evolving and changing.  I believe to attend too carefully to his writings and prejudices may result in a serious error in performing God’s will on earth today.

The fact that Jesus remained silent on homosexuality and homosexual acts is important.  Jesus’ message to the world is one of love and justice, of standing on the side of the underdog and the oppressed.  He did not condemn the prostitute and was sympathetic to her.  He took in the lame, the ill, and did not chase them away with condemnation.  One can only guess that he might feel and act the same way towards homosexuals today.  They are our oppressed and stigmatized.  They are those who are treated with ill will and inhospitality, just as the residents of Sodom treated the guests in Lot’s house.

As I mentioned before, regardless of the moral rightness of this cause, I fear we may lose the battle politically.  Such a loss raises another possibility for me.  Up until now, I have called these services a Service of Holy Union.  I carefully avoid saying the words marry or marriage.  Most of those who are opposed to gay marriage base their opposition upon religion.  If that is the case, I believe that we Unitarian Universalists must become more proactive and more affirmative in our actions. 

There has been some discussion of clergy going on strike, refusing to sign marriage licenses for couples since to do so engages in discrimination.  I believe a better way to go is to call the service a marriage.  We can note that the state does not recognize it as such, but then we can state that our church does recognize it as a marriage.  We affirm that the bond is one of marriage.

In some states, it is illegal to perform a marriage ceremony without a license.  But, if indeed marriage is a sacrament of the Christian church, the state should have no role to play in it.  It cannot license the right for marriage, for in doing so, one then violates the establishment clause, I would think.  While we Unitarian Universalists do not view marriage as a sacrament, we basically have no sacraments, I nevertheless believe that legally, the state should stay out of the sacrament business.

So, in conclusion, I believe that we are on the cusp of a social change, but that I fear reactionary forces may prevail initially.  Nonetheless, I believe it is right and good for same sex marriages to occur, for they represent monogamous, committed, loving relationships between people.  To deny a group of people this right is an injustice, from my perspective. 

I also believe that liberal clergy need to step forward and begin calling their services of union what we really view them as – church sanctioned marriages.  Rather than giving the couple a certificate stating that they were joined in a service of holy union, I believe it is appropriate to give them a certificate stating that they were joined in a marriage ceremony recognized by Unitarian Universalists.  I believe it is time, just as we did during the civil rights movement, for clergy to once again engage in civil disobedience (where such ceremonies are forbidden by law) to further human rights on the planet Earth.

Thank you.

Return to sermons menu