California's same-sex weddings: not always gay?

We’ve had almost three weeks of same-sex weddings here in California and we haven’t yet been destroyed by swarms of earthquakes, locusts, or tsunamis (though it’s true, there are raging wildfires all over the state--then again, one of the first places to light up was Butte County, CA shortly after it announced it would stop offering civil weddings once the same-sex marriage ruling went into effect.  Hmm.)  

In fact, everything seems pretty darn back-to-normal here after all the folderol, except the wedding sector is reporting increased activity after a depressed first half of 2008.

I’ve had the great privilege of conducting several same-sex ceremonies since June 17th (or Big Tuesday, the first day degendered marriage licenses were issued to the public-at-large) and it has been both exciting and harrowing.  Emotions have been running high, tears were shed when someone (or everyone) was overwhelmed by the historic import and personal impact of finally being able to pledge--with full force of law--loyalty and faithfulness to a beloved same-sex partner of many years.

As a married heterosexual with a gay sister, niece, nephew, and several gay friends, I have long awaited the day when gay people enjoy the same rights that I share with my husband, i.e. the legal tools to take care of a spouse when the chips are down.  As someone who has volunteered with hospice, families, and the incarcerated, I have seen how important this right can be, since without this legal entitlement difficult situations can spiral into tragic ones.  I am  so grateful that my gay family members and friends will now be able to take care of each other without interference--at least, until November, when we Californians will vote on a ballot initiative that proposes amending our state constitution to end same-sex marriage.

Several of the same-sex weddings I conducted were jubilant affairs, but not all were....well, gay in the other sense.  I realized that, in my life, I encountered gay people in situations where they felt comfortable and protected; these past few weeks, I saw for the first time how many gay couples live in fear, unsure about expressing themselves openly, even at their own weddings.   This is very sad to me, and very wrong.   I believe couples have a right to be together without intimidation or fear.  This has not been the case for many gay Americans.

Many couples told stories of having to hide their feelings for each other even around family or friends; one pair from Missouri used the number “3” as a code for “I love you” and would say things like, “I’ll see you at 3” or “I have 3 things to get done today.”  One groom told about a colleague with whom he worked for many years who refused to sign a congratulatory card that circulated before the wedding day.  “For years you think people are cool with you,” the groom said, “but it takes something like this to see that they really aren’t.  Would it have killed him to sign the card and say, ‘I’m happy for you if this makes you happy’?” 

Many couples in these early weeks had small civil ceremonies and are planning to have larger community ceremonies later: some because they want time to plan more elaborate weddings, but some because they want to see how the marriage-equality vote comes out in November.  Many are afraid that California voters will take their legal status away and they don’t want to get their hopes up that marriage equality will last.

This is July 4th weekend, so history and freedom are much on my mind.  My early American ancestors--I’m a Mayflower descendant and a scion of others who shaped our country’s thinking about both faith and freedoms--were wise in fighting for a nation where religious beliefs do not dictate our laws.  Our civil rights protect religious practice (unlike the countries where my ancestors sailed from, where differing religious views would likely get you jailed, decapitated, and divested of all your property.)  Many Americans are horrified when they hear stories about religious oppression or theocratic fascism overseas, but they fail to see that there are a few areas of our own law that are dictated by religious sensibilities.  Laws governing marriage and private sexual acts are some of those areas of law. 

Part of the problem is one of vocabulary: the word “marriage” has been dual-purposed to refer to both sacramental marriage as a religious practice, and  civil marriage under our body of secular laws.   Many religious conservatives fear that granting civil marriage rights to same-sex couples would somehow infringe on their rights to keep sacramental marriage in accordance with their beliefs.  This is absolutely untrue.  Our separation of church and state guarantees that the government cannot force a church to conduct same-sex marriages.   Religious conservatives will be able to continue to restrict their sacramental marriages to whomever they feel qualifies.  But conversely, religions cannot rightly restrict who can qualify for civil marriage, nor should they seek to do so, if they truly value our American way of life.

Logically, under the umbrella of equal protections, civil marriages should be granted equally to anyone who wishes to incorporate legally and socially and enjoy the governmental rights and benefits granted to those who do so.   These unions should be called “marriages,” not some separate-but-equal euphemism, and guess what?  everything will continue to be just fine in the world, just as it is now in California.  People who choose to overlook our separation of church and state as a means of provoking a knee-jerk political response--and who seem to think it mandatory that everyone believe in a narrow interpretation of their religious scriptures--those are the people who are threatening our American way of life, not the other way around.

This is not the first time the Bible has been used to justify the legality of human rights violations; before and during the Civil War, pro-slavery forces justified their position as being valid from a biblical point-of-view, just like people quote Leviticus and Deuteronomy to indict same-sex marriage today.

But here’s the salient point: whether you believe sodomy is a sin or not is irrelevant; we have a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and a body of civil law that grants equal protection based on human rights, not religious belief.  Those same civil rights that anti-marriage equality groups would deny to gay people, protect their own right to protest same-sex marriage.  Even if you don’t like someone or you believe they are going to hell, you cannot deny them their civil rights under our Constitution without threatening everyone’s rights.  You KNOW this--deep down, you know this is true.  And we have to move forward with assuring every citizen those rights, as we have from the beginning, or we will lose everything that ensures our American life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.    

Another precious right we enjoy in America is a secret ballot.  I urge all of you who find yourselves drawn in by the homophobic rhetoric to ponder some other common religious ideologies--like judging not, for example, or loving neighbors and enemies alike, or not throwing stones--then use your secret ballot to do the right thing for our freedoms, no matter how hard others may lobby you to deny gay people the right to love and take care of each other.  Maybe you think there aren’t any gay people in your community but I'll bet there are, and they are afraid to show themselves because--perhaps--you and others in your community aren’t exactly embodying lovingness and forgiveness and compassion.  To anyone who condemns others because of their consensual sexual activity, I say: maybe the problem isn’t other people’s sins, but your own intolerance.  You can change your mind, and you can do the right thing at the ballot box, too.

They're calling this the New Summer of Love; let's really all try to make it about love, and let's make it last well past November.

Until next time, a sweet and long life to you all.

 

Elizabeth Oakes can be reached at weddingexaminer@gmail.com.

Topics: same-sex weddings , Weddings In Culture