"It is so ordered"

"It is so ordered."....

Thus ends the Supreme Court opinion that began marriage equality in this country on June 26, 2015. Furthermore, from the majority opinion is this:

"Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right."

When the decision came down that Friday, I was in the midst of preparing a sermon for that next Sunday morning. I wasn't able to give the decision that much thought; I felt joyous, especially for my friends in same-sex relationships, but I really didn't have the luxury to ponder. I read with great interest what others were thinking and feeling; felt uplifted by some and for others, I only felt dismay--at their ignorance and bigotry (sometimes wrapped in their version of religion). I don't know how many times I shouted at the screen or the radio:  "It's a LEGAL DOCUMENT! It's a piece of paper the government should have been issuing, without hesitation, years ago!!!" It's frustrating to hear the ignorance of some who hold official office, or who wish to hold office, as they try to twist their opinions in a way that they think will satisfy--not enlighten or educate--those who might vote for them in the future. It was America at its worst; using tired, wrong logic:  "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman!" or outright ignorance: "I do not believe our Founding Fathers envisioned a Court where five justices could decide for all."

But I don't want to dwell on those who, in ten years, will have adjusted quite well to our new freedoms.

Having had some time to ponder, I can only say this:  I now feel normal. Completely normal in my own country, in a society that I am a part of every day. [Well, as normal as a feminist liberal can feel.]

When Karen and I made the decision, and then got married, I felt very, very good. Extremely happy. And yet, a part of me felt it wasn't really "real", because there were other same-sex couples in other states all over the country who were not allowed to marry. It's like when you're a kid, and you are given a Popsicle. It tastes good, it's satisfying, but if you are eating it in front of friends who don't also have Popsicles, it's just not that tasty. You feel a little odd, eating it in front of them. You might even notice it tastes weird, and tell your friends, "It's not that good." But when everyone has one? It's fun. It's a party. 

That's how it is now, with marriage equality. It feels right, because every couple in every state is allowed to do it. It's fun, and it's time to celebrate that freedom for all couples.

Tomorrow, it's time to get to work...again...because here, as in a majority of states, "Married on Saturday, fired for being gay on Monday." is a reality.

And racial equality? Time to get to work on that. And on poverty issues.

But for a day, take time to celebrate the good things our country has done. Have you noticed that watching fireworks is such a great equalizer? Everyone, in the dark, looking upwards--seeing the same things at the same moment. Gasping, at the same time, at the beauty. At this moment, we are not a skin color, we are not a gender, we are not an income level. We are all together, celebrating.

Now, let's get to work.

If I Could Address the Court...

This week, the US Supreme Court hears oral arguments on two cases:  Hollingsworth v Perry, which seeks to overturn Prop 8 in California, by declaring the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits limiting marriage to "one man, one woman", and US v Windsor, which challenges the Defense of Marriage Act (the law of the country) as a violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law.
If I could, I would like to remind the justices of the Supreme Court of a few things:

• Our country is a Republic, not a Theocracy..  The moment an attorney, arguing in favor of marriage inequality, mentions the Bible, or religion of an kind, I fully expect them to be interrupted. The justices could take turns, beginning for the hell of it with Justice Thomas, although I imagine he will be his silent, sullen, impolite self.  I hope a laugh track is involved! Anyone whose argument begins:  "I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman because "it's what my church teaches me.""  should have their license to practice law revoked.  There should be no religious citations allowed--arguments involving religious doctrine don't belong here.  Not in the Supreme Court of the nation.  
• Marriage is a legal contract.  Traditionally, women were treated as property in these contracts; their new husband had complete control over them and their offspring.  We seem to have forgotten this little tidbit.  The legal contract that same sex couples are seeking would not give one complete control over the other, but would allow them to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.  They would be allowed to have the over 1100+ federal rights now enjoyed by their heterosexual friends.  These are 1100+ rights that are huge.  HUGE.  Don't believe me?  Then YOU go without them, give them up, and let me know how that works for you.  
• Justice is blind.  The justices should put their personal feelings aside, especially if they feel "ewww" about two men or two women kissing and being in a sexual relationship.  I know there are people out there, especially men, who just can't handle the thought of same sex sex.  The justices need to grow up and remember why they are there--to uphold the Constitution for everyone.  EVERYONE.  This is one of the most important decisions they will render this term, and will probably be one of the most important (certainly the most discussed) of their time on the bench. 
• Politics has no place in this decision either.  Equality is not a Democrat or Republican issue.  It's a very human one.  
• Finally, I would ask them to read a blog I wrote back in 2008.  I try to explain what marriage equality would mean to me, as a person.  It goes beyond the love I have for Karen; I have very real concerns about what the lack of a legally-recognized marriage means for us, beginning with medical decisions.  

If asked, what would I say to the justices of the Supreme Court?
"I am a legal citizen of the United States.  I work, I pay taxes, I try to do what's right.  And I love another person, very deeply and without reservation.  My family and my friends are supportive of us, and our relationship.  It's time for my government to step up and give Karen and I the same equal protection other couples enjoy.  Actually, it's well past time, and many, many couples have died without this equal protection.  I grieve for them, and have hope for us."

"Separation of Church and State" part II

I've just got to get this all out--if you're reading, thanks for bearing with me. You're wonderful.

Part II of this blog is about language, and the emotions that can arise from the use of language. First of all, I just want to remind all of us of this, the beautiful 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (ratified in 1868):

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, we all have equal protection of the laws? Um....we're supposed to. And we're getting there. In some states. A few. States where religious dogma has not clouded the basic sense of fairness that I believe we all feel.

Remember when you were little, and something happened, causing you to exclaim, "But that's not fair!" We are all born with some sense of fairness, but some of us have that core belief stripped away, sometimes at birth, sometimes when our parents respond, "But life isn't fair. Get used to it." Sometimes we learn that we can make things unfair for others so that we get more power....wealth....stuff....and we are taught that this is good. Others of us are fortunate to hang on to the feeling that certain things are not fair, are not just, and work to undo those things. I believe that's why so many people--straight, gay, religious, secular, of all nationalities, are outraged at the passage of Proposition 8 in California ( "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."). They may not even know they know a gay person, but they know discrimination when they see it. Over 18,000 gay couples have married in the past few months in California, and it's possible that the rights they have will be taken away for really no good reason. I mean, come on--what horrible things have happened since giving couples the right to marry in California? Ummm...........But the list of great, wonderful, happy things that have happened are too too many to list. For instance, these two were allowed to marry:

And Phyllis, the one on the right, died knowing she was finally married to the woman she had loved for so many, many years. I gotta ask how this couple, the love they had for each other, and the life they lived during the short time they were married, can in any way negatively impact the "sanctity" of marriage any couple may have? If anything, taking the positive feelings you have while in a committed relationship, and using them in some way to make this world a better place, should be the way to measure "sanctity", which is defined as: "1. holiness, saintliness, or godliness. 2. a sacred thing." AND, if you're arguing for the sanctity of marriage when voting for something like Proposition 8, whose sanctity? Christian sanctity? Muslim sanctity? Because honestly, religious terminology has no place in political discourse (see "Separation" Part I).

I think this whole argument of "gay marriage" or "marriage rights" really boils down to semantics. Here is my radical proposal:

DO AWAY WITH STATE-SPONSORED MARRIAGE. FOR EVERYONE.

Get the government out of the marriage business--it doesn't belong there anyway. Replace the current state by state system with a nation-wide system of CIVIL UNIONS--this has worked, with great success, in many, many countries around the world (some of whom have based their Constitution on ours). In this system, two people, regardless of gender, would go to their local courthouse. They would fill out the necessary paperwork, submit blood test results, prove they are not already related by birth, are of age, and get a certificate. This certificate could be signed by a judge at the courthouse, after a suitable ceremony, if desired, or---here's where my proposal gets good--it could be taken to a house of worship to be blessed by the priest, rabbi, minister, priestess, family, friends, whatever is holy. But no matter how it's signed and blessed, this civil union between two people would be legally binding under the laws of the United States, and would allow this couple all the rights and privileges of every other couple so joined in the United States (and would allow gay couples the same 1,049 protections, benefits and responsibilities currently extended to married couples under federal law) . If it's important to you, your religious faith could bless the union and call it a marriage. If your religious faith would not allow such a union to take place, it would not have to bless the union--that would rightly be left up to the religion (see US Bill of Rights).
Simple and easy, and the word "marriage", which seems to rile so many in so many different ways, is taken out of the legal process.
There. I've had my say, put in a plug for a radical idea, and now I have a request to make. Please, if you are reading and listening to the debate about "gay marriage", and a little voice in the back of your head is saying, "But that isn't fair!"--listen to it. Talk out about it. Write to your legislator, your newspaper, your relative who lives far away. Speak up. Please.