-------------------------------------

Defense of Marriage or Defense of Love

Before I get into todayâs podcast, I must ask your indulgence, because I am doing something I have never done before on the podcast. And that is, I am reading off of a script that I have pre-written. An essay, if you will.

I am doing this because sometimes I know I get carried away during the podcasts and get slightly off track, and sometimes stray away from my core points in a manner which is even hard for me to return to the original points or statements.

So I ask for your indulgence during this episode if I sound stunted or rehearsed or if I am devoid of some of my normal inflections. But I want to be very clear in everything I say about this subject.

Recently, on a listserv for an organization I belong to, a question was posted by a member as to whether or not the organization should support the proposed âDefense of Marriage Act.â To be fair, there were responses both for and against the law in general, and the voices against stated strongly that our organization should not, in any way, participate, pro or con, in this initiative.

The reality is, this organization would NOT support such a measure. It would be inappropriate and according to or stated goals, not something we would participate in. However, there are many members who would individually support such an initiative, just as there are many, like myself, who would oppose it.

Yet, the problem is not whether or not my organization would support the measure. The problem is, once again, the justification used in order to justify their opposition.

That justification usually boils down to this. God says itâs wrong. The Bible says it wrong.

Theologically speaking, there is very little true basis to oppose gay marriage. Or homosexuality for that matter. Practically speaking, when using scripture as a basis, we run into two problems. Those who want to take the bible literally, and those who donât.

The problem with those who want to take the Bible literally is that they actually donât. All sorts of justifications are used in order to discount I have heard everything from âJesus invalidated the Old Testamentâ to âWell, those laws werenât meant to be taken that way.â There is also the issue that no one follows the rules of the Bible to the exact letter. There are tons of rules, edicts and commandments that no one follows anymore. And individuals have accepted some and rejected others based on the cultural climate of the time. And it is made worse because the Biblical literalists and religious fundamentalists are dishonest about it.

Of course, those who do not take the Bible literally, like myself, are accused of that last point of well, saying that certain things werenât meant to be taken a certain way and that we pick and choose which things we follow. Only, they are right. We do that and we are honest about it, because non-Biblical literalists like myself are honest in saying that interpretations are faulty and flawed, correctly stating that scriptures have been mis-translated and that because of the influence of Man on religious scriptures, many of the issues are incompatible with the basic concept of God. Our other problem is that in order to expose one point, we take the literalist position and then run with it.

Which ever side of the debate you fall on, there is a bigger problem with this discussion. And that is using religious principles to enact secular laws. I am completely in agreement with those who say that religion, in any way, shape or form, should have no impact on the laws of the United States.

While many will claim that America was founded on Christian principles, the reality is quite different. There ARE spiritual ideologies woven into the fabric of the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As evidenced from the personal writings of the authors, things were written into the declaration on purpose.

Of the men that drafted the document, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Richard Henry Lee, all had previously professed, in one way or another a belief in God. The problem is, there is an assumption that they all had a belief in the Christian God, which is inaccurate.

However, it is also inaccurate to assume because their writings were critical of Christianity and specifically, the Church of England, specifically Jefferson and Franklin, that they were atheists or agnostic. This also is false. In fact, it is an outright misrepresentation of the facts.

The reality is that Adams was a Unitarian, Sherman was a professor of religion at Yale and very active in his local church in New Haven, and not a lot is known about Leeâs religious beliefs. Jefferson and Franklin were both admitted Deists.

Deism is described as:

âthe belief that there is a God that created the physical universe but does not interfere with it. It is related to a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason. (The mention of God in this article is meant more as a Creator than as the Abrahamic God.) It takes no position on what God may do outside the universe.â

So as you can see, under this definition, which is a definition that is accepted in theological circles, just being a deists does not make one an atheist. Sadly, the legacy of Jefferson and Franklin have fallen prey to the self-serving agendas of those who are a part of the atheistic lobby just as much as they have fallen prey to those in the religious lobby.

But on a more practical matter, of the writers of the Declaration of Independence, just as with the signers of the United States Constitution, the VAST majority of those men were members of the Masonic order, as am I. The very first requirement to becoming a Freemason is that you must affirm, on penalty of expulsion, that you believe in a Supreme Being. And the screening process 200 years ago, just after the Masonic reformation in the early 1700âs, was far stricter than it is in these days.

In short, if there was even the slightest chance that a candidate for membership did NOT believe in God, that person would NOT have been admitted for membership into the Order. So again, in order for Jefferson or Franklin to become Masons, they HAD to have some sort of a belief in some God. No matter what God it was.

With all that said, there were and are spiritual principles written into the fabric of the documents that created the United States. I say spiritual for a reason. I refer back to the last podcast, âThe Difference Between Religion and Spiritualityâ where we defined the difference between the two.

Therefore, while it may be accurate to say that the authors of the Declaration and Constitution avoided religious doctrine, which is one of the reasons this country was founded in the first place, to separate itself from being overrun by religious dogma, the spiritual principles which these men shared, were a different story.

Just in case you havenât listened to the last podcast yet, and you should!, I will repeat one aspect.

Religion and spirituality are NOT the same thing. They are two parts of the same whole, but religion is more concerned with the rules, whereby spirituality is more concerned with the individuals relationship with whatever God they believe in, and thereby, are not always beholden to religious rules. Therefore, the Bible is a function of religion, but not always a function of spirituality. It is entirely possible for one to be spiritual and not religious, and sadly, many people are religious, but not spiritual.

Many of the laws of this country are influenced by both religious and spiritual principles. Some are universal. Such as do not kill, do not steal and the like. Crimes against the personage of an individual have their roots in both accepted religious and spiritual principles.

However, when you deal with the legislation of morality, which is what the Defense of Marriage Act is, you get into a grey area. While my religion may say homosexuality is wrong, my spirituality says it is not. As I mentioned in the last podcast, for me, the more important relationship for me is my relationship with spirituality. My relationship with religion has almost always been problematic.

Therefore, I reject the notion that the laws of this country should be based on Biblical religious principles. Or the principles of any religious body. Jesus Himself admonished His followers not to follow the letter of the law but the spirit of the Law. The Apostle Paul is quoted as saying if you follow the spirit, you are not under the law. Therefore, given the words of these two, how can we say that our spirit tells us that who someone else Loves is wrong? And moreover, how they chose to express that Love is not only wrong, but that it is really any of our business.

As I have mentioned, I have not been fortunate enough as of yet, to perform a gay wedding. I have been scheduled for a couple, but invariably, those have not panned out. But as a man of faith, as a religious official, as a spiritual being, I feel I would be dishonoring not only myself, but God, if I were to say that purely based on sexual preference, I could not or should not unite two people in marriage.

Of course, as a minister, I am bound by the laws of the state. So I could not perform a legal ceremony. Which is the genesis of our problem.

The fact that I am prevented from uniting two people in marriage simply due to their gender is completely ridiculous to me. I am not prevented, for example, from marrying two people who are drunk and just met 5 days ago. I am not prevented from marrying people who are just getting married to share health benefits. I am not prevented by law from marrying someone who has HIV or AIDS and did not inform their partner. I am not prevented from marrying someone, who under the seal of the clergy confidentiality rule, confesses to me that they murdered their intended spouses family members, or maybe even raped their prospective spouse.

I am not prevented by law from marrying two people who are doing it just for kicks. Nor am I prevented by law from marrying someone who may only be doing so to get someoneâs money. I am not prevented by law from marrying someone who just got a divorce this morning and wants to get remarried this afternoon. Nor am I prevented by law from marrying someone who has been an admitted and serial adulterer. Or marrying someone whose sole purpose is so they can have guilt free sex.

But I am prevented by law from marrying two people who have been together for 10 years and have built a solid relationship based on mutual respect and Love. I canât marry those individuals if both of them are male or both of them are female. In the eyes of the law, and according to the letter of the law, it would be illegal of me to perform such a union and I could potentially face jail time for performing such a ceremony. If I were still associated with my former denomination, officiating the ceremony of a gay couple would get me kicked out, but any of the other examples would be perfectly acceptable.

Because the other stuff isnât against God. Or is it?

To take it a step further, I am not prevented from performing the ceremony of a homosexual and a heterosexual. So I guess, technically speaking, gays CAN get married. Just not to each other.

Of course, with the examples of those I am allowed to marry, it is within my power to bow out. But those unions would be legal and binding. Itâs illegal to get married just to get citizenship in this country. Itâs illegal to get married to commit fraud. Yet, if you proclaim you Love someone, even if you donât mean it, itâs hard to disprove that you didnât Love someone.

At the end of the day, that is what all of this should be about, right? Love.

Someone on the same listserv I mentioned earlier said that marriage is a religious construct. Sadly, he was completely wrong. Marriage, as a relationship dynamic, predates almost every religion in existence. Our notions of marriage as a function of Love, is a modern concept, not an ancient one. Even in religious texts, the majority of marriages reflected are more of a function of business or status rather than emotional connect. This is not to say Love was not a factor, because at times it was. However, marriage in the 21st century is completely different than it was, say, five thousand years ago.

In Ancient Egypt and also later, in Ancient Rome, marriages were a societal function where they were regulated by the state, not the prevailing religious edicts of the time. Some speculate that the Egyptians were the first culture to develop rules and codes of conduct regarding marriage, with older civilizations such as the Babylonians, the Mesopotamians and the like, had no such formalized rules. Even their notions of religious impact on marriage were much different.

As marriage evolved, it became more of a business model, to establish bloodlines, or keep businesses in a family. As we now know, it was not uncommon in some cultures, namely Egypt, for siblings to marry to secure said bloodlines. Arranged marriages became the norm in parts of India and other Asian countries, where Love was irrelevant. At a certain point many, many cultures around the world had a policy or arranged marriages, again, where Love was not the consideration. As we are well aware, this is a trend that continues to this very day.

As time progressed, marriage became more of a contract than an enjoyable dynamic one looked forward to. However, as time progressed, religious dogma did creep into the individual relationship and, in yet another measure of control, sought to dictate how marriage should be treated and handled.

Going back a few hundred years, if you watched the recent Showtime cable series âThe Tudors,â you saw the dramatization of how Henry VIIIâs entire reign hinged upon his marital status, and the churches approval or disapproval of his choice in a wife. Again, Love was not the determining factor. For Henry, it was the production of a male heir.

Royal families like The Tudors routinely arranged marriages not because one noble would make a great Love match for another noble, but because it would ensure the paths of power, regulate the bloodline, and control the fates of the countries where they rules. At the end of the day, while Love was sometimes the cause, Love was proven to be irrelevant.

Yet, in todayâs culture, especially American and Western society, marriage is all about Love. We are not supposed to marry someone unless we Love them â truly, madly and deeply. From a societal basis, if someone was to admit publicly that they did not Love their spouse, one of the first questions that will be asked of them is, âWell, why did you marry them?â

We have taken marriage from a business contract and breeding program to one that is supposed to specifically embody the elements of Love. The thinking is, you canât truly be married in the eyes of God unless you completely and fully are in Love with the person whom you are to marry.

Which is what makes the whole debate against gay marriage ridiculous. Because at the end of the day, what we are really saying is that the law has the right to dictate how two people handle and celebrate their Love. And that the notion of God being a God of Love, basically goes out of the window. Thus, rendering futile the entire premise of the Christian scripture saying âFor God so Loved the world that He gave His only begotten son so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish, but have eternal life.â

If you are a Christian who dares to say that Jesus didnât die for gay people to marry, my response is, how do you know? When did Jesus come and tell you in a face to face meeting who He specifically came to save and who He didnât. Additionally, I will ask for you to provide proof of that conversation so we can be sure we are all on the same page.

If you canât do that, then you donât know exactly what the motivations were aside from what you assume scripture says. The Religious Right truly needs to stop trying to speak for God and saying what God and/or Jesus would or would not want.

So even with the previously mentioned scripture, a God fearing, Bible believing, Christian homosexual is condemned to this so-called Hell just because this person is oriented towards people of the same sex. Christians must always remember what Jesus said, that we are to Love our neighbors as ourselves. Therefore, to deny our neighbors is to deny ourselves. This is not solely a Christian concept, but also one with Karmic implications. That which we do to others, we actually do to ourselves.

Therefore, regardless of whether or not you a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, Atheist, Agnostic or confused, supporting the Defense of Marriage Act puts us all on a very slippery slope.

To be honest, the very title of this law, Defense of Marriage, offends me. What exactly are we defending marriage from? Has there been a war declared on marriage, similar to the war on drugs that we have not been made aware? Are evil forces from a foreign land planning a hostile invasion designed to keep marriage hostage? Are the Masons or the Illuminati conspiring to restrict marriage in some sinister and evil way?

The whole âdefending marriageâ concept suggests that there is some sort of danger on the horizon. I have yet to hear anyone give a valid and practical reason as to why gays getting married threatens marriage as a whole. I mentioned the slippery slope issue a moment ago, and some of the gay marriage foes use the same terminology, but their examples are ridiculous.

They claim that gay marriages will lead to polygamist marriages, people marrying their dogs, or maybe, people not getting married at all. They claim it will run up health care costs, that it will create an increased tax burden on tax payers. Oh, and letâs not forget the negative impact on the children. Gay couples will be able to adopt children, homosexuality will be taught in schools, then cats and dogs will begin to co-exist peacefully, the sky will turn purple and monkeyâs will fly out of the collective butts of the legislators in Washington.

I am sorry, I was being sarcastic. I digress.

But the children issue is a big deal among the anti-gay marriage crowd. They fear that there will be a greater increase of single parent homes, larger than what already occurs at the hand of heterosexual marriage. That exposure to homosexuality in the home will somehow automatically create more homosexual children. Which makes me wonder, how are homosexuals created in the first place, since they ideally come from heterosexual homes? Wouldnât the heterosexual influence have created only heterosexual children?

The reality is, there is no verified psychological evidence which shows or suggests that homosexual parents pose an inherent risk to children. In fact, the defining factor is children growing up in a Loving, caring, supportive home. If those items are in place, then the sexuality of the parents is irrelevant.

Letâs face it. The ideal relationship model in Western culture is a white man married to a white a woman with 2.5 kids, a white picket fence, a two car garage which contains a Lexus SUV and a mini-van, a dog named Rover and a cat named Fluffy with a combined income of $142,00 a year. That is the ideal of what marriage consists of. Maybe I exaggerate a bit, but you get my point.

The problem is, that relationship model is not perfect. Monogamous heterosexual relationships donât always work. Statistics bear this fact out. If they worked, then the divorce rate would be down to zero, not over 50%. Domestic abuse would be non-existent. There would be little or no children born out of wedlock.

In short, when it comes to the ideal relationship model, we have been sold a bill of goods and are expected to follow a relationship dynamic that doesnât always work. Therefore, by casting a negative light upon homosexual relationships because of a faulty understanding of Judeo-Christian scripture, we have created an atmosphere where ignorance and intolerance are allowed to not only exist, but breed and foster.

Was it not Dr. King who said âInjustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.â More than anything else in this debate, we are dealing with not only issues of equity and fairness, but justice. To prevent individuals from marrying based on who they sleep with is an injustice. It is an injustice to enforce a faulty and biased relationship model and then hold it up as perfect when it is convenient.

This is not to say that monogamous relationships donât work, because many do. And there is nothing inherently wrong with monogamy or heterosexuality. So my annoyance, if you will, does not come from a personal level, but it comes from a practical one. The fact that we are dealing with choice. That I affirm that consenting adults have the right to choose what relationship dynamic works best for them, regardless of what others think or believe.

We supposedly have a free society, where we are supposed to enjoy certain freedoms and liberties. The oft quoted preamble of our own Declaration of Independence bares repeating:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If indeed, as the preamble states, all men are created equal, then we must accept the fact that all men are actually created equal. The path of American history has plainly showed us that the term âall menâ did not just apply to white, heterosexual, Christian men. That âall menâ includes not only white women, but also black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American men and women â along with children. That our collective creator, among other things, created us with the right to pursue liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If the pursuit of a happy, secure and Loving relationship does not qualify in that statement, then I seriously do not know what does. That a document, acknowledged as one of the most important and brilliant writings in the world, explicitly allows for the pursuit of happiness, along with life and liberty. Which says to me, that to enjoy MY life with a degree of liberty means I have the inherent right, endowed upon me by MY Creator, to pursue MY happiness. This not only applies to myself, but to every man, woman and child who is a citizen of the United States.

Therefore, I affirm, we all should affirm, that ALL people have the same inherent right to experience that happiness in a Loving manner. Which means a homosexual has the same rights to happiness as heterosexuals. Which means that the poor have the same rights as the rich. That in the eyes of this document, all of us are created equal. In this so-called shining example of democracy, we all have the same opportunities.

Unless you are gay and want to get married.

Coretta Scott King, wife of Dr. King was quoted as saying:

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be. I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

If we claim that the United States as a democratic nation, which isnât the case but that is another subject, then we must act with a democratic spirit. That spirit does not call for allowing one group of people to have rights the other doesnât. Even if, and especially if you try to justify it through religion, which should have no role in the decision to begin with. Therefore, if we were to make this a truly secular decision, perhaps we might start seeing different results. That is not the sign of democratic ideals. In a true democracy, or even a representative republic like the United States, equality among itâs citizens is paramount.

The moment we begin to legislate relationships between consenting adults, and suggest that because of religious prejudice, because that is what it is, that we have the right to deny them the same basic freedoms that we all enjoy and cherish, we make it easier for the same to be done to us.

But if we ARE going to allow this to be a religious decision, then letâs do so with the primary religious principle of them all. The principle that binds all religions together, that is supposed to motivate all people of faith, and that all followers of their given religion are supposed not only support but uphold, which is Love.

If Love is the driving force in our lives and if Love is that thing which creates unbridled hope, unmatched optimism, and a very special type of peace, then how can any of us, in good conscience want to deny another person the opportunity to experience and practice their Love in a similar manner.

When we here at A Love Movement state that it is Love That Makes The Difference, it is not just some trite phrase. It is a statement not only of our truth, but the truth we wish to spread to others. Love does indeed make the difference. And because of that Love, to deny another person from experiencing that Love in a manner in which fulfills their soul, which does no harm to anyone, which is essentially between the relevant parties, why on earth is it anyone elseâs business.

The truth of the matter is that we have no business trying to legislate Love. We have no business dictating to consenting adults the manner in which they handle their private relationships. This applies to heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, transgendered, polyamorous and the list goes on. If the relationship dynamic is not harmful to anyone, if it does not impact anyone aside from those involved with the relationship, then why, again, is it anyoneâs business.

I uphold marriage as a wonderful institution. I was married once and I hope to be married one day again. Of course, that calls into question my sanity, yet, the institution of marriage is a good one. If done correctly. Speaking as a divorced person, I didnât do it correctly the first time, but I am hoping to correct my previous mistakes. So even though I support the notion of gay marriage, doesnât mean I am opposed to so-called traditional marriage. Quite the opposite. As someone who has performed over 16 weddings, I can attest to the fact that I believe in marriage.

But more than marriage, I believe in Love. I believe that Love is the greatest experience of any human being. I believe that it is Love that is an unalienable right, which allows us to live our lives, to appreciate liberty and to truly appreciate and pursue happiness.

So instead of a Defense of Marriage Act, what we need is a Defense of Love Act. We need to defend Love from those forces and entities that seek to restrict and obscure Love in whatever fashion they may. We need to uphold Love as the prime expression of the human condition. We need to defend Love against the religious zealots, the conservative extremists, and those who are against real freedom. We need to defend Love against those who seek to restrict Love, restrict happiness, restrict the freedoms of liberty.

How can we uplift our people, cure the ills that plague us, promote a healthier mental attitude for all, if we do not defend Love. If we can minimize and marginalize Love, then we are acting against our very nature. It doesnât matter if you are a person of faith or a person of reason. Our core is Love. We all experience Love. We all seek to embrace Love. Even when we donât want to. Whether you believe Love is a gift from God or a natural emotional expression, Love is the important issue here.

And if you are comfortable with someone coming to you and dictating who you can or cannot Love, then be my guest. However, if you are like me, and affirm that you have the right to pursue and engage in healthy, Loving relationships, regardless of so-called religious dogma or narrow minded thinking, then join with me, and the other members of A Love Movement and defend Love against the forces who seek to make a mockery of the crucial issues we hold near and dear.