The Courage to Commit, and Yet be Free

"If we commit ourselves to one person for life, this is not, as many people think, a rejection of freedom; rather, it demands the courage to move into all the risks of freedom, and the risk of love which is permanent; into that love which is not possession but participation." ― Madeleine L’Engle

I want to thank Jordinn Nelson Long for bringing attention to a conservative Christian blog called "Biblical Gender Roles," and in particular the May 23rd entry: "8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal." When the link was first posted on the UU bloggers' Facebook page, there was an immediate visceral reaction.

Yes, there's reason for Unitarian Universalists and other spiritual progressives to be concerned about this. It's easy to say: "Well, if that's how these couples want to live their lives, then so be it." Unfortunately, the mindset behind this author's prescriptions isn't limited to the bedrooms of conservative Christian couples, or their churches.

First, here's a summation of what this fellow (and, I'm sure, many more like him) believes:

1. While he makes it clear (in huge red letters) that he draws the line at violence and outright coercion, he believes it's justified for men to browbeat and intimidate their wives into "willingly (even if grudgingly) yield[ing]" to their demands for sex.
2. While he acknowledges that women may have "legitimate physical or mental health reasons" to refuse to have sex with their husbands, he also asserts that husbands have a right to sex, and wives have a duty to provide it.
3. A husband should "discern" whether his wife's reason for not having sex is "legitimate," not by listening to her or consulting a trained professional, but by prayer.
4. If a husband determines that his wife's sexual refusal is not "legitimate," then he has the right to "discipline" her in escalating steps, from "rebuking" her to denying her date night and other "little things," and finally divorce. Mind you, our author makes it clear this is not "manipulation" because that's what you do to an equal or an authority figure, but since "husbands have authority over their wives" this is therefore Godly "discipline."

Now there's the obvious issues around linking authority with gender, and using religious faith to justify male privilege and entitlement. Is it any wonder how marriage equality – not just same-sex marriage, but the paradigm of equal partnership which it exemplifies – remains such a palpable threat to this brand of Christian? But this model of hierarchical authority has tainted their worldview much more broadly.

• There are no equals. - God has ordered people into a chosen few with authority over others.
• Do as you're told. - God wants us to obey those in "rightful" authority; to question said authority is rebellion, and rebellion is sin.
• Right for me, not for thee - For the sake of preserving the order of God's plan, double standards are justified.

Of course, you wouldn't expect an organized group to blatantly admit: "Yes, we believe that some people deserve more authority and rights than everyone else." Nor would you expect the vast majority to assent to such an approach. But, with enough obfuscation, manipulation and deception – including self-deception – just about anything is possible.

What is more insidious, however, is the persistence of these attitudes within so many of our institutions, even in our progressive faith. Yes, we're proud of how we establish "checks and balances" in our governance systems, and our legacy of skepticism and heresy. But do we know when and how to use those systems wisely? Do we fully understand and consistently apply the principles of critical thinking which we so often praise? Most importantly to our covenantal faith, are we able to debate and disagree with respect and the goal of right relationship?

It’s easy to recoil from that which is our opposite. The true challenge is building authentic alternatives. Many people have created such paradigms of equitable relating in their marriages and intimate partnerships. These give me hope that our broader covenants may similarly evolve into something better.

Hopes for 2010

Happy New Year – or, as my Scots ancestors would say: Guid Hogmanay!

Usually people have looked back on the highs and lows of the past year. Personally, I prefer to look forward, and with hope. So, here’s my list of what I hope to see in the new year…

A new job - My current position is not very inspiring and downright soul-sucking. Would love to find a position where I can use my ability to write and/or teach. I’m still hunting, but as you might imagine, this economy has left slim pickings indeed. Any ideas? Drop me a note!

Equality and justice - Let’s hope that more US states and more countries recognize same-sex marriage. And for President Obama to keep his promises to end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and sign a Federal LGBT rights bill into law. Not to mention an end to harassing kinky folks, like the Atlanta police did when they raided the Eagle leather bar. And while I know that it’s a lot to ask for decriminalization, especially with Rhode Island rolling back the clock, at least we could start treating sex workers like human beings.

Health for everyone - We still have a ways to go yet before we get some semblance of health care reform in the US, and it’s more likely than not that the final version will fall far short of what we really need. Millions will still not have coverage, and restrictions on legal abortion will remain in place. But it will still be a step forward, and one can only hope that activists will work to build upon it.

A wider welcome - More and more religious communities have taken steps to welcome and speak up for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folks. Let’s hope this trend continues, and the circle grows ever larger. But let’s also expand what such welcome and advocacy means. Faith communities can and should consider opening their doors and addressing the spiritual needs of intersex people, polyamorous families, the BDSM and fetish communities, sex workers fighting for their rights, and more

Breaking silence - Almost two years ago, I began Sacred Eros at Arlington Street Church, to provide a safe space for people to talk about sexuality issues from a spiritual perspective. It still amazes me the number of people contacting me from other UU congregations in our area because they don’t feel comfortable going to their minister or pastoral care team. It’s time that changed. Clergy and other spiritual caregivers need to let those whom they pastor know that they can come to them with questions and concerns about the erotic. And if you don’t feel equipped to do so, then please contact the Religious Institute for Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing for information.

Of course, none of this will come about like magic. Such things only happen because we make them happen. And that is my greatest hope of all – that more people join in the work of making the world a better place, sexually and spiritually.

New York Senate Says "No" to Equality

Today, thirty-eight New York state Senators blocked passage to extend civil marriage rights to same-sex couples.

It's infuriating, and for me ironic. You see, were it not for New York's otherwise progressive political culture, I probably wouldn't be here.

My parents married in New York in 1959. At that time, a dozen states still had laws on the books preventing people with epilepsy - including my dad - from marrying anyone. Even though those laws are now consigned to the proverbial dust-bin, the prejudicial attitudes behind them still carry on. The only difference is that they have been directed to another group of people.

Five states and seven nations have emnbraced marriage equality. None have falled into a pit of fire and brimstone. There has been no increase in crime, unemployment or other "bad things" as a result. Life goes on, and the only difference is that the couples who can now marry have less bureaucracy and more stability - traits exalted by conservatives everywhere.

Let's hope that Governor David Paterson has the courage to put forward the bill again, and to keep pushing along with LGBT activists and their allies for its passage.

New York's motto is "Ever Upward". What better way to live up to that motto by making sure all of their citizens and families are extended the same rights and recognition.

DOMA and Obama ... Oh, Boy!

During the 2008 Presidential race, I did a low-level tongue-in-cheek write-in campaign, complete with a running mate and a platform rooted in sexual freedom. The reason? Because even with all of Obama's rhetoric about LGBT equality and such, both his own words and my own experience made me skeptical. It was also a snub at the limits of our two-party system, where we are all told to hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils.

Sound extreme?

Well, judge for yourself. On the plus side, Obama has shifted Federal money and priorities from "abstinence-only" to comprehensive programs; supported reproductive choice and removed the gag rule to US funding of health programs overseas, and proclaimed June "LGBT Pride Month". On the reverse, Obama stripped family planning funding from his stimulus package, has yet to do anything about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (see my earlier post) and now the Department of Justice has filed a brief supporting DOMA.

Oh, boy.

Many folks have made a comparison between Obama and John F. Kennedy. Given that JFK tended to pay lip service to racial equality and civil rights, looks like we have another parallel ... just not the kind we wanted.

Doing Some Math on Marriage Equality

With more and more states joining the marriage equality bandwagon, here's an interesting bit of news...

James Dobson and other radical right-wingers have argued that same-sex marriage would harm "traditional" hetero marriage. One specific claim is that, since Scandinavian countries began recognizing same-sex unions, the rates of marriage among hetero couples has declined. Well, a recent article by Barrett Brown says otherwise:

"Denmark began allowing gay civil unions in 1989. Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 10.7 percent. Norway did the same in 1993, and a decade later the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 12.7 percent. Sweden followed suite in 1995, and ten years later the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 28.7 percent. And these marriages were actually lasting. During the same time frame, the divorce rate dropped 13.9 percent in Denmark, 6 percent in Norway, and 13.7 percent in Sweden. So, we may probably dispense with the Dobson Theorem."

I hope Dobson and his pals read this article, and if so I'd like to hear what they have to say about it.

The Case for Privatizing Marriage

Anyone reading this blog should not be surprised that I support marriage equality for same-sex couples. In fact, given its positive effect for transgender and intersex folks, we should consider following Norway's lead and just refer to it as "gender-neutral" marriage. For someone of both progressive and romantic leanings, it's a no-brainer -- it affirms love in a fair and straightforward way.

But there's also part of me which is irked by the whole brouhaha over the issue. Take the recent news in New Hampshire, where marriage equality is closer than ever to legislative approval. They actually introduced a clause to "guarantee" that no member of the clergy would have to officiate at a same-sex wedding if they didn't want to. Excuse me, but ... clergy already have that right! They've had the right to refuse to officiate at any marriage ceremony for any reason, for centuries! The only reason I can see that this was written into the bill was to placate the paranoia of the far Right, who keep harping the lie that letting any couple which is not clearly "one man and one woman" get a marriage license would somehow hurt the rest of us.

Right-wingers have also argued that, if we take this step, then what's to stop someone from marrying two or more people, or a child, or their pet dog or cat? Well, the latter two examples are answered simply enough: Consent. Marriage, after all, is about taking responsibility for one another, and that means we should be sure that each partner fully understands those responsibilities, and is fully able to carry them out.

That being said, when it comes to plural marriage arrangements, I have no problem with three or more consenting adults joining together -- and it's my openness on that which makes me part company with many marriage equality activists. Many of them argue that it would make things too complicated, or that you wouldn't have equality in such an arrangement. Again, I'd go back to the issue of consent: If we accept those as a given, and the partners in question fully understand and accept that, then where is the compelling interest to deny them their choice? There is also the issue of whether such complexity and inequality is indeed "a given"; from what I've seen and heard of many polyamorous households, it's not.

So here's the sticky bit ... If we consider marriage a free union entered into by consenting adults, and we consider that it is not the government's business to tell consenting adults which consenting adults they can or cannot marry, then why marriage licenses? A driver's license I understand -- there is no "right to drive a car," and public safety is a compelling reason to make sure that those who do can do so safely. But, being licensed to fall in love and build a family together? Sorry, but that doesn't square with the idea of marriage as a right, or even as a responsibility.

Long before I wrote this blog, I've advocated replacing state-issued marriage licenses with contracts. Each couple (or menage) would draft their own agreement of what their respective rights and responsibilities would be, sign it in the presence of witnesses, and even register it with the appropriate government office. They could even spell out terms for dissolution, including the option to settle their divorce through arbitration rather than the more adversarial court system; or even establish a time limit with the option to renew.

Many people across the political and religious spectrum have argued for a similar approach, and especially as an answer to the same-sex marriage debate. Some like to refer to "getting government out of the marriage business"; I think it more accurate to think of it as changing government's role with respect to marriage, from that of paternalistic protector to one of record-keeper and potential arbiter. Naturally, there are many who would consider this too "radical" a proposal. So, let me address some major objections...

Objection #1: This would demand a radical change in our marriage laws. Response: Not exactly. The most obvious change would be that, instead of the government issuing licenses, they would record contracts. Divorce laws could change by allowing spouses to determine ahead of time how dissolution would proceed, but this would follow existing laws regarding prenuptial agreements. Every other aspect of law regarding marriage would pretty much stay the same.

Objection #2: What about the role of religion? Response: The only major change would be that we would not require clergy to become government agents. If you'd like your priest, minister, rabbi, imam or other spiritual advisor to sign your contract as a witness, you're free to do so. But it would no longer be required that you have such a signature. If anything, having an explicit contract in writing is in keeping with many religious traditions, such as the Jewish ketubah.

Objection #3: If everybody gets to draft their own contract, then we wouldn't have a single standard for determining who can get married, when they can divorce, etc. Response: Currently, we already have such a state of affairs in this country. Each state and territory can determine their own age of consent for marriage, whether they will allow no-fault divorce, community property versus equitable distribution, and so forth. But there would still be a fundamental definition of marriage as a freely-entered union of consenting adults based on love to create a new household or family.

Objection #4: So if a man comes to the town clerk with his five year old daughter, and hands over a contract which says he married her, ... Response: Again, there's the issue of consent. Can we be sure that the five year old fully understands the contract, her rights and responsibilities as this man's wife, and so forth? If not, then it's not a valid contract, and it can be challenged and nullified on those grounds. The real question is whether the government should have the power to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry, and the specific terms by which they can enter into or end a marriage, before the fact.

Objection #5: Reducing marriage to "just another contract" would cheapen it, and take away its vital social and spiritual function. Response: If anything, it could heighten appreciation for that. While most marriage contracts would likely follow a common template, potential partners would have to discuss their respective rights and responsibilities with one another before setting their signatures on the contract they draft. That means they would actually have to know what it means to be married, and especially in their circumstance -- a much more robust approach than simply filling out a license form and finding a willing officiant. While there is no guarantee that this would take place, having the specifics written out like this would certainly increase the odds for greater awareness and appreciate of the meaning and role of marriage as an institution.

Objection #6: What about the children? The whole point of having the state issue marriage licenses is to guarantee the welfare of a couple's children. Response: The history of marriage and marital law says otherwise. Marriage used to be a private contract between families, with little or no intervention by state or church. England introduced licensure in the fourteenth century as a way of waiving the three-week waiting period required for declaring banns. In the United States, marriages licenses did not become required until the middle of the nineteenth century, as a means of enforcing anti-miscegenation laws. There is also no reason to believe that children would be harmed by replacing state-issued licenses with private contracts; if anything, the partners could make specific stipulations in their contract for the benefit of any children.

I'm sure folks out there could come up with other objections and questions, but the bottom line is this: If we believe that grown-ups have a right to marry, then we should treat them as grown-ups and let them spell out the terms for themselves. They shouldn't need a paternalistic state to tell them when and how.