Civil Society Soiree, St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church, April 15, 2012
In November, Minnesota voters will see the following on their ballots:
“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”
Voters may check Yes or No—or they may choose not to vote on it at all, which counts as a No vote.
Those who wrote this marriage amendment proposal used simple words to make a clear statement. Let me be clear with you from the start that I do not agree with that statement. But I am not here so that we might all agree—although that might be beautiful—I am here so that we might speak and listen and converse respectfully.
Let me begin by telling you a story. Our family includes Jeff and me—it’s a second marriage for both of us (we believe in marriage)—and his two sons, who are now my stepsons. I am blessed in them. The elder, also called Jeff, has always lived in town. The younger one, Nathan, moved away and lived for several years in Las Vegas.
A couple of years ago, Nathan’s Minnesota homing instinct kicked in. I don’t know about you but I know quite a few Minnesotans who spent some time away from the state and then come home.
Nathan decided that the roller-coaster adventure of living in Vegas was less important to him than the love and support of family and friends. And he brought his loved one with him, as many returning Minnesotans do. Torrance had visited us at Christmastime before, so let me assure you, he knew about the cold and snow.
So, in November 2010, Nathan and Torrance moved from Vegas and in with Jeff and me as they made a fresh start. They supported each other in their job searches; they did laundry; they went out with their friends; they took care of their dog, Bella. When schedules allowed, they ate dinner with us. They cleared the table and did the dishes. In that winter of big snows, they also shoveled our driveway numerous times.
Not much of a gay agenda, but there you are: ordinary Minnesota family life with much love, some money worries, and, most winters, snow removal. After five years together, they recently decided to get engaged to be married.
It’s beautiful. It’s also problematic because there already is a law in Minnesota that prohibits same-sex marriages. Now this so-called marriage amendment would enshrine this discrimination into the state constitution. And I don’t agree with that.
Love and commitment—for me, that’s what marriage is about. That’s what Nathan and Torrance and other couples want. And we Minnesotans—whether born here or having moved here—we believe in helping each other. We rely on our family and friends. We uphold fairness. And, if we don’t discriminate against people for who they are, we vote No in November on the so-called marriage amendment.
The group Minnesotans United for All Families came together last year to fight the amendment here in Minnesota. It has grown over the months and now includes more than 200 organizations, including faith communities. The website says: “We are a coalition founded on a strong belief in the power of marriage. We believe marriage and family are about love and commitment, working together, bettering the community, raising children, and growing old together. We believe in a Minnesota that values and supports strong families and creates a welcoming environment for all Minnesota families to thrive.”
Along with those you might expect to oppose this amendment—libertarians, independents and democrats—lifelong Republicans like Wheelock Whitney belong to this movement. He wrote an impassioned editorial that, among other things, spoke of the talents that gay and lesbian people bring to our local businesses.
And as it is for me, it is for him, it’s personal; he has gay family members. He wrote: “Far from defending families, this marriage amendment is an attack on my family. It is an attack on thousands of families across this state. I won’t sit by and just let it happen.”
Marriage matters. More than 20 states have had similar amendments that would ban same-sex marriage on the ballot. Minnesotans United tells us that, in other states, the research shows is that, even when voters knew gay people—they are friends, co-workers, family members—they did not had the meaningful conversations with them about what marriage means to them. We need to have those conversations. I suspect that we would find out, for many gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people, being able to marry would be a welcome change—even a reason to celebrate their love and commitment with family, friends and their faith community.
Have we not had those conversations because of stereotypes about gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people? We all make assumptions about people—it’s shorthand, it seems to make life easier.
But when it’s a matter of people’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we need to have these conversations, even if they are difficult. We need to ask, “Is marriage important to you? Why? Isn’t having a civil union for gay people good enough?”
Finally, let me add my point of view as a Christian. I’m sure you are clear on this but let me say: I am not a theologian. In my readings and study of both the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, however, I have been bowled over by God’s great mercy and love. And I take to heart John 13:34, when Jesus gave us a new commandment: “that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.” From what I understand, the “you” of Jesus encompasses the disciples, the tax collectors, prostitutes—those on the margins of society.
In Jesus’ time, “homosexual” was not a category or a term—but if it were and, if as in our modern society, it were used to make people into Others, Not Like Us, and otherwise excluded, I believe Jesus would have broken bread with people who happen to be gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender.
They do not choose who they love. And we should not choose who to love; let us embrace all God’s people. Let us vote No in November.
Allison Campbell Jensen 