Same-Sex Marriage: It’s a Spiritual Thing
by: Amanda Udis-Kessler on June 30th, 2010 | 23 Comments »
I can imagine the conversation I would have with someone who supports Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban. They might tell me apologetically that they have nothing against me personally, or against my same-sex relationship of almost 13 years, but that marriage is … different, not for me. They might tell me calmly that my sexual brokenness can be healed if I will only accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, and that the state has no business condoning sin.
For years, I would have told them that it was a matter of equal rights, and that society should stand behind same-sex couples who want to marry because they are just as much in love as any opposite-sex couple. I would have said marriage is marriage, regardless of the couple saying “I do,” and that conservative religion has no business intruding on the state. I might have gone so far as to say that same-sex marriage should be legal as a matter of religious freedom, not to mention the hundreds of state and federal rights now systematically denied to same-sex couples because we cannot legally marry.
Today, without denying the truth of the above arguments, I would say something different, something much more controversial: as long as we live in a society that treats marriage as a matter of state interest and prioritizes it above other types of relationships, same-sex couples must be allowed to marry for spiritual reasons. Same-sex marriage is a spiritual matter for the couples involved and for society as a whole. Spirituality here is not opposed to politics, but is of a piece with it.
This kind of argument is rarely made because of how the same-sex marriage debate has been framed. Opponents make the case that marriage is heterosexual by definition. Same-sex couples who want to get married, or who support marriage equality as a political matter, argue that love is love and marriage is marriage. LGBT/queer-identified people who want to see all types of relationships equally valued claim that marriage itself is the problem; they want marriage off its pedestal and every form of coupling (or tripling or … ) held up as equivalent. None of these groups necessarily talk about same-sex marriage as a point of intersection between politics and spirituality.
If our politics are to be spiritually informed, however, they must support human flourishing at all levels. Marriage has a particular role to play in that flourishing. That’s not because of anything inherently better about marriage; any and every kind of romantic/sexual relationship, as well as singleness, can be turned into a venue of self-healing and world-healing, depending on the honesty and integrity with which it is undertaken. But at this moment in time, marriage provides a web of security for those couples that risk undertaking spiritual deepening in their relationship. In marriage, the trust between the couple is also a trust between the couple and society, and as such marriage (when at its best) makes certain demands that can be part of its spiritual component.
Legal sanction, public blessing, cultural expectations, life-stage rituals: all these combine to create in marriage a social institution with deep meaning and deeper opportunities. To exclude same-sex couples from this institution is to harm us as well as the heterosexual couples who are less able to receive the gifts that we would bring to marriage. Ultimately, it is to harm a world sorely in need of healing.
Here, to start the conversation, are examples, one each, of how legalizing same-sex marriage might provide spiritual support to same-sex couples; how it might facilitate spiritual growth among thoughtful heterosexuals; and why it would be good for society and the planet as a whole.
First, the discipline of living in a committed relationship offers continual opportunities for spiritual growth, and while this is true of any committed relationship it may be truer of one in which the couple is formally bound to society, not just to itself. I know a lesbian couple, just married in Iowa, that strives to live together spiritually, in part through the use of Don Miguel Ruiz’s “four agreements.” My own holy unioned relationship has taught me a multitude of lessons about disagreeing gently, forgiving, becoming comfortable with differences, accepting frailties (mine and hers), holding my tongue, and cultivating compassion. Some people undoubtedly put this much work into a more casual relationship, but I and many people I know find that it makes a difference to have stood up in public, asked the blessings of our friends and the spirit, and offered promises in front of those who will help us while inviting us to be our best selves. Because of its social and legal standing, marriage provides support and demands accountability, both of which can only help the spiritually-minded same-sex couple.
Second, when marriage is defined as a matter of body part mechanics or archetypal gender complementarities, something of the spirit is lost: precisely the humility, openness, sense of discovery and negotiation that same-sex couples often bring to our relationships. When we don’t fit into “traditional sex role stereotypes,” our very navigation through couplehood can be a means of spiritual development. Of course, some same-sex couples are gender-traditional, and some heterosexual couples are gender-interesting. But for the rest of us, same-sex couples may have a gift to offer opposite-sex couples, one worthy of cherishing and protection through marriage laws that legitimate our versions of constructing and encountering ourselves as families.
Finally, people who are more whole lead to a planet that is more whole. A couple, supported by the legal, social, and cultural elements of marriage, can work to cultivate the “fruits of the spirit” (Galatians 5:22-23) in their lives and their relationship and then extend these blessings to society. Whether the couple consists of two men, two women, or a woman and a man doesn’t matter. What matters is whether they actively choose “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” rather than their opposites — as individuals, as a pair, and as activists in the world. Here in particular, politics needs spirituality as much as spirituality needs politics.
Perhaps there will come a day when this way of thinking about same-sex marriage will be meaningless because all types of relationships (and a wider variety of gender definitions) will be equally valued, and the wisdom they have to offer will be cherished widely. I look forward to that day, and until then, I will look forward to my next opportunity to discuss same-sex marriage with a Proposition 8 supporter.
This is my first blog entry. In the future, look for interviews with famous and not-so-famous LGBTQ people of faith and spirit. Look for reports of LGBTQ religious/spiritual happenings, and commentaries on them. Look for personal reflections on the seminary experience (which starts for me in just about a month), and on the work I do educating conservative religious people about LGBT lives. Look for some bisexual theology and some sociology of religion and sexuality. Look for a spiritual critique of LGBT materialism. And plenty more. Thanks for reading. Send along your comments!
[Editor's Note: The author of this post, Amanda Udis-Kessler, also has an article in Tikkun magazine's July/August 2010 issue, which includes a large section on Queer Spirituality and Politics. To read it, purchase a single copy of the print magazine, subscribe, or pick up a copy of the magazine at your local bookstore.]



Thank you for gracefully widening the conversation. This is a wonderful perspective.
Much appreciated. A humbling comment. What’s interesting is that I feel I could just as easily have argued for the “all relationships are equal” perspective in terms of my personal values – I know spiritually minded polygamous couples, and threesomes and such – but there is a certain sociological power to the current reality of (legal) marriage. In any case, thanks for commenting.
They might tell me apologetically that they have nothing against me personally, or against my same-sex relationship of almost 13 years, but that marriage is … different, not for me.
An interesting piece to read, not least because my partner and I are marrying this summer after almost 14 years of being in relationship. But we’re in Canada, and our witnesses at the Caesar part (city-hall) of the ceremonial will be a same sex couple, whose wedding we celebrated a few years ago. It is striking how quickly that’s become an accepted norm up here; reading about the prejudice you face seems as removed from our reality as if someone said that we couldn’t marry because we’re too old to have children.
Gender is not binary, and relationships exist between people, whatever their gender. To reduce marriage to IKEA level analysis (“If tab A doesn’t fit in slot B, it’s not a marriage”) doesn’t support marriage, relationships, or spirituality.
This weekend Toronto hosts the largest gay pride festival in North America. It’s good to be reminded of how much we have to be grateful for, and how far we’ve come. We are winning, and you have allies who will help you as you win this battle as well.
Thanks, Peter. And mazel tov (congratulations) on your marriage!
Thank you for a discussion that brings new facets of an issue to light. For some reason, for me, of all the prejudices, I find it hardest to wrestle with prejudices against same-sex relationships. I wonder if they aren’t hard-wired as part of our drive to survive as a species?
I can see how it would seem very important in the ancient Biblical world to encourage relationships that produced as many children as possible to tend herds, work the soil, etc. But today’s world is very different. So many of our problems are related to increased population on a finite planet.
Of course, this comment does not begin to address the issue of spirituality, It may even be seen as subordinating the spiritual to the material, which I don’t mean to do. But spirituality seems interconnected to our survival as a species. Couples who are helping us to become more sustainable as a species must not be blocked from finding meaning and depth in one another or from fully participating in our collective life together. We do not need every couple to produce 12 or 15 children. We need people to help raise the children we have already produced, to solve collective problems, to bring more thought and tenderness and commitment and care into our material existence.
And this is what gay couples who are struggling for the right to love one another openly are bringing us.
A P.S. on that one: I don’t want to sound like a eugenicist since I am not. Or to imply that same-sex couples never produce children.
I just wonder why it is that so many of our values surrounding sexuality seem to be tied to maximizing the number of children we produce: bans against birth control, same-sex relationships, and abortion, along with laws in many countries that discourage women from prosecuting rape all seem to belong to this category of thought.
A focus on spirituality is so important!
Lauren (presuming that is your first name), what a beautiful response. You should be a blogger, if you are not already.
I have frequently wondered about the “ick” factor. In a sense, I am less worried about a putative hard-wired negative response (which I would wonder about anyway, having read enough history, sociology and anthropology to convince me responses differ across time and societies) than I am about what happens when religion, law, governments, etc., take up the ick factor and institutionalize it.
Thank you for your kind words! I am in fact the health care blogger here at Tikkun. I’ve been uncharacteristically quiet for the past few months because health care reform has made me very busy (I run the Health and Human Service Department for Rio Arriba County in Northern NM) and because my computer died. I bought my first mac and needed some time to learn to use it!
I also blog at Daily Kos as TheFatLadySings.
I am tired of these paeans to coupledom. Being single can be every bit as spiritual as been paired. Let’s leave the romantic, starry-eyed harmony of the spheres elements aside for a minute. Marriage is only needed for legal reasons–to protect kids, handle property, deal with hospital visitations and other intimate matters. You can be just as ethereal unmarried or uncoupled. I am tired of couples claiming special rights/insights/grace.
We are stuck in these confusions because in this country priests/rabbis/ministers have been deputized by the State to perform a state function (which is also a “sacrament’ in some–but not all–religions). In places like France, you can get “married” at Notre Dame High Mass, but you aren’t married until you go to the Mairie and have the city official (under the bust of Marianne and the tricoleur) read the shtick and get you to sign the forms. So much clearer.
Phil, of course you are right that any individual in virtually any kind of relationship (or none) can be equally spiritual. Perhaps I am too much a realist, but I don’t see legalized marriage going anywhere, both because of its social benefits for opposite-sex couples and because many same-sex couples want to be able to marry legally. So if legalized marriage isn’t going anywhere, same-sex couples need access to it, for a wide range of reasons. The debate over same-sex marriage within the LGBTQ community is thought-provoking and both sides make good points, as far as I can tell. I just hope that you did not read my posting as an attack on non-marital relationships or singleness, because that was absolutely not the intention.
I think it is a mistake to underestimate the importance of a ritual which celebrates embodied intimacy that is promised to another. Frankly, only in the radical vulnerability of such an ongoing commitment are the most profound issues of identity, intimacy, and personality worked out and made, if you will, flesh. Most of us, not all, are called to such intimacy.
However, I believe it is a mistake to allow the state the authority to adjudicate such relationships. In this country’s history, linking organized religion with the state to solemnize such relationships has proved to be hurtful and dangerous to many, especially those who at the margins of what the mainstream engenders.
So, my modest proposal is this:
Yes, let the state issue licenses for such “marriages”.
First, an introductory license good for one year.
Then a five year license.
Finally, a life license.
This would undermine the stigma of divorce and allow people a legal means to experiment with coupling.
Second, for those who wish a religious blessing. Let them go to the religion of their choice and get a blessing. This would be separate from and different from the license.
Finally, explore the possibility of the “License” recognizing different forms of commitment: { Think Lesbian pods (i.e. connections of multiple women to a community of intimacy. I know of several which has worked for decades.)}
Am I trying to make fun of intimacy and marriage? Not at all. I am saying we need to think about such connections deeply so that we begin to explore what it means for any of us to be ready to commit to another human being(s). We are approaching a horizon of freedom in terms of self identity and I think we need to do this with serious intent, not just replicate the patterns of a troubled pas.
Jim, those are some wonderful ideas, and beautifully put. Thanks for writing.
Thanks – one of the best rationales for marriage I’ve ever read — as a (heterosexual) marriage educator,
I can use this in my classes…might shake ‘em up a bit to hear the source, as many straight
couples struggle with understanding the spiritual dimensions of marriage, and take it for granted.
Awesome, thanks. I used to teach the Human Sexual Behavior course at Colorado College. You go!
I don’t understand your sentence (in reply to me) that you ” don’t see legalized marriage going anywhere”–it is going to become a reality in a relatively short time. and as a civil libertarian, I strongly support that, because heteros shouldn’t be privileged.
And for you to say “both sides [in the struggle over same-sex marriage] make good points” totally draws your opinions into serious question. As the closing arguments made clear in the prop 8 trial, the other side’s “points’ are illogical and absurd; they are merely rationales for discrimination (like saying that black people have smaller brains and are more stupid, which was a widespread argument to support Jim Crow).
Finally, your piece is a paean to coupledom; if you can’t see it you need to step back and look differently at what you wrote.
I do not understand why NSP carried this piece at all!
Sorry, Phil, I was not clear. By “not going anywhere,” I meant that it wasn’t going to vanish, not that it wasn’t going to happen.
Also, I guess I was not clear about the “both sides” business. I mean that I can understand the perspectives of those who think everyone should be able to marry legally and who do think marriage carries (and should carry) special weight, and I can understand the perspectives of those (some LGBTQ people, some polyamorous heterosexuals, some people who reject those labels entirely) who think marriage should be off its pedestal and all forms of relationships(including singlehood) should be equally valued by the state – equally supported, or not supported by the state at all. I do not in any way think the pro-Proposition 8 side made good points and I am saddened that after reading my piece you imagine that I could in any way be in support of Proposition 8. I am totally against it. I’ve actually preached against it. For me, the challenge of writing this piece was acknowledging what seems to be sociologically true about marriage without dissing those who think marriage itself should have no special status.
I will try to be clearer in the future. Thanks for pushing me a bit. Maybe at some point I will write a piece about the spiritual depths of singleness, and the spiritual work of people in relationships other than couples.
thx for clarifications
Thanks for a great post, and congrats on becoming Tikkun’s official LGBT spiritual blogger.
It’s about time that somebody made a spiritual argument in favor of same-sex marriage. My partner recently showed our 1987 (lesbian) wedding photos to some heterosexual allies. One of them commented that she didn’t know that same-sex marriage was legal in the state of California back then.
“It wasn’t, so we went to a higher authority,” my partner replied.
The straight woman looked confused. “You mean… the FEDERAL government?”
“No — I mean God!”
That was a showstopper. She was too stunned to say more than, “Oh!”
Our ceremony was held in Metropolitan Community Church, one of the only places that would bless same-sex relationships in the 1980s.
BTW, I love the photos used to illustrate this piece.
Kittredge, thanks for getting in touch and writing the above comment. I’ve enjoyed the book Equal Rites for years. My partner and I had our commitment ceremony in the Unitarian Universalist church we met in, and as befits our differing spiritualities, it had both UU and Wiccan elements. (She’s the Witch.) I have already checked out your blog and expect to keep enjoying it.
Amanda,
Thank you for your clarity of thought and, most especially, for the depth of your reflection. Our poor society is going through a real rough patch right now, what with all the anger and brittleness and straw men that get set up just so they can be knocked down.
Your commentary is gentle and kind and very smart…It is wise. Your assertion that “our politics should be spiritually informed” is the truly right approach to the creation of informed opinion, an approach that has been lost to too many of us.
Your essay gently coaxes us toward living our lives kindly, as the result considered reflection. It is a thing that is too rarely spoken of these days.
Thanks.
–Jay
Thanks, Jay! I must say I have found blogging to be an excellent discipline for unearthing my most gentle voice; I tend to get strident in actual conversations.
And, of course, thanks for your own gentle tone.
well, i read all the comments here. it makes sense that every1 has their own rights. few days back, i saw a couple on t.v. a man living with his female partner and they both drink each others blood with mutual understanding. Both of them like to drink blood but instead of killing others, they just choose each other and made relations so now they dont have to commit a crime to drink blood. they just inject a tube in a vein through an injection and fill a glass and then drink it when the glass is full. i say this must also be allowed. after all, if they are pleased with this action and its done with mutual understanding then what the hell? this is avoiding a crime and providing satisfaction to the couple. i say lets make it legal so that any1 interested in blood, make legal partners and keep drinking blood. We have so many cases in which a man loves his dog. If they both are OK with it, the should get married and it also needs to be legalized. Love is not a matter between genders or animals or humans. love is just love. Anyone can fall in love with anything or anyone. If both agree to marry, whose God to forbid it? what has a government to do with it? I agree to all of your comments :)
Hmmm, it’s the rare post reply that I cannot decipher with regard to sarcasm. I think you are not being sarcastic…but either way, I think I am trying to make a moral argument involving human flourishing, not a libertarian argument involving maximizing human freedom. If that’s not clear perhaps I need to rethink my original piece…