Several days ago I experienced a wonderful “first” as a rabbi. I officiated at my first legal same sex wedding in Florida. It was a marriage between two young women who joined my congregation about 4 years ago – when the idea of a legal wedding for them in Florida was unimaginable. One studied and converted to Judaism with me. A year and a half ago they had a beautiful baby girl. Among the photos displayed at their reception was one of me in the hospital holding their new baby. Of course I did the naming ceremony. This is a family I know well and care about deeply.
Our time under the chupah together was emotional and beautiful. They had circled each other before coming under the chupah. The usually more stoic one was in tears during the ceremony. The chupah itself was a symbol of family support and love as it was made from a tallit belonging to one of their fathers. I think my favorite moment was seeing their matching purple sneakers as each broke a glass at the end of the ceremony. As legalized same sex marriage is very new in Florida, you could feel the collective exhilaration of the wedding guests, almost like the entire room held its breath through the ceremony. In the aftermath, I am now wondering about what happens next.
Let me explain.
The first concern is whether this expression of equal rights is going to be short lived. The United States Supreme Court is about to issue a ruling that will either affirm or deny this right. I am not a student of the court, but from what I have read it will not be a shock if the court affirms and allows the continuation of marriage equality – which raises some new questions.
Let me explain.
A few days after the wedding I was at a meeting with 4 other clergy with whom I form a local “God Squad” that does monthly programs discussing civic issues from a faith perspective. This is under the umbrella of “The Village Square” an organization that promotes nonpartisan political dialogue. Besides me the group includes: a Catholic priest, a female Methodist minister, a Baptist minister, and an African American Christian minister (not sure of exact denomination name) . As we were wrapping up our planning session for the next season we shared news with each other. I mentioned that I had just performed the wedding. The Baptist pastor commented, “That is what I love about this group, we are all so different.”
The reactions of the other clergy were interesting. The priest smiled and said nothing. It is clear that he cannot support same sex marriage as it goes against the teachings and dictates of the Church. The Methodist smiled approvingly. The African American minister smiled in amusement (he does not support same sex marriage). Their reactions made me realize that same sex weddings do not conform to the beliefs and practices of a large swath of the American religious community. Now I must ask, what happens next? How, assuming the Supreme Court affirms the rights of same sex couples to marry, does the country proceed?
We have a glimpse of a possible future in the conflict between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church over health care provisions requiring Church institutions to provide coverage for birth control as part of their health care packages. Those supporting the government’s position see this as a right due the employees that overrides religious doctrine. Those opposed to the administration’s position see this is government overreach by intruding onto religious grounds. It is easy to wonder if there will be an attempt to require clergy to perform same sex weddings assuming the right is upheld by the court.
But I hope it does not come to that. I really do. As much as I support the right of couples to get married, I shudder when I think about government intrusion into religious areas. I know many rabbis who will not perform interfaith weddings. If the right of a couple to get married trumps the right of the clergy to decide which weddings to perform, can these rabbis be forced to perform interfaith weddings?
What makes the question of intrusion into clergy decisions even more important is that we tend to reduce those with whom we disagree to caricatures. We mock them as “Neanderthals” or as “bigots.” Yet I will tell you that the other clergy who are part of my discussion group are all beautiful souls, deep thinkers, and very dedicated to the betterment of the greater Tallahassee community. They are deeply committed to their religious values. They are not condemning my officiating of a same sex wedding, but for each of their own reasons, they will not do it themselves. I, in turn, respect their positions.
Every religious group must find its own way through these issues. I cannot and will not endorse governmental interference in how any religious group decides what weddings to perform. We tread a fine line in finding the balance between personal rights and the right to religious convictions. In truth the affirming of the rights of same sex couples to marry is also an affirmation of my right as clergy to perform that wedding. It is an affirmation that it is up to each religious organization and their clergy to decide who they will or will not marry. I hope that is the status quo we can maintain.
The Jewish Observer 
Employee rights and clergy rights are not at odds. As employees, workers for any denomination are covered by labor laws that enforce health coverage Though that was clearly undermined by the Hobby Lobby decision–but as Bader-Ginsberg pointed out, the slippery slope there is if any religion can choose its level of coverage, such that Christian scientists may provide no coverage or refuse to allow employees to seek medical care, such that orthodox Jewish communities may refuse transplant coverage if a porcine organ is the only option; a fact in new pancreatic transplantation experiments for type I diabetics; as she pointed out in her dissent, this could lead to further cases that will force the Supreme Court into choosing which religions may and which may not have these legal rights to deny certain coverages. Additionally, the denial of women’s access to contraceptives assumes that birth control is the primary use, when in fact, a vast number of women use contraceptive medications to control imbalanced hormones, making them a medical treatment for an actual disorder (not making pregnancy a disorder). Since there are privacy rights involved, it is not legal for the Church to ask why a woman is put on contraceptives, and cannot be legally or religiously right to deny health coverage for disease.
As for gay marriage, a religious leader is not *forced* to perform ANY legal ceremony. If there were such regulations, a rabbi could be forced to perform a baptism. The idea is ludicrous. There are clergy who must live by the precepts and inclusions/exclusions of their congregations, and those who must abide by the hierarchy of their respective denomination. But since religion is not a business, it doesn’t fall under the umbrella of the civil rights amendments which guarantee that a business open to the public must be open to all members of the public regardless of race, religion or gender (and hopefully someday soon, of orientation).
It is therefore a red herring to suggest a clergy-person would be *forced* to perform ANY service. It is a fear-mongering suggestion that the two are equal or fall under the same parts of the law. And it is primarily used by the socially conservative far right as an argument to deny civil rights to homosexuals and transgendered persons. It is the equivalent of the fear mongering around miscegenation that was used to argue against the Loving v US case (that recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the right of people to marry across racial lines). I am saddened that people equate these two things (people’s sexuality/American heteronormativity with religious rights), when the right is a civil one. The right to marry mens the right to be the next of kin, the right to legally be family, fiscally, testimentarily, and medically. These rights are important. The argument from giving rights to some equals taking rights from others is a small minded fallacy.
I would like to add that choosing which religions may and which may not have access to the rights granted corporations under the Hobby Lobby decision is, as Bader-Ginsberg states a clear violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, specifically the ban “respecting an establishment of religion.” By choosing which religious groups’ views are legal and which are not would establish chosen religions in the US.
Leah, love that you have articulated this response as I was hoping someone would go down the road you chose. I actually think you are conflating some issues and this is a chance to parse them better. I will actually respond by writing a follow up blog and post after the events of this weekend.
Interesting position. Mostly I support your views, but there is a caveat. Unlike the Justice of the Peace or other governmental official you or any of your colleagues can refuse to perform ANY marriage for whatever reason (you may not think that the couple is sincere or that one of the couples is not Jewish or that the conversion is a sham etc.). The government has no such authority; they are open to the public, so to speak. The same is true for business. They serve the entire public and should be held to public policy. A restaurant cannot refuse service because of race, religious or sexual preference. They can maintain a dress code or something like that that is applicable to the entire community. I would think that the provisions of the health insurance for employees falls in that category.
Thanks for the feedback, Mike. I am going to post a follow up blog to explore some of what you and Leah raise in your comments. Look for it after the weekend!
Looking forward to it,rabbi.
I support equal rights for everyone, but do not think clergy should be forced to act against their beliefs. This is already happening in Denmark. Christian clergy forced by the government to marry same sex couples. And there is a case in Idaho being fought about this right now.
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364
Bravo, Rabbi, for your reasoned position. This is precisely it:
“As much as I support the right of couples to get married, I shudder when I think about government intrusion into religious areas.”
A “marriage” is a religious construction. It seems obvious that gay couples should have the rights of obtaining legal partnerships recognized under law, with all rights afforded any legally partnered couple, however, a church wedding is antithetical to the gay lifestyle. Certainly, it opposes the dogma of the Judeo-Christian religions.
It would be an intrusion of the State into the Church, and our country was founded upon the separation of Church and State. Let these couples be recognized via a secular service, or perhaps by a more liberal Church or Temple.
While I think most people are ready to acknowledge legal partnerships, I think any further pressing to force Churches to marry those who de facto do not conform to the dogma will cause unnecessary strife.
Anyway, such a mandate would be illegal per our Constitution. I am both a little horrified and amused to say I concur with Justice Thomas’s (=silent Clarence) dissent: the law may not bestow dignity upon the individual, that “essence” is indwelling upon the individual. A Church does not accord it, nor does the Constitution guarantee it.
As the inalienable rights enumerated by our Declaration of Independence states are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Creator bestows that value. But nowhere does it suggest the Church must be enlisted to protect those rights.