Rev. Bess on DADT and the business of marriage

Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister who lives in Palmer, Alaska, and an ally of the LGBT community. This essay on gay equality - in church, in the military and in government recognition of relationships - appeared in the Religion section of the Mat-Su Frontiersman:

---------

"Don't ask, don't tell" is everywhere

I have been involved in advocacy for justice for our gay citizens for over 35 years. I have long been an advocate of full acceptance of gay people in our churches. No position in our churches, including the office of ordained clergy, should be denied. No blessing of our churches should be withheld. Gay people are ordinary folk. They live in our communities in abundance. For churches to impose different standards on our gay neighbors is a grand absurdity.

The time is long past to welcome our gay friends in our churches.

Along side the struggle for gay acceptance in our churches, is the pursuit of equality under the laws of our country. Under what provision of our Constitution can we possibly deny gay people the honor of serving in the military? Under what provision of our Constitution can we deny the same legal privileges and protections to committed gay couples that we provide to heterosexual couples?

As the discussions and arguments have developed, specific concerns have crystallized. Within the churches' discussions, ordination and marriage have become central. In the realm of governmental bodies, service in the military and legal recognition of gay couples are core issues.

Fifty years from now, I have no doubt about the standards that will be commonly acceptable. Gay people will serve freely in the military. Discrimination based on sexual orientation will be long gone. Most denominations will have congregations that are served by gay priests and ministers, who have partners. Gay couples will associate freely with heterosexual couples. Americans will look back with amazement that discrimination against gay people was ever accepted, advocated and defended.

Just as we look back and wonder how we could have ever denied women the right to vote, so we will also look back and wonder how we could have denied gay people basic rights and privileges.

Just as we look back and wonder how we could have tolerated slavery based on race, so also we will look back and wonder how we could have treated gay people so shabbily.

What will it take to put this nightmare of injustice behind us?

The easiest part is to get rid of "don't ask; don't tell." To rid our military branches of this burden, an act of Congress is needed. I suspect the votes are present to pass the legislation. Opposition by military leaders is rapidly melting away. Implementation will be smooth and simple. In the past few months, [hate crimes] legislation that covers sexual orientation has been passed by Congress and signed into law.

The thorniest issue to be resolved is marriage. As the argument has developed, the word marriage has become the issue. Gay activists want the word. Religious bodies want to protect the word from legal use by gay couples. Government has become unnecessarily entangled in the conflict. A growing number of people are saying that the real issues are justice and equality, not marriage. I could not agree more.

Much of the responsibility for the confusion lies at the feet of churches and ministers. A wall of separation between churches and government has served our nation very well. As a Baptist and an advocate of the wall of separation, I ask myself, "Why are religious bodies and their ministers involved in legalizing marriage? Have we become unnecessarily entangled in an issue that is not ours?"

The system now works like this: A couple who wants legal benefits for their relationship goes to the courthouse or the city hall and gets a license to marry. The couple sometimes goes to a judge, a mayor, or (in Alaska) a willing friend. More often a couple finds a willing minister. There are no particular words that must be uttered. The important step is that someone signs the license and returns it to the appropriate governmental office. There is nothing intrinsically religious about the process.

I once knew a retired minister who hung around the city clerk's office. His services were on the spot. He made a nice living. He had no personal or religious relationship with his clients. It was a business proposition. This is an unusual illustration, but it serves a point. Is this the system churches want to legally protect by enshrining the word marriage?

Churches and ministers should get completely out of the business of legalizing human relationships by whatever name. We should not be servants of government in any circumstance.

To my many gay friends, I ask, "Why are you hung up on the word marriage?" Turn loose of the word. Your real issue is equal rights under the law.

There are many couples, gay and non-gay, who want the blessing of God on their relationship. It is the job of clergy to formalize that blessing. I have come to the conclusion that such a service should have nothing to do with legalizing their relationship. It is a profoundly religious service. Furthermore, in such a setting the relationship can be called anything the minister and the couple want.

Representatives of all parties involved need to get together and formulate a workable system. We are involved in a disagreement that has lasted much too long.