Mistakenly, it might be assumed that the entire Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community is advocating for same-sex marriage in the United States. Mainstream LGBT advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have built the illusion of consensus by publicly making this one of the top priorities of their advocacy work and by allocating vast resources to the same-sex marriage movement nationally and in individual states.1,2,3 Unquestionably, when the federal government provides 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections because of marital status, a status which excludes homosexual couples, there is irrefutable inequality.4 Though most queers do agree that this is unjust, there is a contingent refraining from joining the marriage equality effort because of its assimilationist nature and its resemblance to the marginalization of the "other" queers that took place when white, gay men commandeered the Queer movement following the Stonewall Riots.5 With conflicts and divisions within the LGBT community itself, the marriage equality debate is more complex than it appears. This is especially challenging for Queer ministers and faith leaders who are asked to support same-sex marriage when believing the spiritual gift the Queer community offers society is in valuing and dignifying those outside heterosexist normality.
Marriage equality literature describes the desire for same-sex marriage by gay and lesbian people as more meaningful than just wanting rights. Although marriage equality advocates stress that they are fighting for the benefits, rights, and protections from which they are excluded, the main reason for wanting marriage derives from a desire for full acceptance into society.6 It is only human to want and need belonging, and in our culture, marriage is a rite of passage and a sign of achievement and social inclusion in the larger community.7 Same-sex couples want their friends and families to validate their love for one another, witness and affirm their commitment, and honor their family unit. They long for their faith leaders to bless them and deem their relationships worthy. They need respect, dignity, and acknowledgment, which is not unusual for anyone of a marginalized group. However, in a situation of inequality, societal value can be achieved only when granted by those in power, and unfortunately, gay and lesbian marriage advocates have found that the most successful way for this to be accomplished in a heterosexist world is by arguing that they are "normal" or identical to heterosexual couples.8 Posters found at marriage equality rallies will tout love is love, family is family, and commitment is commitment – no matter the sexes of the two persons involved.
Contrarily, Queer activists find the marriage equality movement assimilation to the heteronormative culture for the sake of acceptance. This sacrifice is in direct conflict with the very principles on which the Queer movement was founded. "Queer" itself has been reclaimed and defined by queer people to represent those who perceive themselves outside the constraints of prevailing social norms.9 The movement was founded on principles calling attention to marriage as idealized "mythology," recognizing the "diversity of sexual and intimate relations," all "worthy of respect and protection."10 It specifically resisted any attempt to "make the norms of straight culture into the standards by which queer life should be measured."11 Instead of fighting to fit within heterosexist borders, Queer activists challenge LGBT advocacy groups to push the boundaries of acceptance as far as possible by demanding recognition for those in the queer extremities instead of hoping for "trickle-down acceptance"12 which would be ineffectual.13 When thinking of the homeless gay teenager, the gender-confused child, the transsexual prostitute, the single butch lesbian, or the polyamorous bisexual man, this reasoning for their dissent from the marriage equality movement is valid, justified, and necessary.
The two bodies of thought (of same-sex marriage advocates and Queer activists) are certain to leave Queer ministers and faith leaders in precarious positions. Certainly there exists an inequality between committed heterosexual couples who can marry and committed homosexual couples who cannot; however, by advocating normalcy, the marriage equality movement negates the spiritual gift the Queer community offers in valuing and dignifying the excluded. Truly, spiritual leaders are called by God to oppose discrimination, but when gay and lesbian people are granted legal marriage, the very action will marginalize many queers who do not fit into this restrictive dynamic, forcing those queers outside this amended definition of "normal" to lower rungs on the ladder of respectability.14 Does the Queer minister fight the injustice of instated inequality or advocate for those who would be marginalized? Does a choice have to be made?
One way in which the Queer Christian can analyze the issue is through a lens viewing religious and sociological exclusion. Through reflection on the religious ethics which arise in scripture regarding this, perhaps a resolution can be found. This lens is especially important as exclusion acts throughout the marriage equality debate. Since same-sex marriage advocates want to be included in the institution of marriage, the exclusion operates in their assimilation, while Queer activists, not seeking inclusion through normalcy, fight against the exclusion from society because of being viewed as destructive or disposable, depraved persons.15
Both Old and New Testament scripture have shown exclusion to be a means of persecuting and oppressing others and define it as an evil way to treat any human being.16 Jesus Christ scandalously included anyone at His table of fellowship, committed to helping the outcast and the sinner.17 In an essay in Faith Beyond Resentment, gay theologian, James Alison, studies exclusion in the story of the man born blind whom Jesus heals and the Pharisees debate, found in John 9. To summarize, a man born blind was excluded by society because it was believed that he was made this way because of sin, and association with him would contaminate others' righteousness. When Jesus healed the blind man and he regained his sight, he was brought to the Pharisees who had excluded him who then asked him to agree with them that Jesus was not of God in order to exclude Jesus. Ironically, the formerly blind man would not agree with their condemnation of Jesus and positioned himself equal to and included with the Pharisees in asserting his point of view. Initially, the substance of the story seems to be that Jesus obligated the inclusion of the excluded. This might provide a sense of vindication since all have been excluded in life at one time or another; however, Alison finds there to be a more powerful lesson. He argues that what Jesus ultimately showed is that the real sin was not in the defect causing the blindness which was the reason for exclusion, but rather the sin was in the participation in the mechanism which forced the defected one to be excluded.18 When "goodness" or "normality" is established and maintained by a unified body at the expense of an "other," the transgression is in the exclusion and reasoning for excluding, which does not recognize God's working in the other. "Sin is resistance, in the name of God, to the creative work of God which seeks to include us all."19
Therefore, if related to the issue of same-sex marriage and queer marginalization by such, and if accepted as an appropriate comparison, the aforementioned understanding of the sin of exclusion encourages Queer Christian ministers and faith leaders to shift the same-sex marriage conversation entirely. They should not stand for or against marriage equality but instead advocate for change in the antiquated institution of marriage in society, an institution that excludes in which all intentionally or unintentionally participate. Marriage, whether between heterosexual or homosexual couples, benefits certain people over others, institutionalizes inequality, and excludes people psychologically, culturally, and materially. Prophetically, Queer Christian liberators would work to dismantle structures like marriage which create powerlessness thereby giving voice to all people.20 In this way, queers do not advocate just for themselves but for anyone excluded and oppressed by marriage, including singles, divorcees, widows and widowers, and loners of any gender and sexual orientation. All families in whatever form they may take (couples, friendships, shared dwellers) and also those lacking families who might prefer isolation would be valued. For in a world of perfect justice, which is a world of love, all differences are loved and respected in their own appropriate way.21
Referencing scripture related to exclusion, Queer Christian faith leaders can speak on behalf of all those marginalized by human systems of favoritism and prejudice. In the marriage equality debate, they can work to revolutionize the institution of inequality rather than bless conformity to a corrupt, antediluvian ideal. This emulates the radical, progressive Christ we revere whose subversive actions made women apostles and gave blind beggars equality, impossibilities in His culture. Conclusively, the Queer community has a uniquely significant opportunity to share its gift of radical inclusiveness when it chooses to value and dignify even the "least of these"22 and accepts God's call to liberate all from systematic oppression.
Notes
1. Human Rights Campaign Issues, "Marriage & Relationship Recognition," Human Rights Campaign, http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage.asp (accessed November 20, 2009).
2. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Issues, "Marriage/Partner Recognition," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/marriage_and_partnership_recognition (accessed November 20, 2009).
3. Jeremy W. Peters, "New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill," The New York Times, December 3, 2009, A1.
4. Human Rights Campaign Articles, "Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples," Human Rights Campaign, http://www.hrc.org/issues/5585.htm (accessed November 20, 2009).
5. Mary Nardini Gang, "Toward the Queerest Insurrection," Zine, http://zinelibrary.info/files/Queerest%20Final_0.pdf (accessed November 20, 2009).
6. Human Rights Campaign Issues, "Questions about Same-Sex Marriage," Human Rights Campaign, http://www.hrc.org/issues/5517.htm (accessed November 20, 2009).
7. Jodi O'Brien, "Seeking Normal? Considering Same Sex Marriage," Center for Writing and the Interdisciplinary Graduate Minor in Literacy and Rhetorical Studies, Speaker Series No. 24, University of Minnesota (2004), reprinted with permission from the Seattle Journal of Social Justice, Spring 2004, pg. 7. http://writing.umn.edu/docs/speakerseries_pub/obrien.pdf
8. O'Brien, "Seeking Normal," pg. 2.
9. Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays Support, "A Definition of Queer," PFLAG, http://community.pflag.org/Page.aspx?pid=952 (accessed November 26, 2009).
10. Michael Warner, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), pg. 88-89.
11. Warner, Trouble with Normal, pg. 88.
12. Warner, Trouble with Normal, pg. 66.
13. O'Brien, "Seeking Normal," pg. 3.
14. Warner, Trouble with Normal, pg. 60.
15. Mirosalv Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), pg. 67.
16. Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, pg. 68.
17. Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, pg. 72.
18. James Alison, "The Man Blind from Birth and the Creator's Subversion of Sin," Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd Ltd., 2001), pg. 15-20.
19. Alison, Faith Beyond Resentment, pg. 17.
20. Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, pg. 82.
21. Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, pg. 223.
22. Matthew 25.40 (New Revised Standard Version).
Bibliography
Alison, James. Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay. London: Darton, Longman, and Todd Ltd., 2001.
Human Rights Campaign, Articles. "Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples." Human Rights Campaign. http://www.hrc.org/issues/5585. Accessed November 20, 2009.
Human Rights Campaign, Issues. "Marriage & Relationship Recognition." Human Rights Campaign. http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage.asp. Accessed November 20, 2009.
Human Rights Campaign, Issues. "Questions about Same-Sex Marriage." Human Rights Campaign. http://www.hrc.org/issues/5517. Accessed November 20, 2009.
Mary Nardini Gang. "Toward the Queerest Insurrection." Zine. http://zinelibrary.info/files/Queerest%20Final_0.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2009.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Issues. "Marriage/Partner Recognition." National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/marriage_and_partnership_recognition. Accessed November 20, 2009.
O'Brien, Jodi. "Seeking Normal? Considering Same Sex Marriage." Center for Writing and the Interdisciplinary Graduate Minor in Literacy and Rhetorical Studies, Speakers Series No. 24. University of Minnesota, 2004. Reprinted with permission from the Seattle Journal of Social Justice, Spring 2004. http://writing.umn.edu/docs/speakerseries_pubs/obrien.pdf.
Peters, Jeremy W. "New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill." The New York Times, December 3, 2009, A1.
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Support. "A Definition of Queer." PFLAG. http://community.pflag.org/Page.aspx?pid=952. Accessed November 26, 2009.
Volf, Mirosalv. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.
Warner, Michael. The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
