Buddy Rau says two things nudged him into tying the knot earlier this year: his 40th anniversary with gay partner Kila Chong and the 2006 state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Two years after Virginians passed the amendment, the measure hasn't stopped some same-sex couples from celebrating extra legal holy union or commitment ceremonies at liberal churches.
"The people of Virginia voted the way they did, and I said I'm not going to hunker down - the hell with that," Rau said. He and Chong, both 68, recited their commitment vows last January before a minister at the Unitarian Church of Norfolk.
Meanwhile, faith-based advocates of the amendment contend the measure helped preserve Virginia law prohibiting gay marriage and fended off legalization of same-sex unions popping up elsewhere.
"What we've seen in other states like California and Connecticut, that reaffirms the importance of what Virginia did," said Jeffrey Caruso of the Virginia Catholic Conference. "Without a constitutional amendment, judges can change things."
Since 2006, the gay marriage debate saw California's Supreme Court legalize the unions last spring. Connecticut's highest court did so in October. Massachusetts is the other state allowing gay marriage.
On Election Day, California voters rescinded gay marriage, and Florida and Arizona banned same-sex marriages. Arkansas voters approved a ban on unmarried gay couples serving as adoptive or foster parents.
Virginia's faith communities had activists on both sides of the state 's 2006 amendment campaign. The amendment legally limited marriage to a union between one man and one woman.
The measure fueled passionate debates touching on civil rights, religious beliefs and government involvement in the lives of its citizens.
The two camps have different assessments of the amendment's effect since its approval.
"It allowed churches, Christian communities, to realize that the government at this point is still standing firm on Christian-Judeo principles," said Tracy Brown, a leader in VA4Marriage, a pro-amendment movement involving many churches.
At The Family Foundation of Virginia, Executive Director Victoria Cobb said the amendment removed the "threat" of gay marriage. The group's membership includes many evangelical Christians.
"What Virginia did when it spoke, it protected its children from being taught that marriage is something other than one man, one woman," Cobb said.
At Kempsville Presbyterian Church in Virginia Beach, the Rev. Nate Atwood said heterosexual marriage was the best setting for children.
He said the amendment's passage ensured that Virginia "didn't go morally or culturally backwards."
At the same time, "the fact is that people who are gay are not prohibited from living in a gay relationship," Atwood said.
That fact is small consolation for same-sex couples, such as those at Norfolk's Unitarian Church, who opposed the amendment.
"It was a harsh, severe slap in the face," said Glen Coats, who grew up in Chesapeake. "It's filled with vitriolic hate for a certain segment of the population in the way it was worded."
Coats, a research analyst, said he and his 16-year partner had a holy union ceremony years ago and had no marriage plans.
What they fear, instead, is wording in the amendment they think could allow outsiders to meddle in their wills and affect their ability to inherit property from one another.
The amendment forbids recognition of any kind of status that gives the rights, qualities or effects of marriage.
Coats, 54, is so concerned about the potential consequence of that text, he said, that he and his partner might leave Virginia when they retire. "It doesn't feel like home anymore," he said.
Same-sex couples who stay can at least have a symbolic, religious union ceremony at churches such as New Life Metropolitan Community Church, The Great Awakening United Church of Christ, Norfolk's Unitarian Church and the Williamsburg Unitarian Universalists congregation. All offered union ceremonies before the amendment.
"Whenever two adults come forward and say, 'We want to do this with the witness of our community and our notion of God,' then of course I want to say, 'Yes, yes, yes, let's do that. Who cares what the state is doing?' " said the Rev. Jennifer Ryu of the Williamsburg church.
At Great Awakening in Virginia Beach, the Rev. Nanette Hilliard said she gets eight to 10 requests a year for commitment ceremonies.
"It's not our place to say, 'No, God doesn't want your family to be blessed,' " Hilliard said.
Few couples pretend that religious union ceremonies equate to marriage.
"A holy union does not substitute and should not be mistaken for the same thing as a legally recognized marriage with all the rights," said the Rev. Reg Richburg of New Life.
There's still meaning in the ceremonies conducted for couples, including Chong and Rau.
Chong, a Hawaiian, and Rau, from New Orleans, became partners in 1968. They retired to West Ghent in Norfolk in 2001, Chong from government service, Rau from a heating and air-conditioning business. Both are military veterans.
"I always wanted a commitment ceremony since we first met," Chong said. Rau seesawed on the idea.
Their 40th anniversary on Jan. 12 seemed a good time to formalize their relationship at the Unitarian Church.
"We decided that a church that welcomes you, no matter who you are, is a good one to get married in," Chong said.
It was a small affair, with 20 or 30 guests. Chong imported leis from Hawaii for himself, Rau and the minister.
They didn't walk down the aisle. But their eyes teared up when they exchanged vows and the pastor sealed their commitment.
"It absolutely meant something to me," Chong said. "I thought that we look to a God who's all-loving."
It meant something else as well. "It helped us tell the God-fearing people who voted for the amendment: the heck with you," Chong said. "You don't want us, but we want each other, and our friends want us."
Steven G. Vegh, (757) 446-2417, steven.vegh@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Mary
Fair enough. I am sure we will be engaged in other discussions on these boards. Have a great Holiday season!
E.L.
Good discussion.
And there are two parts, of course. The legal issues, which we unfolded over the course of about 25 comments, and the religious/spiritual issues, which are between any person and God.
You asked why I cared about the two men who did a commitment ceremony and I told you I care about their souls. That is not to imply that I want a religious state/state religion or anything of the sort. That was my honest answer as to why I care about them when I read their story in the paper.
I am not limiting
I said that if there is an issue with multiples then it needs to be addressed. I make my statement with the knowledge that multiple spouses has been addressed, and marriage has been unfairly limited to one man one woman, but it is not addressed as such in our constitution despite the efforts made.
While you may be concerned about the state of their souls, they may not be concerned so why should the law be written to address the state of their souls and noth the state of their american citizenship. The assumption you make may be correct or it may not be, but it is just that, an assumption.
While I can appreciate your spirituality, it remains yours and yours alone, to limit the law based on it is unconstitutional as we are granted protection from that.
I understand your opinion, and if it works for you then that is fantastic but remain constant in the opinion that spirituality must remain seperate from secular law. If gay marriage opens doors for other discussions then lets open the dialog and have those discussions with out fear of the results. Allowing a union between two adults will only make us stronger. Allowing this union will truly bring these gentlemen into the fold of
E.L.
1) Why did you decide to limit marriage to one partner per person? Isn't that *your* value system?
2) I am concerned that gays, like everyone, get the gospel of Christ. Once someone has heard it, what they do about it is up to them. I believe Christ has redemptive power that can help gays leave the gay lifestyle (but doing that is their choice). I would guess that these two men are more like good comrades than sex partners after all of these years. I have heard that 40 years of gay sex isn't good for the body, if I may be delicate.
3) No, these men don't keep me awake at night, but I do care for the state of their souls. There is no problem in this world that Christ can't address--including dysfunctional lifestyles. I don't say that in a self-righteous way--I too am a sinner who has needed forgiveness for much and help with much in life.
But....
and maybe I am not being clear either, if you go before a judge and say that multiple spouses should be legalized based upon a line of faith such as islam or mormonism then it should be rejected due to the imposition of religous doctrine into the state. If it is purely out of a want for more spouses then that should be evaluated. If those previous court rulings cited one man one woman then that is unconstitutional because the fed constitution is neither gender nor sexuality specific but guarantees the same rights for all americans. The bottom line here is that marriage should not be defined as one man one woman but rather one person one person. Each possible secenario that has been presented should be evaluated on its own merits. I think through the course of this conversation we have lost focus on the topic.
Mary what does the marriage between these two gentlemen do to you? Does it keep you awake at night? Has it weakened your own marriage? Has it threatened your family and the security of your family in any way? Does it weaken our country? I think the answer to each of these questions is no. Yet these genltemen do not enjoy the same security that you as an american enjoy. To de
Religious vs. civil marriage
Let me try to be clearer than I obviously was last time.
Let's treat marriage as a civil contract. But religious people enter into this civil contract, just like non-religious people do.
If they, as has been said, ask to have a second or third wife, just because they want one, then the courts must decide whether to grant that. Religion might or might not be behind the request.
Also, last time bigamy was ruled out, for Mormons, I think the one man-one woman rule for a marriage was cited (can you guys help me find the court cases from the 1850's?--I'll look it up!). If so, the minute we allow homosexual marriage, we will throw that court case about bigamy wide open again, because lawyers always use former precedents to gain advantages for their clients, so they would use that to revisit bigamy, if any Muslims or anyone else wants it (*not* due to their religion necessarily, just because they want two wives).
Is that clearer?
Mary
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of marriage in America. It’s not a religious contract. Marriage in America does not require religion at all. Thus, the comments about being married with Elvis in Vegas. That’s not a spiritual experience but yet still legal & still a marriage. So your comment about redefining marriage for believers & non-believers really is a moot point because marriage is a legal contract – no religion required. Regarding your comment “We don't rule out a right simply *because* a religious person asks for it, then hand the same right to a secular person”: that is exactly what you & others are asking America to do with gay marriage. You ask that gays are not allowed to marry but yet allow an atheist man/woman to marry by a JP. How is that not exactly what you just stated as wrong? I respect your religion in every way but this honestly is not a religious matter. And my apologies if I’ve offended you in any way previously but this is a matter that affects many directly & every day of their lives.
Not what I am saying
I am saying that a person can ask for a multiiple marriage, but one can not go to the courts and say "I want things changed by the government because my Quran says Sharia Law is the path and I want multiple wives". At that point, asking for a change based upon Islamic jurisprudence, which is a faith system, can be denied solely on the fact that it would be the imposition of a set of religous beliefs into the legal framework.
If I decide tomorrow that my wife and I want to include a third or fourth wife just because it is what I want then that is a different argument.
At the same time bigamy has been defined as a crime in this country and upheld in Utah in State v. Green so..........multiples have been criminalized.
E.L.
I think you misunderstand church and state. They can't interfere with *each other.* Sharia law can be accommodated here, as long as it does not contradict federal law. I can't believe I am defending it, but I am. We don't rule out a right simply *because* a religious person asks for it, then hand the same right to a secular person. If we redefine marriage, we must redefine it across the board, I think. For believers *and* for nonbelievers, of all diverse persuasions.
Separation of church and state
Mary you cite Sharia law with that. That would be a religous law which vioate church and state. But if people want multiple wives just because then that should be evaluated, but I think that we have seen multiples in court already and our struck down (mormons, etc.)but I need to see where that has played out. If people want multiples does it affect us at all? Does a polyamorous family put us in any kind of danger? It may be that it does.
In this case, however, we are speaking of allowing two adult humans of the same gender enjoy the same securities that a marriage between twon adults of the opposite genders enjoy. It is not as easy as setting up wills and power of attorney. The state can nullify that if it serves it's interest to do so (and as we know the state is run by politicians........and everything serves THEIR interests). Our state voted to allow that nullification, and that is unconstitutional in terms of allowing every person in this country the same rights. We have not seen a Supreme Court ruling yet simply because they do not want another uproar like Roe v. Wade. but it is coming, and soon I think. I think Prop. 8 is going to the Fed. Supreme Court, and the constitutio
Not a Muslim takeover!
I think it is easy with the word limit to write things in a way that they can be taken out of context.
My question is simply, if marriage is redefined to be any two people, what keeps it from being any three people or four? And does that matter to most people? Will it affect our country's economy (when we pay Social security to four surviving widows instead of just one)? Just some thoughts. I actually am just setting these out for comment.
I never referred to terrorists. The Muslims I referenced work with me in a fairly sensitive part of the Navy. My thought was that they came here (or were born here of Middle Eastern parents) who gave up the right to have multiple wives when they emigrated to the States. But their teaching is that Allah wants them to have multiple wives. If we let gays marry, shouldn't we then let the nice Muslim lieutenant I work with have multiple wives, if he so chooses? If not, why not?
What about Da Vinci?
How does he fit into the scheme of things?
Catch-22
Isn’t the gay “marriage” issue a Catch-22? There haven’t been legal marriages in the past so we shouldn’t allow them in the future. When do you cross that threshold to change and progress? And I don’t even understand your question of why there should be gay studies curriculum. In that vein, why should there be women’s studies issues? African-American studies? A gay person is not JUST about sex just as an African-American is not JUST an A-A but it does help make them who they are. You mention Oscar Wilde, a man vilified for his homosexuality. His writings reflect his pain. Note his wit and sarcasm. If it hadn’t been for his homosexuality, his work would much likely be very different. And Tchaikovsky was well known for his depression, mainly due to his and his brother’s oppression as gay men living in Russia. So, no, they aren’t just sexual creatures, but their gayness helps define part of who they are, much like you are who you are partially because you are a woman.
Mary
it is not that I discredit you (even if that is how it appeared). But out of all of the people who post on these boards (myself included) you always seem so very indefinitely level headed. However, in this case you call rights that are protected by our constitution fabricated. My feelings in this matter are that if two people want to get married and build their life together, then who are we to deny and sit in judgement (I do not think you judge, but I will say that you deny). To do either is wholly unconstitutional. If you do not like the idea that is fine, however our constitution guarantees certain rights to people, and for far too long we have denied simply on the ideals that our spiritual leaders say is immoral and "icky". That is fine, but it serves no purpose in our laws. Our constitution is designed to grant rights not take away (that is why prohibition was ultimately revoked). Spirituality is personal, and while your spirituality may not approve of this matter, it does for me so who is right here? To claim that granting this will lead to the islamic takeover of all things American is simply giving in to fear and then weaponizing that fear. Two adults should be granted the
Thanks, Contractorva
Another question would be who is coming up with the revisionist history, like Greeks having legal marriages between men and between women? And why? I know of quite a few people in history who were probably gay, but I don't regard them as making their contributions as part of "gay culture" but rather as part of the culture they inhabited at the time. I.e., daVinci was a wonderful Italian artist, Oscar Wilde was a wonderful Irish writer, Tschaikovsky was a wonderful Russian musician. Where is the impetus coming from to have a gay culture and a gay studies curriculum in college? No one else attributes their music, writing, or art to their sex lives.
Does anyone know whether any of our past presidents was likely gay? I am not talking about surmising something from cultural mores of the time, but about any real evidence. I know they probably would never have written of it.
Marym
I disagree. You now have 750 characters that you may use to elaborate.. without violating the consecutive post clause in the posting guidelines.
E.L.
Only unresearched if you discount fifty years of reading everything I can lay my hands on, secular and religious. Have I compiled a list of websites to back me up? No, I told ya'll upfront that this is my own journey--how I am going through this huge issue in my own thoughts, and background, and logical ability.
What I would like to have answered:
1) How do people become gay? C.S. says it doesn't matter even if it is a choice--they should still have civil unions to protect them. That is the kind of thought I can work with. But those who trumpet less-than-ideal science studies to say it is inborn leave me cold. That is far from concluded and is always the result of researcher bias, as these studies, both ways, have people passionate about the issue conducting them!
Well, more questions next time. Word limit and all . . .
E.L.
Only unresearched if you discount fifty years of reading everything I can lay my hands on, secular and religious. Have I compiled a list of websites to back me up? No, I told ya'll upfront that this is my own journey--how I am going through this huge issue in my own thoughts, and background, and logical ability.
What I would like to have answered:
1) How do people become gay? C.S. says it doesn't matter even if it is a choice--they should still have civil unions to protect them. That is the kind of thought I can work with. But those who trumpet less-than-ideal science studies to say it is inborn leave me cold. That is far from concluded and is always the result of researcher bias, as these studies, both ways, have people passionate about the issue conducting them!
Well, more questions next time. Word limit and all . . .
Mary
I kindly disagree with you and will try to state why. Starting with the oldest, wills are NOT failsafe when they can be easily challenged and won by a person with a “real” relationship to the gay person in question (i.e., parent, child, etc.) A life partner has NO legal relationship according to the state. Yes, the gay person can will whatever he/she wants to their partner but this will can be easily overturned because the state does not recognize that relationship. Why is a simple legal relationship that difficult to concede? Secondly, why are you opposed to any tax breaks for legal couples? And, honestly, isn’t that just your opinion? In other words, just because you don’t want a homosexual couple to get a tax break, that makes it ok, right? [They don't need to have a marriage--they're already covered] And, again, wills are NOT failsafe. There is NO LEGAL RELATIONSHIP. So please give a reason a gay couple should not have the same legal benefits that you have just because you don’t like them.
marriage
So, marriage is meant to be a religious matter only? And as such any union, whether it be man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, that is not performed as part of a religious ceremony is invalid and not to be recognized? Gee, than I guess my husband and I have been "livin' in sin" for the past 18 years since we were married by a judge and did not include anything religious in our ceremony at all.
You can't have it both ways. If you are coming from a religious standpoint, a great deal of male-female marriages are invalid especially if they did not occur in the "accepted" religion. If it is a legal issue, any two consenting adults should be allowed to "wed."
Face it. Marriage is a legal issue. It is about taxes, inheritance, custody of children, end of life and emergency health issues. If two people wish to commit their lives to each other then they should have all the legal rights that commitment gives.
Our society has romantacized marriage equating it with a "joining of souls" when it has always been a joining of property. In the past the "normal" people of the time often couldn't afford a wedding. And I mean they had nothing, not even a chicken, with which to pay the rel