The newly arrived ministers at Unitarian Church of Norfolk are happy to officiate over the ceremonies where couples say, "I do."
But when it comes to signing marriage licenses, the Revs. Phyllis L. Hubbell and John P. Manwell say, "We don't."
Manwell and Hubbell support gay marriage, but in Virginia, only heterosexual couples can get a marriage license validating their legal status as spouses. That meant Manwell and Hubbell were able to sign licenses for some couples but not others. So they chose to sign none.
The protest, they said, is worth the inconvenience it will impose on heterosexuals they wed.
Those heterosexual couples will have to, in essence, get married a second time, most likely by a judge or civil official who can sign the license.
"For me, it's a matter of conscience," said Hubbell, the daughter and granddaughter of clergy.
Neither Manwell nor Hubbell entered the ministry with a gay rights stance. Both had been attorneys. Hubbell, 65, handled Freedom of Information cases for the U.S. Justice Department. Manwell, 78, was a tax attorney.
As the couple co-pastored various congregations, they were increasingly priv y to congregants' stories of inequality.
In time, the couple became advocates for gay equality and testified on behalf of gay rights before legislators in Maryland, where they led a church.
About two years ago, both had a stinging epiphany that they were abetting anti-gay bias by signing heterosexual couples' licenses.
"I realized I was taking part in this discriminatory system, and I don't have to and don't want to," said Manwell, whose grandfather was a minister.
The pair also contend that the law against gay marriage violates the separation of church and state.
"This is the one area as a minister where I act as an agent of the state," Hubbell said of weddings. It is, she said, "the one act where the state discriminates and won't let me marry people that my faith and religion says I may marry."
The plight of couples in love who see marriage as out of reach also tugs at Hubbell.
"I got married at 48. I know about the longing to get married, the excitement of finding someone you'd like to marry," she said.
The Unitarian Universalist Association is one of the few denominations that support gay marriage and offer civil union ceremonies for same-sex couples. It also ordains non celibate gays and lesbians.
The Unitarian Church of Norfolk opposed Virginia's constitutional amendment to make marriage legal only between a man and a woman. About a quarter of the congregation is gay or lesbian, and at least 10 percent were signed up to attend a march held Sunday in Washington for gay equality.
Earlier this year, a Baptist minister in Winston-Salem, N.C., and a United Church of Christ pastor in Cleveland, Ohio, also declared they wouldn't sign licenses. An interdenominational initiative, Refuse to Sign, is urging all ministers to do likewise.
The Rev. Jennifer Ryu, co-minister of Williamsburg Unitarian Universalists church, said she signs licenses for heterosexual couples she weds.
But she also tells them about the lack of gay marriage rights. "As I sign, I tell them, 'Are you aware you're privileged in our state - you get to fall in love with the person you chose and be married,' " she said.
Karen Forget, vice president of the Unitarian Church of Norfolk, said church leaders knew and approved of the clergy couple's stand on licenses.
"My sense is that people are very supportive of it and glad to see them taking a stand, and understand why they take this position," Forget said of the congregation.
The supportive members include Chris Holbein and Angela Conant, who are scheduled to be married by Hubbell and Manwell in a church wedding on May 15. The engaged couple said they both support gay marriage rights.
Holbein said he'll have to find someone with the authority to sign a license to co-officiate with the ministers at the ceremony.
"That's an inconvenience we're more than fine with," he said. "We completely understand the principled stand they're taking."
Manwell and Hubbell's stand could well have no more than a quixotic impact, Forget acknowledged.
"There's certainly a question about whether taking this stand will make a difference," she said. "But isn't there always that question when you take a stand of personal conscience? You take that stand because you know it's the right thing to do."
Steven G. Vegh, (757) 446-2417, steven.vegh@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
The struggle...
I have been struggling with being gay since I was 15. I don't, however, believe I was born this way.
If you are born a certain way then why would there be a struggle internally? most of you straight people just want to feel good about yourselves without knowing anything that people like myself go through every day.
There is a dark side to the homosexual community that you do not see. I have. It's something that every day I wish I could wake up and not know the things that I know.
If everything today is a right then I want my mansion and my billions in the bank. I have a right to that with the talk I hear nowadays.
A stand against the stand
I believe that as a nation we have stepped away from the intent of a family led and in fear of God. Not fearing his ultimate wrath, but fearing the consequences of disobedience to his word. Leviticus 18:22 states, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable". Leviticus 20:13 states, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads". If we follow these words from the almighty, are we being judgemental or just being obedient? I know that some will say that, oh that's just Old Law, we live by the new law. Well to them I say, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body". (1 Corinthians 6:18-20) We are teachers of our children. We teach everything they will ever become through our actions.
Where--
is actual marriage mentioned in any of your sources? As I said before, the biblical injunction is against sexual activity, not the ceremony of marriage. And yes, there ARE marriages of convenience that do not involve sex.
We teach through our actions
Okay, so what should we teach our children? That hatred, bigotry, and fear of The Other are okay, that those who are Not Us are somehow less, and that it's fine to deny rights to others based on knee-jerk moralizing and superstition? Or do we teach our children to become tolerant, loving, independent-thinking human beings who respect those who are different even if they don't agree with them? Based on the way you fling the terms "judgmental", "sin", and "God" around, I'm guessing you tend more toward the first option.
What should we teach the children?
The love of God. I take it from the comments that have followed my post, that abiding by the laws of God isn't at the top of the priority lists. Someone answer this: Why would God create someone to be something that he detests? Everyone decides the paths that they take in life. We make conscious decisions to be who we are to become. Sexual orientation is not something that God springs on us to see if we can handle the emtional stress associated with it. I keep hearing about rights and the founding fathers and congress but I haven't heard anything about God. Why are so easy to phase out his will? What's so hard about standing up and saying that regardless of his will, I'm doing what I want to do with my life. Oh... but that is being said, isn't it? I can't respond to this post any more. My father once told me that when you argue with a fool, spectators find it hard to discern whose who.
he had a good run
"Why are we so easy to phase out His will?" Because by now everyone is in on the trick! And here it is: those who so humbly claim to know the will of God do so as a means of exerting power over others here in this world, the only world we know. So for those not keen on servility the easy thing to do is withdraw respect for such a claim. Indeed believers can only convince others of the sincerity of their beliefs in claims but certainly not the veracity of either. It is also easy because there are so many similar claims out there, past and present, that we all disbelieve! This is just one more set of claims to phase out.
why indeed?
"Why would God create someone to be something that He detests?" I don't know. But if it is true that 98% of all species ever to inhabit the earth are now extinct, then perhaps the believer can conclude that God detests all creation! Others may conclude that such an apparently wasteful, capricious and indifferent God is utterly unworthy of worship and even go so far as to consider that this God character may have tumbled from the fertile imaginations of bronze-age peasants seeking, as humans do, explanations for their experiences. Still others may conclude that the very idea of God is actually offensive to the self-respect of humankind to whose curiosity and ingenuity we owe all we have achieved, limited though human achievements may thus far be. I don't know, but I would teach children to learn all they can because there is still much to be discovered, attained, achieved.
And you
are free to follow your religion as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights. If you read the Constitution you will see that there is no part that even alludes to this being a "christian" nation. The First Amendment does mean something. So believe what you will, I choose to reject your myth and will not allow you to force it upon me or any other.
Bring actual facts to your argument,not revisionist opinions
Judging by your post you doubt I am being truthful about Washington BEING ORDERED by Congress to declare a National Day of Prayer the same day Congress passed the 1st Amendment. You failed to comprehend the fact that it was ordered by CONGRESS, NOT George Washington. You really need to come to a debate with dates and facts like I do instead of just your opinion. My points can be quickly proven by you researching Sept 24,1789.
separation
Every day it's in session, many would say, Congress crosses the line. They gavel in with prayer to a deity. They recite a version of the Pledge of Allegiance that includes the phrase "under God" instead of the original "one nation indivisible." Thanks to Congress US currency bears the motto "In God We Trust" instead of perhaps "In God Some Trust." To many all these appear contrary to the 1st Amendment. Consequently there is opposition in a country where a secular constitution is the law of the land.
For the liberal who mistakenly commented on the 1st Amendment
I see yet another uneducated liberal rears it's head in need of being educated. If the 1st Amendment had been intended to remove religion from having an impact on civil govt issues, why would the congress have called for George Washington to declare a National Day of Prayer the same day the 1st Amendment was approved? Sept 24,1789
No edie
your interpretation of thew first Amendment is indeed rejected by most legal scholars. And Congress directing someone to establish a day of prayer is still unconstitutional, even if it was on the same day as the voting on the First Amendment. The fact that it isn't in the Constitution should say much. Religion in a free society has no business being intertwined with government.
free exercise and church-state separation
If George Washington declared a national prayer 220 years ago then he was exercising every citizen's right of free exercise. In 2009 the so-called National Day of Prayer was not officially acknowledged because the United States government is prohibited by the First Amendment (to the US Constitution) from establishing religion. The troubled NDOP remains under legal challenge on 1st Amendment grounds.
right on!
It's awesome that these leaders are standing up for what's right. But lost in this discussion is: Sex is everywhere! Awesome! Thanks, God, for all the sex!
You know...
I've been reading the back-and-forth of commentary, and it's really, really sad that this state and so many of its denizens are less open-minded, tolerant, and forward-thinking than IOWA.
I must say
There are various kinds of ministers of God, preaching many kinds of messages with love, compassion, excitement, emotion and charisma. They are very convincing. Is it possible that they could be false? Please read what Jesus Christ says: "Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." The true minister of God is the one who does the will of the Father who is in heaven. The will of the Father for Jesus Christ was to die in the cross. The will of God for the disciples are to take their own cross and follow Jesus Christ. "Matt 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." The will of the Father for a true preacher is to preach the Word of God truthfully, but not for personal gain. The will of the Father in Christian ministry is to present the Church perfect and complete in all the will of God. If a minister does not keep himself pure and does not gear his ministry to make the people perfect for the Lord, then the ministry is not given to him by the Father in heave
Sigh
yet another who believes we are guided by a myth. Follow it if you want, but keep it out of my life.
Why would they support sin against God?
Isn't it a minister's job to lead other's to Christ not to hell?
Leaving your notions about
Leaving your notions about the path to hell aside, you do realize that they're Unitarians, not Christians. It is not their "job" to lead their congregation to Jesus alone nor does Unitarian doctrine, such as it is, define homosexuality as a sin.
how about separation of marriage and state?
Marriage is really two things that have little to do with each other.
It is a standardized set of contracts and affidavits that describe the legal duties and privileges to which two people forming a partnership are held to and entitled.
It is also a set of promises two people make to each other which have no legal weight but through which they enjoy the support and encouragement of their family, church and community.
One is a function of our legal system, and the other is tradition and love.
Why should the two be formalized by the same entity? Would it not be better to register our contracts at the courthouse and leave sanctifying our promises to our churches, families and friends? The legal aspects of such a partnership should be available to any citizen and churches can decide for themselves to whom they will offer the sacrament.