"Go to the cashier and pay your $150.00 fee while I prepare your paperwork."
The clerk looked completely and utterly bored while he pointed us to the cashier. He was performing a procedure he had performed hundreds, perhaps thousands of times before. He knew his job by rote and, though he was polite, he was not excited by the process he was taking us through.
I, however, was having a spiritual experience standing in the middle of Ottawa City Hall in Canada. On August 27, 2009, my partner Wanda and I walked into this government office to ask for a marriage license. It's an exercise we've done for several years over Valentine's Day week at our own government office in Columbia, South
Carolina. Each year, we go and fill out the forms, dutifully scratching out "husband" and "wife" and replacing it with "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2." Each year, after we're allowed to fill out the forms completely, the clerk behind the desk politely hands them back informing us that we cannot get legally married in our home state.
This experience was different, however, and jarringly so. There were no television cameras following us to catch the ultimate refusal of our right to marry. Instead, there was a bored clerk surrounded by other bored clerks processing paperwork not just for me but for a few heterosexual couples that surrounded us at the counter.
It felt eerily familiar to filling out the paperwork at home, except there was nothing to cross out. The form simply said "Applicant" and "Joint Applicant." Afterward, we took the form back to the clerk and braced ourselves. Our nervousness grew as he looked it over. Then said the magic words: "Go to the cashier and pay your $150.00 fee while I prepare your paperwork."
That's it? Really? No drama? No fanfare? No rejection? No judgment? No, just a bored city hall clerk doing his job. What he didn't realize, though, was the depth of the moment for us or the amazing gift he had just given us — a marriage license — a true, official, real, backed up by the federal government, marriage license.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since July 20, 2005 after the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act. The road to marriage equality in Canada was similar to the one currently being traveled by the States. Some provinces ruled in favor of allowing it while others resisted. The only true cure for Canada is the only true cure for the States — a federal law equalizing marriage rights for all across the board.
The struggle for marriage equality in Canada was also, as it is in the States, a matter of wrangling within the churches. There were conservative Christians who opposed marriage equality and spoke stridently against enactment of the federal law. They launched campaigns against it just as anti-marriage equality groups have done here. Church denominations have drawn their own positions on the matter and the ongoing struggle was evident at our wedding ceremony the next evening.
A retired United Church of Canada minister performed our ceremony at the apartment of two of our friends who hosted us in Ottawa — a gay male couple who had married just a couple of years before. The United Church has taken a very progressive stand on marriage equality and voted in 2000 "to advocate for the civil recognition of same-sex partnerships." Their ministers are free to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Present at our wedding, however, were six other clergy people who would have dearly loved to do our ceremony, but were prohibited from doing so by their denominations. So, while the law has been settled, the churches continue to struggle with their own theologies of acceptance like so many U.S. denominations.
It was truly a bittersweet day. We were able to get legally married in Canada, but we knew that as soon as we crossed the border back to our home country, we'd still have to check off the "single" box on any form that asked about our marital status in the States. We are not alone in this conundrum. Six states have enacted marriage equality for gays and lesbians, but the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) continues to prevent even those marriages from receiving federal recognition. Even those couples considered married in these states still must declare themselves "single" on any federal form or when they cross into another state that doesn't recognize their marriage. Canadians have experienced this cognitive dissonance of a patchwork of marriage laws and have come to an equitable conclusion. Wanda and I are dedicated to continuing the fight for similar federal recognition of same-gender marriages in the U.S.
Friends had asked why we didn't get married in one of the half dozen states where it is legal instead of leaving the country to do it. My answer is two-fold. The first one is practical — I didn't have any speaking engagements planned in any of those states in the near future. I had been invited to speak at church in Ottawa that weekend as part of Ottawa's pride celebration, so Wanda and I decided to take advantage of the law while we were there. But, my second reason is deeper. I believe that the United States will be forced to recognize international same-gender marriages before they deign to recognize those performed within its own borders. The reason will be economic instead of religious.
In a 2006 paper, University of Colorado law professor Laura Spitz argues that because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) it may become impossible for the United States and Canada especially
to mix economically without ultimately mixing culturally.
It seems to me that if the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada is politically and philosophically consistent with the American economic model, and North American economic integration is part of a larger project to make the American economic model global, then Americans have reason to believe same-sex marriage — i.e., the further expansion of the private care-taking sphere — willbecome important to large economic actors in the United States. In other words, the federal government (which is facing the largest deficit in history), multinational insurance companies, and other corporations awarded government contracts for what were previously understood as public services, will all be interested in expanding the private caretaking sphere in order to save money. One way to do this in a relatively short period of time is to broaden the definition of family. And experience tells us, at least in the United States, that when the insurance industry and large government contractors become interested in change, they bring enormous pressure to bear on politicians and other decision-makers.
I should note that while Spitz makes a compelling case for accepting same-gender marriage on international economic grounds she clarified in an email to that she, personally, does not "support the 'same-sex marriage agenda' for the LGB movement in the United States."
What Spitz makes clear in her paper is that despite religious opposition to marriage equality within the United States, if the economic livelihood of American businesses is ever threatened because of marriage inequality in the U.S. we can expect corporations to become the newest marriage equality advocates. If that happens, marriage equality will become the law of the land no matter what anti-gay preachers or organizations have to say about it. When the corporate piggy bank is at stake, religious arguments will always fall on deaf corporate ears.
When that happens, whether it is sooner or later, I hope many more of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters will experience the same thrill that Wanda and I did when a bored government clerk, completely unimpressed by the two men or two women standing before him or her at the counter, directs them to pay their fee while he prepares their paperwork.
Just one more note about the bliss of marriage. On Sunday, when we took part in the Ottawa pride parade, we were walking down the parade prep line to join up with Integrity Canada (the Anglican LGBT support group) when we passed by a scantily clad woman in leather marching with the fetish club.
After I walked by, Wanda said to me, "Did you see that?"
"See what?" I asked.
She turned me around and I beheld the mostly bare flesh of a beautiful woman, her private parts barely hidden under fine strips of leather and lace.
"Oh, no, I missed that." I said, blinking at the sight.
Our host for the weekend laughed and said, "You are married."
I had to laugh with him. Yes, I am married. In every sense of the word.
Tags: canada, same-sex marriage
Is staying single a hate crime against nature then? What about childless marriages - are you going to condemn them as was once the case?
There's more to marriage than having children and propagating the human race - only a loonie would think otherwise.
The human response is "Congratulations."
Congratulations should be for people who achieve, or receive, something good. It is inappropriate in this case.
Correct. That is what all polite humans say when they hear that someone got married. Then a polite human -unless he is Tarzan and grew up in the woods void of communication with other humans- gives the couple his best wishes.
Not doing that would be, indeed, unhuman-like and extremely rude
First off -
Congratulations
and all my good wishes to the both of you.
Bored clerk?
That's a sign of victory - when we're just boring we'll know we've won!
But as for me - *sends virtual confetti*
Congrats again
Love and cake,
Sapphire
Homosexual "marriage"? LOL! Is this some sort of crude joke? Do homos need marriage more than rehabilitative therapy? Homosexualism is a hate crime against Nature; it is the extermination of the Future. I'm sure glad my parents weren't homosexuals! And.... yes, I'm still laughing! Only a loonie would think homo "marriage" is for real?
Candace,
All the best to you and Wanda... I like what Sapphire said, "love and cake"!
One of your Binghamton friends,
Magdalene
The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. When we do the work of love it bends the whole world round. Y'all are arc-benders. I long for the day, here in Virginia, when I can legally perform such services (although I will still have some church-state issues that leave me wondering why any clergy stand in as agents of the state in the contract law aspect of marriage - but that's a sermon for another day). For now, again, many congratulations and well wishes from your friends in Arlington. As for the haters, I just wish they would stop beating people over the head with the Bible - it's not good for the books, the heads or the hearts involved!
You should ask God to stop "beating people over the head with the Bible". It is God's word that condemns homosexuality. If God had not said it was a sin, I would have no reason to view it that way, and no reason to oppose "same-sex marriage".
Honestly, whodat? you really do violence to Christ's message with the tone of your "condemnation." I'm sure it grieves God that you drive so many of his children away.
Whatever else Whodat is doing, he is raising the relevance of the discussion. This is where Christianity now stands. He is the rare one who will express himself, but for every one of him there are 1000 who would not disagree with him even though they wouldn't want to be openly insulting. Whodat is opening a path to have a real discussion with American evangelism.
How is that, Jim? I've encountered many like whodat? and they have no intention of having a "real discussion." They pull the "God said it in the Bible, so it's settled" trump card that squashes all discussion.
If you don't agree with their view of the Bible you're an apostate and your Christianity "fake." I see no room for "discussion" from that kind of attitude. He represents the worst of American evangelicalism - that mean, heartless strain that calls hate love and has no need for "discussion" with those they openly disdain.
I agree with you -hodge. I see no room for discussion either. God settled the issue long ago. Everytime you say something different than what God has said, you're calling God a liar.
All you say is true, but a discussion can be real from one side only. The more unreal the other side gets, the more real should be your response. If he is the worst, he is the tip of the iceberg, and so he is not the problem. The rest of the iceberg is.
Personally, I think if you are fighting for respect, you might be in the wrong fight because in the end the respect you seek may turn out to be of no value. I think a relationship with God is an individual matter, and impossible to deal with in any kind of group setting, but it seems nobody else sees it that way. Or maybe some do but only group points of view are ever posted.
Oh, believe me Jim, I have no need of the respect of anyone like whodat? I consider it a compliment that they believe I am an apostate bound for hell. I use whodat? as a measuring stick. The moment he agrees with me I know I've taken a wrong turn and need to turn again to God. I love people like whodat? because they help me realize that "there but for the grace of God go I." Believe me, his respect is of no value to me as my respect is of no value to him.
It's sad, though, that whodat? would refuse common ground if it were offered. Those who refuse to come to the table are the ones who really do the most harm to the body of Christ. They have, in essence, said they have no need of us, and that is something Jesus warned against.
Sorry, once again I posted something too obscure. I didn't mean respect from him. That was supposed to be refering to the rest of the iceberg, Christianity as a whole. I know most will disagree with me on this, but I see no reason to care what Christianity thinks about anything.
Oh, I understand now, Jim. Thanks for the clarification. I tend to agree with you on that, though I think many strains of what's been called "liberal" or "progressive" Christianity has much to say and much to add to the conversation.
It's like the town hall screamers, the extremists like whodat? make the whole conversation seem ridiculous, when in reality, it's the most important conversation we can have, if we can just get past the hysterics and the naysayers and get down to real dialogue and discussion.
Once again I have to agree with everything you say. Progressive Christianity has much to say and much to add. But they still have to be questioned. Being above the right wing praying for destruction and rapture crowd is a pretty low bar to clear. So is progressive Christianity good and of value, or merely neutral? I think it is a tough question because you have to be scientific about it, you can't just accept what people say. A lot of horror was unleashed on the nation and the world in recent years after the evangelical church as a whole sold their soul to the party of the rich. You can't blame the progressive Christians because they didn't vote republican, but who stood up in the pulpit and threw away their tax exempt status and risked throwing away their congregation by condemning the war and the war supporters during the Bush years? That question is not the end. It is only moving the bar up about one inch to see who is still in the game.
The only people you want to "come to the table" to seek "common ground" with are people who will concede that you might be right, and the Bible might be wrong. There are plenty of people like that, and many of them think of themselves as "Christians". I'm not part of that crowd. I already know the truth; and it ain't what you believe. The truth is not negotiable.
You're wrong again. Amazing how often that happens.
...... Just keep adding congratulations to raise the tone of the comments.
Love and more cake
Sapphire
Thanks, sapphire. I appreciate the support!
Love and cake and ice cream!
Now we just need some "Wifey, Wifey" and we can call it even! :)
Congratulations. I signed up to comment just to tell you this. I wish you a long and happy marriage.
As to whodat?, I saw a sign on a Church the other day that said simply: "Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, when you only have one idea" ~Emile Auguste Chartier.
Thank you! I love that quote. I'll be using it often. :)
I would like to add my "congratulations" to those already offered. My husband and I will be celebrating our 14-year anniversary this year, and I can't imagine the sorrow I would feel if I had been told by my church and country that our marriage was invalid.
There's no point in arguing with the haters since they don't want to really dialog about this anyway, so I won't stoop to their level.
Thanks, it's always nice to hear from straight allies who "get it"! :)
Mazel tov, Candace!
May you days be filled with happiness and love. Grow old together, enjoy a long and joyful life.
Don't worry about haters, we will take care of them ourselves here;) It's very depressing to see them giving Christianity the bad name.They are exactly people that Jesus warned against - empty , loveless religionists. People like that fought to keep slavery in place, opress women,denial of rights to those they deem the second class. But let them be our problem for now -dont allow them to spoil your honeymoon, newlyweds!
Thank you! We're looking forward to many good years together.
As for the haters, I just grieve for them that they miss so much when they reject God's love and compassion. I wonder what kind of pain they've endured to make them close their hearts to their fellow human beings.
Congratulations!!!
Adding to the confetti and cake and all good wishes as you grow in your life together.
Don't listen to those who preach hate. It has nothing to do with Me. I am Love, and those who abide in Me, abide in Love.
God
Congratulations on your marriage. I'll also offer you the virtual cake and confetti.
I just returned from my two-week visit to Japan. While in Japan, I attended a Japanese Christian church. This church is located in one of the former "outcaste" -- Burakumin -- neighborhoods where people still face discrimination. Most of the members are Burakumin. I was so happy to attend a church where Jesus' message of love and inclusion was preached. There were openly-gay Burakumin attending the church (including a woman I met with an intersex partner). These gay Burakumin were welcomed just as fellow Christians and they joined into the praise and worship; none of them were shunned, nor were they told that they are "sinners" or "abominations." Perhaps these Burakumin Christians understand because their ancestors were referred to as "extreme filth" during the Japanese feudal era and they were regarded as untouchables and treated accordingly -- and they still face some rejection in current Japanese society, though it's greatly improved from earlier times. So they understand irrational hatred and discrimination directed toward not only them but also against others. Perhaps some of those people here in the U.S. who so fervently oppose LGBT people could learn a lesson from the Japanese Burakumin.
Then I return to my own country, the U.S. Instead of messages of love, I have to read stuff like this from "Christians."
"Homosexualism is a hate crime against Nature; it is the extermination of the Future. I'm sure glad my parents weren't homosexuals! And.... yes, I'm still laughing! Only a loonie would think homo 'marriage' is for real?"
Among Christians in a foreign country (Japan), I see and hear messages of love and inclusion, particularly for those on the margins. Jesus preached to those on the margins and He preached His message of inclusive love. Fortunately, being an Episcopalian, my own church offers Jesus' true message.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.