I've always been quite dismayed by one particular aspect of my rabbinic role.

Have no fear – it doesn't take place often, and it mostly takes place outside of the synagogue. Some of the folks there may have already experienced what I do there, and enjoyed it; others may not have had such a good experience, and still others may be too young or uninterested.

But in general, everyone participating in the event is very happy to be there – in fact, they tend to be dressed to the nines, and perhaps even came at great expense or from long distances. (Okay, now we get it).

I'm referring, of course, to officiating at weddings. It's actually one of my favorite tasks as a rabbi. I enjoy every aspect of wedding officiating, including working regularly with the couple, meeting their families and friends, and experiencing the distinct flavors of their ceremonies and receptions.

The aspect I'm referring to usually takes place early in the day's or evening's events, mostly out of the public eye. I'm referring to the signing of the civil documents, the marriage license, that marks a change in the couple's legal status.

Rather, I should say hundreds of changes. There are more than one thousand rights, benefits and responsibilities that accompany a civil marriage license. They range from the right to visit a spouse in the hospital and make medical decisions for a sick spouse, to eligibility for health benefits and family memberships, and the ability to sponsor a spouse from another country.

Concerning the last one, just last month I was the recipient, among many, of a pleading email, in only slightly "accented" English, from an Israeli. He must have been aware that what he was requesting was possibly illegal, and certainly intimate, but his story is not unique. He is desperate to be with his American boyfriend, but could no longer legally remain in the US, and was writing from Israel to try to find a woman who would "marry" him for the purpose of enabling him to live with his loved one.

So it's very confusing, I must say, to be a clergy in this country. I am permitted, even expected, to be the agent who performs the religious ritual, and then testifies to it on a document, thereby changing a male-female couple's civil status. When I moved here from Canada, I was under the impression that this was a country that enshrined the "separation of church [sic] and state." What am I missing here?

The missing, unstated pieces are complex, yet can be distilled by one too familiar word -- discrimination. Here are the words of John Kennedy, speaking when his presidential candidacy was a flashpoint for prejudice because of his faith:

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish - where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the
pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source - where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials - and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

I neglected to mention another group attending those weddings who may be harboring a less than unalloyed pleasure at the proceedings – those who, because their own beloveds might be same-sex partners, would not be able to benefit from that same little pre-ceremony ritual, the signing of civil documents that would enable them to live, and love, with the same protections and benefits as their friend or sibling being married that day.

There are thus two interrelated issues at play here – the nature of the role that clergy and religious institutions are permitted to play in a civic arena, and the discrimination experienced in this country by gay and lesbian couples who are denied the rights of their opposite-sex counterparts.

John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia, who was one of the
original speakers at the 1963 March on Washington, writes of this issue:

"This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions,
and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry…. Sometimes it takes courts to remind us of these basic principles. In 1948, when I was 8 years old, 30 states had bans on interracial marriage, courts had upheld the bans many times, and 90 percent of the public disapproved of those marriages, saying they were against the definition of marriage, against God's law. But that year, the California Supreme Court became the first court in America to strike down such a ban. Thank goodness some court finally had the courage to say that equal means equal, and others rightly followed, including the US Supreme Court 19 years later."

It's going to be a busy and challenging time. Many groups, including the local organization Free State Justice, will be heavily involved in
challenging discriminatory practices based on rigid and prejudicial stances. Particularly because those practices claim to be rooted in religious interpretations, I'll be out there working with them, reclaiming the equal rights, and the holiness, that inheres to all love between people.

Rabbi Elizabeth Bolton

For more information on civil marriage and related issues,
here are some web sites:

Human Rights Campaign
http://hrc.org

Lambda Legal
http://www.lambdalegal.org

Freedom to Marry
http://www.freedomtomarry.org

ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRightsMain.cfm

PFLAG
http://www.pflag.org/education/marriage.html