Church leaders have asked their congregations to support the Definition of Marriage initiative on the California ballot on March 7.

For Better or For Worse The Very Rev. Alan Jones, Deacon Gerry Shaon and others explore the Knight Initiative. Listen to this Forum webcast, recorded Nov. 28, 1999. Coming March 5 in The Forum San Francisco Supervisor Mark Leno and other guests discuss the controversial initiative.

The Roman Catholic bishops have already endorsed the initiative, and the Mormons have also declared their positive support. I adamantly oppose it. The initiative is unnecessary, divisive and polarizing.

The initiative is deceptively simple. We all think we know what marriage is, and therefore that next March we are simply being asked to affirm what the vast majority of human beings believe. The truth is that nothing in politics is simple. Underneath this initiative is fear, ignorance and prejudice about the nature of homosexuality.

Even simple words like Marriage and Family get us into trouble. Rigid positions are camouflaged by harmless sounding code words. So Definition of Marriage Act looks innocent but underneath are issues of sex, women, the Bible, homosexuality, power, money, control -- just to name a few.

Let's look at a couple of the issues: the American Family, the words "nature" and "natural." In a major study ten years ago (1989 Mass Mutual) respondents were asked to choose among the following three definitions of the "family":

• a group of people related by blood, marriage or adoption -- 22%
• a group of people living in one household -- 3%
• a group of people who love and care for one another -- 74%

Sixty-one percent responded that "family" was the most important thing in their life. So, family is our most important institution even though it has been redefined. Diversity of definition of the family does not mean its demise. "The traditional definition of family, based on blood and law, has been supplanted for three out of four adult Americans by another definition based on love and nurture." This study is ten years old. Imagine what the results would be now.

"Nature" and "natural" are dangerous words. Natural Law and the Law of Nature have often been invoked to keep people in line. The Church, sadly, has found itself time and time again on the wrong side of history -- just think of Galileo and how long it took to apologize. There were exceptions of course -- people of heroic faith who led their communities into a more just view of the world. A great deal of violence has been done to bodies and souls in the name of Nature. Is war natural? Is slavery natural? Is cruelty natural? My mother used to say, "It's only human nature dear!" when she read about something ghastly in the newspaper. So we have to be very careful when we appeal to Nature. There's a low view and a high view.

What we call the law of nature is often really about race, gender and class. The present appeal to "Nature" is a way of attacking homosexuality and is part of a long history of injustice. Archbishop Levada of San Francisco recently appealed to the law of nature and suggested that the good order of society is in jeopardy if we do not support this initiative. He writes, "I suggest the good order of society itself requires us to draw a line to protect the institution of marriage and the family."

This is where a dose of history is useful. Human beings have tended to defend the status quo, claiming that it is in accord with what is natural. Slavery was once thought to be of the Natural Order and sanctioned by Scripture, so was racism and the subjugation of women (it was "unnatural" for women to want the vote!). The wasting of the planet was justified because our domination of nature was our right. The maintenance of the class system was also thought part of the divine plan. There was a verse of hymn which read "The Rich man in his castle/the poor man at his gate/ God made them high and lowly/And ordered their estate."

It is dangerous, therefore, to make claims of what is natural with regard to human beings. What we call human nature is inextricably bound up with politics, power and social structures. Those who take issue with the word "marriage" when applied to people of the same sex need to discern the subtext of this divisive and polarizing initiative. I know of gay couples who have had to resort to one adopting the other as a means of ensuring civil and legal protection of their committed relationships.

What then is at issue here? Civil Rights plain and simple. Marriage needs neither defense nor definition. I want my gay friends and colleagues to enjoy the same civil rights concerning property, access and decency as those who are married.

The Very Rev. Alan Jones is dean of Grace Cathedral, San Francisco.

This article was originally posted on GraceOnline on Novemeber 10, 1999 and also appeared in theLos Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Bay Area Reporter.