Will: It’s not important for me to feel like I have some corner on truth; that’s one thing that really resonates for me with the Unitarian Universalist Church. I love the fact that it’s non-denominational. We focus not on answers with a capital “A”, but on questions; questions in the community, living with  questions, exploring with questions. I think that’s a really good way to go through life because ultimately things are always changing. Today’s answers are tomorrow’s material to roll your eyes at. You look at what science taught 100 years ago and its like, “Oh my God!” Back then what was “very controversial” is quite often nowadays an everyday occurrence. What we think now is the last word in knowledge and truth, 50 years from now we’re gonna be like, “Hah, get a load of that!”

Arno: That’s a great point there; maybe religion should be just as much about questions as it is about answers—if not more so.

Will: I do understand that there are many people in the world who want to feel like someone high up is handing them definitive answers about things. But that’s just a game—that’s all it is, and people go along with it. To acknowledge all this that we can never know, and that things are always changing, and the fact that even the most brilliant among us have a limited capacity to comprehend—suggest that questions should be asked.

Angie (via Arno): Why do you think God and the bible have been allowed to dominate the argument whether or not gay marriage is allowable? Being that we are a nation of religiously diverse individuals and proclaim a distinct separation of church and state, how is the core of the relevant argument able to obfuscated so easily by religion?

Will: One of the first things to come to mind is: when people’s notions of how life is supposed to be organized get challenged by something like same sex couples looking to be able to participate in the institution of marriage. Then what many people often do—understandably—is they kind of scramble for an authoritative document that says how things are supposed to be. Of course in order to use the bible in that way you need to be very selective about which parts you choose. You also need to be very careful not to mention other things that don’t jibe with the case that you’re making. Because that’s so true in regards to many issues with that kind of selective use of biblical whatever; it’s just a joke, but it’s not a joke in the sense that it still does hold a lot of sway with a lot of people. It’s a daunting reality that we have to contend, with but it’s a joke at the same time.

Arno: I especially think it’s a joke because there are passages in the bible that can be construed as plainly acknowledging same sex relationships. David singing about Jonathan; “…your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27) …is the first one to come to mind. If you’re going to point to the bible as a case against homosexuality, I think you just as easily point to it as a case for. And to kind of trump it all there is the message of peace and love and inclusion that I believe Christ was really about—not a message of exclusion. He didn’t draw lines—he brought people together.

Will: Part of it is the the fact that the voices of 50 or 100 years ago become increasingly less truthful and less authoritative with every passing year, as we learn more. The same is true with the bible; this sort of fossilized set of pronouncements—some of which make sense only in the cultural contexts and realities of the times in which they were written. They served the need of the people of that time. The other thing is the way that marriage has been so tightly bound to religion, when in fact I think most gay people would be happy with civil marriage. You know, I don’t need it to happen under some clergy. I don’t need to have it happen under the auspices of a religious body. Why is it that this is all tied together in some sort of Gordian knot?

Arno: What I really don’t understand is how same-sex marriage can be framed as a threat.

Will: I head that over and over when I interviewed couples for Shall Not Be Recognized. In many cases, in various ways they would say, “I would love to hear one of these people who talks about the threat this represents—talk without quoting the bible, just in everyday language—how is my being with my partner a threat to their marriage or any other marriage?!” No one can answer that! Nobody can ever answer that in a way that doesn’t make you just want to guffaw. But that gets trotted out over and over again. All I can figure is because it threatened some sort of romanticized, idealized, pink and blue, black and white notions on how the world is supposed to be. That’s what is threatening; that same-sex marriage is intruding on the idealized world that people want to be able to hold onto. Even though so much of the reality of how life goes isn’t really consistant with that, they still want to hold onto that in an imaginary kind of way. It could be that way.

Arno: What is the response been like to the Shall Not Be Recognized exhibit? Do the lighting rods of public opinion on same-sex marriage give you a sense one way or the other that the tides are closer to turning?

Will: I can’t say I have any feel for the tide and what direction it may be going in regard to this issue. I’d love to imagine all of the people who would never go out of their way to look at something like Shall Not Be Recognized would somehow get to see it and maybe having a lightbulb go on like, “Wow, this is actually really interesting!” It might be the first time that they ever saw a portait of a same-sex couple or real words coming out of their mouths about what their lives are about and what their concerns are and what their views are. We put these incredible couples together with Jeff to do the photos, and I did my work creating text that would help bring these people to life, then we did what we could to get the exhibit into settings ideally that are gonna reach people who aren’t already comfortable with, or in-sync with, the notion of two gay people living a life together or even raising a child together. Ultimately the effect it has is to be part of that messy process; give and take, lurching here and there. Shall Not Be Recognized is a positive contributor to the movement for marriage equality. I can’t imagine anybody—even after just five of minutes of looking at the exhibit—having negative views solidified or supported by what they see.