As the culture war over same-sex love and marriage intensifies, I marvel at the crowd who insist on “defending” one kind of marriage by legislating any other kind out of existence. What must their own marriages be like? Do self-righteousness and an obsession with finding fault with others make for sound and happy marriages?
Or is the point to enforce a rigid conformity to strict rules in order to please a punitive God? Somehow that doesn’t sound attractive. Wouldn’t they make better headway “defending marriage” by illegalizing divorce, requiring ten-year courtships supervised by parents and grandparents, and forbidding anyone in the 90210 zip code from going near a justice of the peace? If enforced righteousness is so important to them, why do they fret so (well, Newt Gingrich does) about the imminent imposition of “shariah law” in the United States? I mean, wouldn’t these folks be happier under a homegrown, “Christian” version of shariah?
I’m reposting here a column I wrote in 2004 because I think it still speaks to the issue of “defending marriage”; the Minneapolis Star Tribune published the column on January 2, 2004.
For Couples Like Stephen and Michael, Blessing and Hope
My first official act after being ordained to the Episcopal clergy two years ago was to serve as deacon at what is customarily called a “same-sex blessing ceremony.”
Nothing particularly surprising there. Such ceremonies have been conducted in Minnesota for years—quietly at first, but at their 1999 convention the people of the diocese declared their resolve to “include, welcome, and embrace [their] gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender members” and “to continue to make available to them all of the blessings of Christ’s beloved church.”
I’d seen Michael and Stephen in church for weeks preceding the ceremony. They were obviously experienced in the complexities of Episcopal worship, standing and sitting at the appropriate places and joining in the prayers without having to look at their prayer books. They also stood side by side with the ease and comfort that comes from an established affection.
Now as they stood before the priest, I had the opportunity to catch their eyes. Michael seemed about to burst into laughter or tears, or both, trembling slightly with a powerful blend of joy, solemn awe, and nerves. Outwardly more serene, Stephen beamed at his partner with a loving solicitude, as if to radiate calm with his gaze.
I scanned the congregation’s faces and found the usual mix of radiant smiles and joyful tears. I also saw one or two people looking rather apprehensive, as if they weren’t sure what would come next.
What came next was pretty familiar stuff, following the general outlines of a traditional church wedding. We listened to scripture, to specially chosen music, and to the priest’s homily exhorting and encouraging the couple to be gentle with each other. Then they pledged their lives to each other in love and mutual respect. We joined in prayer that their life together would be a source of blessing to them and to others.
Like a lot of people, I get choked up whenever I hear two people make outlandish public promises to love and honor each other. This day was different, however. I didn’t know what challenges either man had had to face to bring him to this moment, but it was safe to presume that neither had been able simply to coast with the cultural current, even in Minnesota. It took courage for each to stand before an assembly of the people who knew him best and declare undying love for another man.
Amid the controversy swirling in my own church and elsewhere, we hear cries of alarm that accepting homosexual relationships will somehow endanger “traditional” marriage. For the life of me, I don’t know what that means.
How could the example of committed love between two men cause me to defect emotionally from my wife, unless I were secretly gay myself? In that case, wouldn’t my marriage rest on a very fragile foundation already? Wouldn’t dissolving a marriage based on a false premise free two people for new, more fulfilling, emotionally secure, and lasting relationships, including, perhaps, a much stronger heterosexual marriage?
Perhaps the alarmists fear that if all of us were free to follow our own hearts, marriage as we know it would come to an end. But doesn’t that anxiety presume already that our hearts aren’t in our marriages?
Stephen and Michael’s vows did stir up strong feelings within me. I was inspired to return to my own marriage with renewed commitment, a clearer sense of what mattered most in my life. But that’s just what we ask of every wedding ceremony: “Grant that all married persons who have witnessed these vows may find their lives strengthened and their loyalties confirmed,” as the Book of Common Prayer puts it.
In our consumerist society, the commodification of sex and the infinite interchangeability of relationships are pervasive values. Any two people preparing to commit themselves to a shared life need all the support and encouragement a community can provide. In my own search for such a community, courageous lovers like Stephen and Michael have been important and powerful examples. I’d rather have them as allies and models than shut them out in fear, circling the emotional wagons around only the people who I presume think and feel just as I do.
I think the Episcopal Church is trying to build that kind of supportive community. When, this past August [2003], we approved the election of an openly gay priest as bishop, we were saying, first, that we recognized the gifts and calling that our New Hampshire neighbors had seen in this holy and gracious man. We were also saying that we recognize the beauty and godly worth of caring, self-denying love, and that we seek to bless, support, and defend it wherever we find it. Since our General Convention in 2000, that’s been the official teaching of our church. I pray we have the grace and good sense to practice what we preach.
Comments