The purges go on: to US Roman Catholic Bishops, nothing is worse than being gay and married.

New purges in Roman Catholicism this week. 

 Item 1: two elderly MOntana men, active in their parish, and partners for 30 years, got married in Washington state. They didn't make a deal out of it, but someone told the new young priest in their parish and....

the two parishioners were told that they would no longer be allowed to participate in fundamental Catholic religious observances or ministry programs.

To restore their position within the Catholic Church, Huff and Wojtowick must obtain a divorce, discontinue living together, and write a restoration statement defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Wojtowick and Huff have thus far declined to do so.

Note that this is a Roman Catholic church not only demanding that they divorce (!) but also that they part. Leaving my wife would rip my heart out of me. I can't imagine the brutal fanaticism that would demand such cruelty. The Bishop met with the community about this but did not change his mind.

Bishop Michael Warfel of the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings met Saturday with about 300 parishioners of St. Leo the Great Catholic Church in Lewistown, where he also led a Mass. About half the parishioners supported the Rev. Samuel Spiering’s decision, while the other half were very angry.

“There obviously is polarization, and certainly what I want to do is try to effect some healing,” Warfel said Saturday. “At the same time, as a Catholic bishop, I uphold our Catholic teachings.”

Yeah, good luck with that, Bishop. Not sure how you can heal anything when you have bitterly divided a community.

Item 2: another church organist fired, this time by reliably anti-gay campaigner Archbishop John Nienstedt of Minnesota.

"Our beloved Director of Music, Jamie Moore, married his long-time partner Garrett this past weekend," the Rev. Bob White, of St. Victoria Catholic Church, wrote in a letter to parishioners posted on the parish website this week. "Since Jamie's marriage conflicts with official Church teaching, Archbishop Nienstedt asked for Jamie's resignation." (MPR)

As a nice touch, they fired Jamie while he was on his honeymoon. Stay classy, Archbishop.

Nienstedt is rather embattled, not only having failed to stop marriage equality from reaching MN, but also because he has been accused of inappropriate sexual contact with priests and seminarians.  A law firm hired by the archdiocese is examining the claims but no reports have been made.

Andrew Sullivan (a gay Catholic) writes,

If the church upholds this kind of decision, it is endorsing cruelty, discrimination and exclusion. Pope Francis’ view is that this is exactly the kind of thing that requires the church to exercise mercy not rigidity. But allowing a married gay couple to sing in the choir as an act of “mercy” would merely further expose the fragility of the church’s thirteenth century views of human sexuality. It would put the lie to the otherness of gay people; to the notion that it is essential or even possible for a tiny minority to live entirely without intimacy or love or commitment. It also reveals that gay men have long been a part of the church – and tolerated, as long as they lied about their lives and gave others plausible deniability with respect to their sexual orientation. It is an endorsement of dishonesty. 

None of this is compatible with the core moral teachings of the church – about fairness, truth, compassion, forgiveness, mercy and inclusion. And this is clear to large numbers of Catholics – especially the younger generation who will rightly view this kind of decision as barbaric and inhuman. There is only so much inhumanity that a church can be seen to represent before its own members lose faith in it...... When a church responds to an act of love and commitment not by celebration but by ostracism, it is not just attacking a couple’s human dignity; it is also attacking itself.  

MOre coverage of purges here. 

Task force releases study guide

The Episcopal Church Task Force on the Study of Marriage has released Dearly Beloved, resources for conversation and discussion around marriage.  This is not limited to same sex marriage, but a broad theological reflection about marriage and the church.
News release here (with other links)

Broad discussion will assist those deputies and bishops – representatives of us all – at General Convention 2015, when they receive our report and consider possible responses to our church’s call to deepen this conversation. 

The resource may be used in a variety of settings, and it consists of three different formats, which may be used independently of each other: a 90-minute event (which can be divided into three 35-minute sessions); a variety of 45-minute forums; and a lengthy article for a study group. All three formats cover theology, history, scripture, current trends, and more, with guidelines for presentation and questions for group discussion.

The Tool-Kit “Dearly Beloved” here

The PowerPoint for the “Carry-On Conversations” resource here

Complementarity and marriage: a phiilosophical view.

From the Church Times .  Do go read the whole thing.

COMPLEMENTARITY is central to any marriage. The Church, however, holds that sexual difference is the foundation of that complementarity. 

What sort of claim is being made, here? Are we saying that sexual difference is enough, by itself, for us to know that two people complement each other, just as having a pulse is enough, by itself, for us to know that someone is alive?... 

Writers of church documents cannot mean that. Or, if they do, then they are wrong. ...A collapse of difference into male-female difference, which so undergirds current Church of England formulations, reduces our vision of sexual relationships to the level of a budget brothel: you ask for a woman, you ask for a man, and you take the first one who's free: sexual difference is what matters, not particularity.
...
In a relationship that lives up to what Christians might most value, however, it is that how two people are similar or different is understood within the call for each to change, and to grow into the likeness of Christ. ... 

We might put it like this: there has always been more than one species within the genus we call marriage; and admitting a new species to a genus does not change the definition of the other species. Species Y can differ from species X, in the same genus, without changing the definition of species X.
...
Remembering this, any claim that different forms of marriage are related analogically need not subordinate one to another. We are not necessarily saying that one is an imitation of the other. A distinctively Christian vision of marriage - whatever it is, whatever form it takes (and that is clearly under debate) - sees marriage as an imitation of something about Christ and his relationship with the Church, and as a participation in the life and love of the Trinity. 

That is ultimately where we must look for the source and meaning of complementarity.

Eastside Catholic and Mr Z...and Ms M (updated)

Well, another purge in the Roman Catholic church of a married gay teacher--this time at Eastside Catholic, in Sammamish, WA , hasn't quite gone as planned.  The students have done a series of walk-outs and protests (gotta love these young Catholics!) .  They aren't letting this go.

And the fired teacher (vice principal, actually) has reported in an interview that the principal offered him his job back-- and a commitment ceremony -- if he got a divorce.

“Apparently the fact that I have a same-sex partner and (am) having a same-sex marriage . . . they are against that,...But I also thought another teaching they were against was divorce. I’m a little shocked that was even on the table to have me keep my job. They also offered for me to have a commitment ceremony if I were willing to get a divorce.”

As Andrew Sullivan writes,

What does it say about the twisted, absurd view of homosexual persons that the Catholic Church should demand that they divorce their spouses as a condition of working for a Catholic organization? It tells you so much. What the church is saying by this is that homosexuals should be punished for constructing stable, committed relationships of mutual care and support. If they stay single or have some kind of down-low commitment ceremony, all will be ignored.

And, lest you think this is going to die down.... another teacher at the same school has announced that she's going to marry her partner, another woman.

Today, she will wear her engagement ring to school. 

“Either I’ll be fired or the students will say, ‘right on,’” Merrow told local radio station KIRO-FM, according to KING 5 News. 

“It doesn’t matter if I get fired, I want (students) to know that I think what they did was incredible and if anything changes, it’s going to be because of this next generation,” Merrow added. 

She also spoke about the firing of Vice Principal Zmuda. 

“They’re not firing people who are straight that are doing things that aren’t Catholic,” she said, “They’re just firing Mark.”

Yes the smell of hypocrisy is rather strong. And they wonder why young Catholics leave.

More on previous purges here.

Update: The lesbian teacher is actually a part-time vocal coach. Her contract doesn't require her to abide by Catholic teaching. 

Merrow, who is not a teacher at Eastside Catholic and works only on the school musical, said she has not been impressed by the school's handling of Zmuda and wonders if she might be treated differently because she didn't sign the same teacher contract as he did. 

Her employment agreement was narrow in scope and didn't discuss following Catholic teachings on issues like gay marriage, she said.

Here we go again: the Roman Catholic purge

The Roman Catholic purge of gay and lesbian teachers continues.  I've told you about this before, this spate of firings of teachers  who are discovered to be gay and partnered, sometimes in response to anonymous denunciations.  And it just keeps happening.

The latest one is rather different.  The teacher in this case  was perfectly open about his sexuality.  He even brought his partner to school events.  Here, the sin he committed was simply to get a marriage license.  A civil marriage license.  That was enough to terminate him.

Now, there are numerous types of civil marriages that the Roman Catholic church considers invalid.  The obvious one is marriage between people who are divorced.   But if you are Catholic and you get a civil marriage rather than a Church marriage, it is not recognized by the Church either.  I wonder if they are poking their noses into their straight teachers' lives, asking if they've been divorced, or where they got married.

Needless to say this sort of thing isn't looking good for the church. Fair minded people with friends or family who are LGBT notice, and disagree.  This is one of things that makes "ex-Catholic" a rapidly expanding religious identity in this country.

Firing a man for taking advantage of his civil rights and making a commitment to his partner?  NOT a good move.

Attn Timothy Cardinal Dolan:  this is how you get "out-marketed".

When the perfect is the enemy of the good

As many of you know, in real life I'm a professor of science at a large university.  There aren't many of us women who have made it to the top of the academic ladder in science.   We tend to take longer to get there.  We are frequently paid less than the men, even if we have superior credentials.   We go to the full professors' meeting and find everyone else is pale (white), stale (old), and male.

 There is a positive correlation between a man's academic success, and being a parent, but for women, the correlation is negative.  Dare to have a family, and you are much more likely to be on the non-tenure track, or hover as an associate professor for your entire career.  Try finding space for pumping breast milk at a major conference, for example. 

Part of the problem is an attitude of some young women that they aren't going to engage in a deeply flawed system to try to change it.  "Fix it first," one told me once.  "THEN I'll come back." 

Well, honey, sorry but if you don't engage, you don't get to play.  Thing is, it's a big, very competitive field.  If you go stand off by yourself, and expect us to come to you hat in hand to beg you to join, that's not going to happen.  Because there are other women, equally talented, who will roll up their sleeves and dive in, not waiting. They are willing to effect change from the inside, which is the only way change will happen.  And each one of us who makes it to the top of that tenure ladder, fingernails bleeding, makes it a little bit easier for the one coming up behind.

They are not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  

I feel the same way about the people (and there are many) who are angry about the Episcopal church's liturgy for blessing of a same sex union.  It's not the BCP liturgy for a marriage.  It should be, i agree. (It's quite lovely).  But it's not there yet.  

Still, if you don't engage it, take the opportunity granted, you will not be able to make change happen. Because if you don't participate, why should they make any changes to it?  "There's no demand."  

This is one of the reasons we married prior to Prop8, knowing that with DOMA it was all very very imperfect.  Yet marrying BP was the greatest thing I have done in my life, despite the imperfections.  And look what has happened since....Prop8 fell, DOMA clause 3 is done.  In part, because of the witness of people who married even though it wasn't perfect.

And it's one of the reasons we jumped at the chance to get our marriage blessed, as soon as it was approved by our Bishop (prior to the current liturgy).  In San Diego, same sex couples have to write a letter to the Bishop explaining why they want to be blessed (or now, why they want to marry). Some of our friends are very upset by that, because straight people don't have to do it.  So what?  I did not mind being asked to articulate why it mattered to us.  If it educates people, if it gives the Bishop ammo to educate people who might be opposed, why should I object?

So, many LGBT couples will not engage TEC because it's not BCP-marriage and it's not uniform across the church.  I think that's a sad thing. Because being part of the process gives you a voice that standing alone in the hayfield never will.  

Eventually, I hope the liturgy will be available to both same- and opposite-sex couples (I mean, have you read the BCP marriage liturgy?  Talk about archaic views of women! ;-)  Eventually TEC will welcome everyone, everywhere. It takes time.  We can help it along by working from the inside and educating people on what it means.  We can show them what a married lesbian or gay couple looks like, and why it matters that we can marry.  Our witness is our greatest weapon.  

And we can't do that, if we don't engage. 

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

What makes a marriage? A Christian historical view is better than you think...

Viewpoint published in the National Catholic Reporter by THomas Finn, chancellor professor of religion (emeritus) at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

[In the 12th c]  sharp debate arose ...about what constituted true marriage. One group argued that it was at the point of sexual consummation true marriage exists, because consummation embodied the union between Christ and the church. A second group argued that it was consent given in the present to live together as equal partners with mutual affection and respect that embodied the union. By the end of the century the "consentist" position had won the debate, largely because its architect, the prominent Parisian theologian Peter Lombard, had written a textbook that became the theology text for the next 400 years. 

Thus, for some 1,600 years, what made a marriage a true marriage was consent, from which its three benefits -- fidelity, children and sacred union -- flowed. Whether a couple could have children was, like sexual attraction, nature's call -- not what makes marriage marriage. ... 

Given the percentage of people for and against same-sex marriage, more than 60 percent of our citizens, including Catholics, seem to agree with what our Western predecessors concluded about what truly constitutes marriage, whether for an opposite-sex or same-sex couple, namely, consent to a life together of partners infused with affection and respect constitutes true marriage, from which the social benefits flow.

Meanwhile, John Boswell's book on pre-modern same sex unions  has been getting recent press (it recently was released in digital format)

Much of Boswell's most controversial research featured the academic's discovery of more than 60 texts -- dating back to the 8th century -- that described ceremonies the historian said were essentially "same-sex unions."

In a 1994 New York Times review of Boswell's book, Peter Steinfels writes that the picture painted by Boswell is both a fascinating and complex one:

There is no question that Professor Boswell has found records of ceremonies consecrating a pairing of men, ceremonies often marked by similar prayers and, over time, by standardized symbolic gestures: the clasping of right hands, the binding of hands with a stole, kisses, receiving holy communion, a feast following the ceremony. Some of these ritual actions also marked heterosexual marriages, but there remained differences in both actions and words between the two ceremonies.

The piece goes on to detail the outrage that Boswell's study provoked.

As I've pointed out before, the scholar of marriage Stephanie Coontz has argued that same sex marriages are inevitable outcomes of the fact that we have de-gendered marriage.  Once women could control their own bodies, once men no longer owned women's bodies nor property, once marriage became a partnership of equals, there is no logical reason to deny loving same sex couples civil marriage rights.

What do you think?

Updated: On the fall of DOMA, and till death do us part

Two weeks ago, John Arthur and Jim Obergefell flew from their Ohio home to Maryland to marry. They did it in a chartered plane with speciality medical equipment, because John is dying of ALS. Upon return to Ohio, they sued to have their marriage recognized, so that Jim could be listed as "husband" on John's death certificate.  This is important, because John wants to be buried in a family plot, and non-family members must be spouses to be interred there.  If they are not considered married, then Jim will not be eligible to lie by John's side in the future.

And yesterday, a federal judge ruled in their favor.

Throughout Ohio’s history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example,under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio,even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise,under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even thoughOhio law does not authorize marriages of minors. 

How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single outsame sex marriages as ones it will not recognize? The short answer is that Ohio cannot … at least not under the circumstances here. 

By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sexmarriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins and marriages of minors), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, likely violates the United States Constitution which guarantees that”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. 

The end result here and now is that the local Ohio Registrar of death certificates is hereby ORDERED not to accept for recording a death certificate for John Arthur that does not record Mr. Arthur’s status at death as ‘married’ and James Obergefell as his ‘surviving spouse.'

Marriage matters, even unto death.  And the DOMA decision from SCOTUS is already reverberating.  John Aravosis writes,

I really think the court granted us nationwide gay marriage in all but name. Yes, the way they did it requires us to go state-by-state and strike down individual state-DOMA laws, but that was the genius of the court’s decision. They paid homage to the notion that the court shouldn’t upend the “democratic experiment” taking place in the states, while at the same time coming up with a decision that basically leaves the states no wiggle room to say “no” to marriage equality for gays once the state DOMAs are challenged. 

So yes, it will take longer for us to get marriage in 50 states – thus a nod to the notion that the court shouldn’t change everything nationwide immediately – but at the same time, they pretty much guaranteed that we’ll win. And this Ohio ruling is quite possibly the first evidence of that fact.

Meanwhile, those of you so inclined might put John Arthur and Jim Obergefell on your prayer list.

Update:  the Attorney General plans to appeal, even though the Court's ruling is specific to these two individuals and can have no possible bearing on any other Ohioan.  From Think Progress:

The day after a judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring Ohio to list Arthur’s husband as his “surviving spouse” on his death certificate, DeWine announced that he wouldappeal this decision and try to strip a dying man of his final wish.
There are marriage equality cases with sweeping national implications. This is not one of them. The judge’s order is limited exclusively to Arthur and Obergefell..... 

Yet, while Ohio has nothing to gain from simply complying with the judges’ order, Arthur and Obergefell have a tremendous amount to lose. Thanks to DeWine’s appeal, Arthur will spend his last days unsure whether he and his husband can someday lie together in his family burial plot. The two men’s final moments will be poisoned by uncertainty over their lawsuit.... 

There is a common refrain among marriage equality’s opponents that discrimination is necessary to remove some kind of “threat” equality poses to straight couples’ marriages. This case is a put up or shut up moment for these voices. ...Who does DeWine think he is serving by filing this appeal? 

Someday very soon, Obergefell will go home, lie in an empty bed, and confront for the first time the prospect of a life without his husband. In that moment of loss, he believes he will find some comfort if the State of Ohio acknowledges that he feels the same pain that he would have felt if he were married to a woman. That’s what DeWine wants to take away. And it will gain the people of Ohio nothing.

The Marriage Vow

Pat Robertson opened a can of worms with his recent response to a question about a man whose wife has Alzheimer's disease.

“I know it sounds cruel...but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but to make sure she has custodial care, somebody looking after her.” 

Now, I remember this part in the marriage vow where we pledged to stay together "in sickness and in health" but of course I'm just a godless homosexual destroying marriage as we know it.

It gets better.

[Robertson] said the question presented an ethical dilemma beyond his ability to answer. “I certainly wouldn’t put a guilt trip on you if you decided that you had to have companionship,” Mr. Robertson said, apparently suggesting divorce as a way to avoid the sin of adultery.

That makes it even worse, in my opinion. Do you remember Robertson and his buddies running on about the tragic Terry Schiavo case?  They certainly excoriated Schiavo's husband for "moving on".   Seems Mr Robertson's views are rather fungible depending on who is doing the asking.

Unquestionably, this is a heart-rending issue and has many complexities, legal and financial as well as ethical and personal. But suggesting divorce should not be the first instinct of anyone.

 Sandra Weintraub, professor of neurology and psychiatry at the Alzheimer’s center of the Northwestern University school of medicine, said that many people develop new relationships while caring for a spouse in the last stages of Alzheimer’s, but that advising them to seek a divorce “strikes me as ludicrous.” 

Dr. Weintraub said that someone in Mr. Robertson’s public position should refrain from telling others how to solve such a complex problem.

Ya think?

And these people claim to value marriage so much that they deny it to faithful, loving gay couples.

Thoughts on the SCLM, marriage, and blessings.

As the reports on the SCLM conference seep out, I join with others who find their initial enthusiasm is tempered. It seems to me there is an obvious problem brewing: the possibility, or even likelihood, that same sex blessings in the church will be treated as a stand alone item, separate from marriage.

I fear very much that there will be a compromise position: “okay you can develop a liturgy for gay couples, as long as it’s not marriage." And that way the requirements and expectations will be different, and that is not only separate, but not at all equal. That seems to be an undertone in the comments from the 2010 Bishop’s meeting, separating marriage as a sacramental union from a blessing, which is somehow lesser.

Let me be clear. If you don’t call it marriage, it’s not going to be treated as a marriage. (And I don't mean by the couple, for whom it IS marriage, but by others.) Our word for a faithful, monogamous, lifelong commitment is marriage. To call it something else is to say it is less than, not equal to, and therefore, not as important to the community. Do you really want the message to be that the church blesses dogs and boats and, oh, gay couples, but only straight couples are worthy of marriage?

I certainly understand that if you call same sex marriages as, well, marriages, that you open up a whole can of worms because of the patchwork of civil laws affecting LGBT couples. Same sex couples can get legally married in 6 jurisdictions, with various levels of domestic partnerships in 12 more. 29 states forbid same sex marriages in their constitution; 19 states outlaw recognition of civil unions. Just in California, 18,000 couples were married pre-Prop8, while others can have domestic partnerships. The mess is even more apparent for transgendered couples, where the transgendered person’s legal gender can change simply by crossing a state line! (To me this points out the lunacy of any of the arguments against SSM).

How do you evaluate a relationship where the legality is so entangled? One way is to do what my employer does. They provide domestic partner benefits and with few exceptions, you are expected to be a registered DP (RDP in California; or married) to get benefits. So, if the couple CAN get recognition in their jurisdiction, they should. But because of the legal limbo, I know this has negative consequences. Our accountant probably can pay his kid’s tuition sorting out the mess that is our married same sex couple’s taxes, thanks to discontinuities between state law and DOMA. So that's one problem: what sort of civil, legal relationship must be required?

Here's another. How can you face a couple that is legally married, as BP and I are? How can you tell us that our legal civil marriage is not worthy of recognition as a marriage?

And what is the role of the church in the civil, legal relationship? I think this makes a case to eliminate the church from functioning as an agent of the state. As Elizabeth Kaeton wrote this week,

The church must begin to challenge herself about this 'unholy' alliance between church and state. We don't allow the state to dictate to us on any other sacrament or sacramental rite of the church. Why do that with marriage?

Exactly. Let the state be the state, and the church be the church.

As I told you a few weeks ago, our legal civil marriage (2008), was recognized by a church blessing a few weeks ago. I think this separation worked very well, making the religious component very intentional, and thus central, without the Big Party and all that entailed. On the other hand, another couple who received a blessing had just DP’d one another, and for them, the blessing was their wedding. That worked for them. In neither case was the church acting as a state agent, but in a separate capacity. There are already liturgies for both of these: the Blessing of a Civil Marriage, and the Marriage. If you explicitly separate church marriage from civil marriage, as in many parts of Europe, those would be the same thing. (Although both were off-limits, at least in their complete form,for us.)

And they should be treated the same in the process. We faced generally the same requirements of any married couple seeking a blessing, including obligatory pre-blessing counseling (in my opinion, you can just change a few words in any standard couple's counseling program and it will work fine). In the eagerness of some to bless gay couples, I worry that the process hasn’t got all the ponderous weight that it needs. The survey at the conference suggests that many congregations don’t put same sex couples through the same counseling as straight couples, and perhaps some don’t do any counseling at all. I strongly believe that every requirement made of a straight couple should be made of a same sex couple in the request for the church’s blessing.

Of course, we are fortunate that the community of which we are a part, recognizes and celebrates us as a married couple. For example on our wedding anniversary last fall, we donated the Sunday flowers and were asked to be the oblation bearers, all duly noted in the bulletin. There was no asterisk denoting us as somehow LESS than any other couple celebrating their wedding anniversary. We certainly have never felt anything but fully respected, which is a big part of why we’re there.

We're fortunate, as many couples in other places don't experience that affirmation. For them, blessings, even if separate-and-unequal, are a step forward.

Obviously the church in a transitional period right now. But I am concerned that the movement is towards something distinct. I fear the message that is sent to LGBT couples if there is a SEPARATE liturgy, or different requirements, is one that their relationship is “not quite real”.

And that's not the case.

Comments?

Making a mockery of marriage

Chicago Tribune blogger, Eric Zorn on marriage:

I wish the newlyweds featured on the front page of the Sun-Times and in Neil Steinberg's column today all the best. Short version of the story: She's from Norway. He's from Chicago. They met face-to-face last Friday for the first time after getting acquainted on Steinberg's Facebook wall and were legally married Thursday in a ceremony in the observation ledge atop the Willis Tower.

To me, the entire event -- it really borders on a stunt -- utterly trivializes the concept of marriage, all the way down to the phony-baloney baptism the woman went through in order to generate the proper paperwork for a nearly instant marriage license. In my opinion, marriage ought to be the solemn and considered union of an established, loving couple with enough of a track record together to give them and society confidence that their union is for life.

But you know what? Our laws allow for hasty stunt-like weddings of men and women with huge crushes on each other; marriages that arguably make a mockery of more traditional marriages. And I'm fine with that. In part because you never know. Couples can date for years and undergo lengthy pre-marital counseling and then divorce in less than year. This Facebook marriage may last forever.

What I'm not fine with -- and I know Steinberg also isn't fine with -- is that while the law allows virtually any heterosexual couple to get hitched for virtually any fool reason they want, it still forbids loving, committed gay couples from getting married on the grounds that legalizing such unions would threaten the definition and sanctity of traditional marriage.

A case in point: Doug Manchester

Doug Manchester is a businessman-hotelier in San Diego who caused an uproar and a boycott when he donated $125,000 to Prop8. (The campaign against his flagship hotel was , "careful who you sleep with!") He offered to donate a similar sum to gay causes, just not supporting marriage.

Recently he announced that he and his wife of 43 years are divorcing.

As commented in the Box Turtle Bulletin,

Manchester said he made his Prop 8 donation to “preserve marriage” because of “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church” — the very same church that condemns divorce. His Catholic faith doesn’t restrain him from thumbing his nose at the Church in ending his own marriage, but it does serve as a convenient excuse for denying others the right to marry. There’s a word for that, isn’t there?

Hmmm, ya think?

What traditional marriage?

There have been a lot of claims that the marriage equality movement somehow threatens "traditional" marriage.

Exactly what is the tradition? Upon closer look, we find that our concepts of marriage have changed enormously over time. Marriage as we currently know it, based on the free association and choice of the couple, is really quite modern, maybe 150 years old. And the traditions aren't really what the anti-equality want to admire. Let's review some "traditions".

*Polygamy Although in Western cultures, we haven't practiced polygamy in some time (except, ironically, for the Mormons), there is a strong tradition of polygamy in many cultures even today. It's quite common in many parts of the world. In fact, if you go back to Biblical times, polygamy is clearly Biblically countenanced. However, it is also associated with inequities (both to women, of course, and the unpartnered men) and is socially destabilizing. And it's clear no one (on either side) is arguing for the return of polygamy!

*Then there's the issue of partner choice. Even today, marriage is really a legal contract. Traditionally, that contract was between families. Women were essentially property, to be sold with a bride price or a dowry to form alliances and bring benefits. And, arranged marriages are still very common in many countries today. It wasn't until the 1800's that the concept of marriage between romantic partners really became accepted, that marriage for love was the ideal.

*What about the tradition that marriage is for children? That one left us in the 1960s, when sex and marriage became totally decoupled by the "sexual liberation" movement. In fact, around 40% of births in the US are to unwed mothers. Moreover, many couples choose not to have children at all; there's no requirement for fecundity. Since we let the infertile and the elderly marry, we've agreed that marriage ≠ childbearing. So, procreation is no longer the reason for marriage. Another tradition already gone.

*Traditionally, marriage is between people of the same race. That tradition was Biblically justified by conservatives. However, in 1948, in Perez v. Sharp, the SCoCal found that

"the essence of the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice."

while in 1967, when SCOTUS finally caught up to California, they averred that Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," and

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. .....Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

*Of course, a huge change to "traditional marriage" comes through women's rights. It really isn't until recently, well within the last century, that women gained rights to property and consideration in their own right. It used to be that a woman had to have her husband's permission to apply for a credit card or to obtain contraception. She had no right to independent property. She could be beaten, or raped, by her husband and this was perfectly legal. In fact, it wasn't until 1993 that the last US state recognized the concept of marital rape. I don't know about you, but I don't find much to celebrate in that kind of tradition.

*Lastly, there's the availability of divorce. In our modern society in the US, most states now allow "no-fault" divorce, where blame or fault need not be assigned one partner. Rates of divorce are high, leading to the estimate that approximately 50% of marriages will be dissolved. It's important to remember that this dissolution is a legal event, not done by the church that might have married the couple. However, biblical strictures against divorce abound, far more common than any mention of same-sex relationships. The Roman Catholic church prohibits remarriage following divorce but most other denominations are more (dare I say) liberal. In fact, there is a distinct irony that those protesting most strongly against marriage equality are often those who countenance divorce, or even have themselves divorced (rates are particularly high for evangelicals). "Traditional" marriage being "for life" is therefore no longer the case. There is an implicit recognition that with our lengthened lifespans, not every couple will grow in the same way, and there is no longer an expectation that people must remain in unhappy partnership.

So, what we can see is that our modern concept of marriage is constantly evolving. From rejecting polygamy, to allowing the partners to choose one another, to separating marriage from child-bearing, to allowing people to marry across racial lines, to recognizing women as equal partners, and recognizing that marriages may not last a lifetime we've seen an enormous amount of change, and much of it is quite modern (within the last 150 or even the last 25 years). Pro-equality supporters do not want to change anything in our modern understanding of marriage, except a pronoun.

Importantly, we don't want to change one of the most important aspects of marriage: that of fidelity. Let's just look at marital fidelity. Seems the loudest exponents of "traditional marriage" have the hardest time with its most important tradition. Yes, I'm thinking of David Vitter, Larry Craig, John Ensign, and Mark Sanborn, and their ilk. And I'm comparing them to people like Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and other GLBT couples who have really been together through thick and thin despite every obstacle. Truly, who is a better exponent of "traditional marriage"?

Half of the people in this country already have the right to marry a woman of their choice. Why shouldn't everyone?

Write to marry

I was challenged to write a blog post about marriage for the Write to marry campaign. But I've already discussed my feelings about marriage, and I don't really have anything new to say.

I thought about all the Prop8 politicking and how toxic it has become to me, and then I thought there are a lot of better writers who have written things about marriage that I believe in and can agree with, things that are universal marriage-truths. What better way to celebrate the Write to Marry campaign than with real writers. And here are a few of them.

First, let's start with the political. This come from political philospher
Hannah Arendt:

The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which "the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race" are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs. [Dissent, Winter 1959]

Okay, now let's get a little more literary, but with the wry view of a modern American about marriage as a promise. From playwright Thornton Wilder:

I didn't marry you because you were perfect. I didn't even marry you because I loved you. I married you because you gave me a promise. That promise made up for your faults. And the promise I gave you made up for mine. Two imperfect people got married and it was the promise that made the marriage. And when our children were growing up, it wasn't a house thatprotected them; and it wasn't our love that protected them - it was that promise. The Skin of Our Teeth

And finally, for full blown Victorian sentimentality, from my favorite novelist George Eliot

What greater thing is there for two human souls than to feel that they are joined for life - to strengthen each other in all labor, to rest on each other in all sorrow, to minister to each other in all pain, to be one with each other in silent, unspeakable memories at the moment of the last parting. Adam Bede

I couldn't say it better myself. And fortunately, I don't need to.

The scandal of Fr. Geoff Farrow

Fr. Geoff writes today:

In a public comment, bishop Steinbock stated: “Proposition 8 is not about homosexuals and their rights.” I had to read that twice, that is EXACTLY what Proposition 8 is about. Proposition 8 if approved by California voters would take away the civil right to marry from same sex couples. In his actual “pastoral” letter for July, the bishop referenced the State Supreme Court decision and compared the court to the Nazi and Communist regimes.

And on his letter of suspension:

The bishop stated, in his letter of suspension: “Your statement contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church and has brought scandal to your parish community as well as the whole Church.” A scandal is not created by speaking the truth. The real "scandal" is placing impossibly heavy burdens on the faithful, faulting them for an act of the Creator in having created them with same sex orientation and then, not lifting a finger to help them. The traditional definition of theology is: “faith seeking understanding.” The idea that theology is a “done deal” is absurd. In the area of bioethics alone, theologians and the Church can’t even keep up with new developments in science. Psychology and neurology also have offered us considerable new insights into same sex orientation in the last generation. The Church itself has officially stated, that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.” This begs additional commentary by the Church and ultimately these new understandings should be translated into pastoral practices. We are required to teach and guide those entrusted to our care by God. Jesus himself stated: I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (John 16:12-13).

My “sin” was not to hold the position, which I hold, nor, was it even to voice it. What I stated represents current thought on this issue by many theologians, pastors and some bishops. My sin was to voice it publicly. Why is that such a big deal? Because, it represents a “crack in the dam” if, one lowly pastor in Fresno can state something contrary to the official party line today then, tomorrow it could be several priests or, God forbid, even a bishop or, two. Privately, in the ballot box on Election Day, most priests, most nuns and several bishops will vote NO on Proposition 8. Most of these people involved in pastoral ministry will do this because, like me, they know it is the right thing to do. Perhaps, fifty years from now, the “official” churchmen will.

Read it all here.

News on Proposition 8

FOX has some new videos on Proposition 8:

Proposition 8 has drawn more interest, emotion, and money than any other state proposition during this election cycle in California.

We begin this special presentation on Proposition 8 with a closer look at the proposed ban on same sex marriage, and an introduction to some folks who are giving their all to see that the vote goes their way.

Watch here.

The pro-Prop 8 people are showing their true selves.

Also more on Fr. Geoff here.

QotD on Prop 8

There are no non-religious arguments against gay marriage. And religion has no place in government. If you support Prop. 8, then you support the idea that tradition and religion — not reason — should be enshrined and enforced by government. Even though our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and says nothing about tradition.

Let me be blunt: If you don’t think gay people should be allowed to marry, you’re a bigot. And your attempt to amend the Constitution is an attempt to inject religion into politics. Worse, it’s an attempt to make unfairness into law.

If you’re a Republican, you supposedly believe in small government. That means the government stays out of people’s business, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody. Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anybody. Therefore, if you’re a Republican, you should oppose Proposition 8.

If you’re a human, you probably believe government should be fair at the most basic levels. Not discriminating on sexual preference counts as “fair at the most basic level.” Therefore, if you’re a human, you should vote NO on Proposition 8.

If you don’t want to help set a precedent that government has a business in controlling individual freedoms that have no ill effect on society, then you should vote NO on Proposition 8.

Pretty simple, really. ---Scot Hacker in his blog post Amendment Song

Some reflections on being married

Greetings all, and thank you for your kind wishes here at the Friends blog and elsewhere. I was very touched that my previous post was picked up by so many internet friends, and want to shout out to James, FranIam, Grandmere Mimi, Counterlight and Madpriest for their kind replies.

Our wedding last Sunday went off wonderfully, and we have just returned after a relaxing, and largely internet-free, honeymoon which we spent doing nothing in particular. During this time we of course contemplated the remarkable fact of being married and what it means to us.

Of course, it has not changed what we mean to each other. I have loved my beloved partner-spouse for many years with every part of my being, nothing different there.

But what HAS changed is something of our view of our relationship. We were rather surprised to find that we both felt this change.

First, of course, there is the weight of the State. (This became particularly apparent with some minor issues regarding the proper filing of the license). We are legally tied together with the ponderous ropes of officialdom. Yes, that is a difference; not that we ever took our relationship casually, but it is something much more weighty than an informal agreement between two women--not just a private leap over a broomstick, but real in every official sense with its rights and also its responsibilities.

Second, there is the amazing feature of standing before family and friends and making our vows in public. That was stunning. We were both blown away by the love and focus of those around us, reaching their hands to us, robustly and vocally offering their support of us as a couple.

Third, there is the sense of belonging to the tapestry of community. As a lesbian couple, we have often felt unwanted and on the outside, but now we are undeniably part of the whole. We now are a new thread in this fabric, another married couple contributing to its strength and texture.

Finally, we were struck by how, well, very normal this all was as an event. It was a pretty typical wedding, with tears of joy and laughter, food, wine and celebration. Nothing made this a "gay" wedding. It was simply a wedding, of two people who love each other completely, gathered to unite in a shared life together.

Just one week ago, and the world has changed. It was truly a most amazing day!

Please help us stay married. No on Prop 8!

IT is getting married

Dear Friends,
Tomorrow, Oct 12, your token atheist IT and her beloved partner (BP) will marry each other in a civil service in California. In all meaningful personal respects, we have been married for years, but we are seizing the opportunity to marry legally in the eyes of the State. You might call it "claiming the blessing" ;-). I'll be away for awhile on a honeymoon, where I plan to avoid the internet.

I am confident in the support of all my friends here at Friends-of-Jake's. If you feel the urge to commemorate our happy event, please leave me a note in the comments! We are also asking friends to consider donations to the No on Prop 8 campaign (because we would like our marriage to be legal after Nov 4th), or Feeding America, aka America's Second Harvest, to feed the hungry in these hard economic times.

Over at Susan Russell's blog, Susan posted this amazing poem a while back, which BP and I find very resonant. I'll leave you with that, and thank you in advance for your good wishes for me and my dearest beloved. I'll see you in ten days or so.

Touched by an Angel

We, unaccustomed to courage
exiles from delight
live coiled in shells of loneliness
until love leaves its high holy temple
and comes into our sight
to liberate us into life.

Love arrives
and in its train come ecstasies
old memories of pleasure
ancient histories of pain.
Yet if we are bold,
love strikes away the chains of fear
from our souls.

We are weaned from our timidity
In the flush of love's light
we dare be brave
And suddenly we see
that love costs all we are
and will ever be.
Yet it is only love
which sets us free.

-Maya Angelou

Conn. Rules For Same-Sex Couples

Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Read the entire article at Conn. high court rules same-sex couples can marry.