Reflections to mark the one year anniversary of the passage of
Proposition 8 in California
November 3rd 2009
This week, I attended two of the California Faith for Equality statewide
demonstrations for equal rights in
California.
Orange County’s service had about 80 people present and
San Diego had
about 50 people for a lunchtime “60 Minutes for Equality” service. North San Diego County had over 100 people meeting on
Monday evening, one of the largest gatherings in the region. I commend
California Faith for Equality and her partners for this demonstration of clergy
and lay opposition to the current status quo. Like it or not, clergy continue to
be the gatekeepers of marriage in California,
Maine and
every other state in the union. The LGBT community and those who advocate for
equal rights, if they have not realized this fact by now, may see the defeat of
equal rights in Maine as a wake up call to engage more deeply
with the religious dimensions to marriage. Until recently, the religious
dimension has been strategically avoided by the equality camp. Maine has changed
that.
One of the marks of a healthy marriage is tenacity and good
communication. This past year has been difficult for us in California where a slim
majority of the electorate stripped the constitutional rights of LGBT citizens
and to limited future state sanctioned marriages between a man and a woman. In
spite of this blow, the LGBT community and our allies have shown remarkable
tenacity in continuing to engage voters who disagree with us. Tenacity and good
communication! Equality California, one of the leading statewide movements for
LGBT rights has for example continued to have over 600,0000 conversations this
year and hired twenty full time field managers. They in turn train thousands of
volunteers to go door by door to “Yes on 8” voters to present another story and
to show the disparity in rights. This process is to be commended, as it is about
engaging in deeper conversations where we are discovering meaning and community
in this new engagement with one another. Much of the experience we gained in
California last year was utilized in Maine and Washington, where the rights of fellow
Americans are being stripped away yet again by the Roman Catholic Church’s
leadership and funding. Not only are the constitutional rights of fellow
Americans under threat, but the freedom of religious leaders to respond
pastorally and liturgically to same gender couples continues to be compromised.
6,000 clergy in California are, (from our interpretation of
scripture, from a pastoral and justice perspective), unable to function fully as
pastors to all members of our congregations, even when the vast majority of our
membership are willing to celebrate sacramental marriages with same gender
couples. Some of us feel torn between our official role as agents of the state
in officiating at weddings and being pastors to all our people, including the
LGBT community. To discriminate, as enforced by the Department of Public
Health’s current policy not to grant marriage licenses to same gender couples,
runs contrary to many of our religious convictions of serving an inclusive faith
community where all God’s children are welcomed and where the sacraments are
open, (as in my Episcopal tradition), to all the baptized.
Some of us are now refusing to sign any state marriage licenses until we
can sign licenses for all whom we discern to be called by God into a sacramental
marriage. Others are continuing to bless and celebrate marriages of couples who
come to us. Where the California electorate is almost evenly divided
on this issue, the religious community cannot be forced to follow the edicts of
a state department that is advocating the theological and political views of the
slim majority. Either civil marriage is open to all couples, (as is the case in
some states, in most European countries, New
Zealand, Canada and South
Africa) or there needs to be a religious exemption clause
that will allow the 6,000 clergy here in California to respond to the call of God and
define marriage as our faith communities allow. Historically, the church defined
and controlled marriage until the civil role of registering marriages was taken
over by the state. Throughout this state control, the Roman Catholic Church for
centuries has delineated civil and sacramental marriage. When the state
dissolves a marriage in divorce, there is a portion of that contract that the
Roman Catholic Church claims the state has no jurisdiction over. Hence there is
a need for a process of annulment to dissolve the marriage. The Roman Catholic
Church has set a precedent, and 6,000 clergy representing mainstream churches,
the Jewish community and other faith traditions should learn from this tradition
and apply it to our current dilemma. Historically, there is a part of the
sacrament of marriage that the state does not control, that is claimed by the
authority of the faith community and God alone.
Roman Catholics tenaciously hold the right to use this
privilege for their own interpretation of marriage, but will they allow clergy
and congregations who might share some of the similar views of what makes a
sacramental marriage to do the same? In other words, can we continue to bless
and sanctify same gender marriages within our faith traditions even thought they
are not recognized by the Department of Heath? Can a state employee who has not
professional theological or religious credential tell 6,000 clergy in California their
marriages are not “sacramentally” valid?
I recently married a couple who were legally married in California but did not
have a religious ceremony. They told me they did not feel “married”. They wanted
a ceremony where they could demonstrate their love and commitment in front of
friends and family and they wanted a religious leader there to perform the
ceremony. We planned a sacramental marriage, and even though it was not a legal
service (no state forms to sign), for everyone present. This was an actual
marriage and in the eyes of the community present, Aaron and Rusty moved from
being a partnered couple to being married.
One of the ways forward and avoid the 50/50 popular vote “standoff” that
we will soon find ourselves in may be for the religious and state communities to
come to terms with the complexity of this issue and to develop an agreed simple
solution. The constitution should allow for all responsible adult citizens to
marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with. The
state will remain responsible for the registration of all marriages through the
existing licensing process. The religious community should also be allowed to
define marriage as they understand it and not be forced to do something which is
contrary to that understanding. Even though the larger Christian church has no
agreed definition of marriage (or divorce), there is agreement that the state
should not use its civil authority to impose the theological and political views
of a slim majority upon everyone.
Shannon Minter, the attorney who argued the case for same gender
marriages before the Supreme Court would invite us all to appeal to our
consciences and to invite those couples who are currently denied their full
civil rights to indeed live as if we were married. More and more couples in
California and
other states, as a common act of conscience and in defiance of a great social
injustice, (often portrayed with a religious mask of orthodoxy) will come to us
seeking God’s blessing and the blessing of the friends and community. We cannot
be totally defined by a department of state, or by the will of the slim
majority. Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion is core values in our
democracy and the pillars of church and state must always stand
apart.
Dr. Margaret Farley, a Roman Catholic ethicist from Yale in her book
“Just Love” gives us some insights into what a new and inclusive ethic for
marriage might look like. She creates a 21st century model of what it
means to live in and to bless a “sacramental marriage” that is built upon her
Roman Catholic background and broader Christian experience. Her model applies to
heterosexuals principally, but is inclusive of same gender couples.
Principle 1: Self determination –is an affirmation by each partner of
what it means to be a person rather than “scooping you into my agenda”. This
demands the ethic of mutual respect for persons as ends in themselves and not to
harm them “unjustly”) Farley has worked in difficult contexts like Africa where gender inequality is one of the major reasons
for the increase of HIV infection in women. Her context is compelling as she
notes this principle has been dangerously absent in many heterosexual
relationships.
Principle 2: Respect for the autonomy of the other –ensuring the free
consent of sexual partners. This should include truth telling and promise
keeping.
Principle 3: Equality of Power which ensures the protection of the
vulnerability of the other to allow for possibilities of growth.
Principle 4: Commitment –an enduring love in which each person can learn
to be faithful and hope-full.
Principle 5: Fruitfulness, which in traditional Roman Catholic teaching
was focused solely on reproduction of children. Farley expands this model to
talk about both the creation of children and the possibility of being called in
a “fruitful” sacramental relationship the care of other people’s children. How
do we create institutions that create safety and security for future
generations? For Farley, non procreative relationships for heterosexual and same
gender couples can be fruitful and therefore sacramental.
Farley is one ethicist who is struggling with traditional church teaching
and the possibilities a new ethic for sacramental marriage. Her emerging
framework is both challenging to heterosexuals who seek to live out sacramental
marriages and to same gender couples who may be called to the same holy lives.
Dare the state or the church tell us that we should not affirm and bless them on
their journeys? She also challenges us to think more deeply about what makes a
marriage successful, like tenacity and good communication as I addressed
earlier. Love can help a married coupled but it is often not enough to sustain
the challenges faced by two human beings. She challenges us to inject the
concept of justice into our ethic of marriage as a more stable and helpful
concept. Equality in marriage is not only something we should wish for the LGBT
community, but equality may be an essential antidote to breaking the
contemporary pattern of one in two American marriages failing. Most clergy see
our work to connect all people with one another and to affirm our inclusion in a
mysterious creation, that we believe has meaning purpose and we experience that
more clearly in deep loving relationships. The struggle for marriage equality
for LGBT people is connected to this larger search for meaning and love and to
discover helpful ethical frameworks that hold people and families together. To
attempt to exclude us or prevent us from fulfilling this vocation with, LGBT
couples, our faith communities, families and allies, I believe is to do a great
disservice to this higher calling.
______________________________
Rev. Canon Albert Ogle is Vice President for National
Affairs with Integrity and serves on the California Council of Churches Impact
Board. He serves as clergy in St. Paul’s Cathedral San Diego and works for
Equality California.
This weekend was all about celebrating milestones in one form or another in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. As Episcopalians of the diocese assembled over the weekend for the Fort Worth Convention, some of the milestones we faced were witnessing the first female ordained to the priesthood in the diocese’s history, discussion on same-gender marriage was part of the resolutions which included discussion that LGBT Episcopalians should not be overlooked nor disregarded and are our sisters and brothers, and Integrity was allowed (for the first time) to have a presence.
