Same-gender unions and where we are this morning

By now you have probably heard about the ruling by a federal judge striking down Proposition 8 in California, the voter-approved ban on same-gender marriage. Depending on who is talking, the ruling was hailed as a victory for equal rights or vilified as an attack on the institution of marriage.

The judge in the case, Vaughn R. Walker, immediately stayed his decision pending appeals so it will have no immediate effect. Doubtless this issue will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision is certain to add further fuel the culture wars over marriage and the already acidic debate within our church over the meaning of marriage. I have traveled my own theological and scriptural path on this topic over many years and my own view has changed to embrace a more inclusive view. I believe the Gospel brings us there. I did not get there easily or quickly.

I have been blessed by being in a traditional marriage, blessed by the Church, for more than 20 years. Yet I have come to the conclusion that there is a side to the "traditional" view of marriage that is based primarily on a cultural bias pandering to an age-old prejudice against homosexuals. That cultural bias is supported by superficial interpretations of the Bible that collapse under closer scrutiny. Culture comes from people, not God. We create culture and we can change culture.

I cannot imagine how a marriage between two people of the same gender could possibly threaten my marriage. In fact, they might even inspire me to strengthen and renew my own marriage. By honoring their marriage, I honor my own.

Our Book of Common Prayer says that the marriage between husband and wife is "intended by God for their mutual joy." Why would we think God would limit that union for mutual joy only to straight couples? Why wouldn't God intend to honor the loving commitment of two people of the same gender? And note: the purpose of marriage is not procreation. Were it so, then I suppose you would have to argue that couples who have no children, like Lori and myself, don't have a valid marriage or a valid reason to be married.

Not everyone will agree with my reasoning, and that is their right. But I ask that disagreement come respectfully.

As readers of this space know, I am serving on a task force in the Diocese of Virginia that is writing a proposed set of guidelines for same-gender unions. We have met three times, and will meet again next week. The work has been fascinating as we have gathered a great deal of information from around the country on the topic and a variety of guidelines that differ on a number of points.

We have done our work in an atmosphere of mutual trust and candor. I will not prematurely publish anything here -- we are still working through a number of issues, and our work is only a recommendation. Meanwhile, Bishop Shannon Johnston will commence a series of open meetings around the diocese this fall, and we want to be able to hear the fruit of that discussion. We expect our recommended guidelines to be complete by November.

We have examined a great deal of theological and liturgical resources from many places. I would especially recommend for your reading a report from the Diocese of San Diego that covers the theological and scriptural issues. You can download the Report of the San Diego Task Force on Holiness in Relationships and the Blessing of Same-Sex Relationships by clicking HERE.

The story of salvation, as told by the Bible, is the long march of God's people moving beyond human-created oppression by recognizing heaven right here on earth. When we stand for the equality of people, we join that march. The story of Jesus Christ is of the divine come to earth as human to show us the way out of oppression; Jesus goes into the very depths of Hell to bring us out, and Jesus includes all people in his saving grace. Jesus invites all into his loving embrace and with no limits to salvation. Neither should we.

Protecting families in the wake of Proposition 8

Recently, the step-mother of a prominent member of our congregation died suddenly. This member of our congregation happens to be gay. His partner of many years, who is also very active in the parish and who considered the deceased his mother-in-law, was unable to take bereavement leave from work. 

That hurt this family deeply. Such is the state of the civil law in Virginia, where only one type of family, between married people of the opposite sex, is recognized. Make no mistake: the civil law matters and has an impact on the everyday life of families.

I'd like to start there in reading yesterday's decision by the California Supreme Court on Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. We ought to be concerned with strengthening families, and to do so we need to recognize that there are a variety of families in our community -- straight, gay, and those with single parents. 

The tragedy of yesterday's ruling is it creates more outcasts in our society when we ought to be working to achieve unity. Inevitably, the decision will be read as affirmation by those who think their type of family is threatened by the existence of other types of families. That is simply wrong and has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Last night, I took the chance to re-read the California Supreme Court carefully (see post below from yesterday for my initial impressions, and for a link to the opinion). The court maintained that even with the repeal of the designation "marriage" for gay people, there remains in place a structure of rights to protect families -- all kinds of families -- in California. 

Nothing remotely close to that exists in Virginia. 

The ruling is likely to please no one. The court appeared to reverse itself from last year when it said that marriage is a right that cannot be confined to one class of adults. Yet yesterday the justices argued that the word "marriage" is simply a designation with no underlying rights. On pages 34-37, the opinion sets up a legal designation for gay unions with all of the rights of marriage as long as it is not called "marriage." Here's the crux of the court's opinion:

The new constitutional provision cannot properly be interpreted as having repealed, by implication, the preexisting state constitutional right of same-sex couples to enter into an officially recognized and protected family relationship except insofar as that preexisting constitutional right included the right of access to the designation of marriage...

[A]lthough Proposition 8 eliminates the ability of same-sex couples to enter into an official relationship designated “marriage,” in all other respects those couples continue to possess, under the state constitutional privacy and due process clauses, “the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage,” including, “most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.”

In other words, if the proponents of Proposition 8 believe they were peeling back all legal protections of gay people, they are wrong. What the court appears to have done is set up a new designation without name for legal unions among people of the same sex. The word "marriage" ends up with an unclear legal meaning.

Not to put to fine a point on this, but such legal verbal gymnastics do not pass the duck test: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If it looks like marriage, has all the rights of marriage, isn't it marriage? The California Supreme Court wrote a decision that might work in a law school classroom, but it lacks basic common sense. At best it creates more legal confusion around who is married, who is not, and what marriage legally looks like. There is no doubt that California voters will be asked once again to decide who can and cannot be married.

And that brings me back to Virginia. Yesterday evening, Lori and I joined a gathering of 35-40 people at "Free Speech Wall" in front of Charlottesville City Hall to show our support of our gay brothers and sisters who have been denied the basic right to be married, and to show our opposition to the California Supreme Court ruling. It was one of two demonstrations in Virginia on the issue last night. We then marched up to the federal building and stood with signs for about a half hour. Motorists driving by signaled support, and more than a few quizzical looks.

We were there for a simple reason: It is time that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Virginia are afforded the same legal protections for their families that Lori and I enjoy. Churches may marry whom they wish to marry, but that should have no bearing on our basic legal rights as American citizens.

It is time to protect families in this state. It is the right thing to do.

California Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 and gay marriage

As you probably know by now, the California Supreme Court handed up its ruling this morning on Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as between opposite-sex couples. The court ruled that the amendment was valid, but also ruled that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed up until last November remain legally valid. You can read the full decision in Strauss v. Holton by clicking HERE.

I have read the decision, and I am struck by a number of items. In one sense, the court ruled narrowly, saying that its responsibility was confined to deciding whether the voters had amended the state constitution validly: "It bears emphasis in this regard," the court wrote, "that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

The court noted that, unlike the U.S. Constitution, amending the California Constitution is relatively easy. There have been only 27 amendments to the federal constitution since 1789 while there have been more than 500 amendments to the state's constitution in barely a century.

Here is where today's ruling gets interesting; the California Supreme Court rested its decision on the premise that Proposition 8 did not, in fact, limit the rights of same-sex couples other than to remove the designation of "marriage" from such unions. The court said that to have limited rights would have been a constitutional "revision," and that the voters cannot do.

The Supreme Court maintained that the legal rights of couples, same-sex or opposite-sex, remain unchanged regardless of whether it is called "marriage." Proposition 8, the court said, left "undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

Yet is that true? Last year, the same state Supreme Court ruled that marriage was so inherently important that it could not be denied couples based merely on their gender or gender preference.

Therein is the crux of the moral, legal and political argument that will continue to take place. Are rights (not privileges) being denied, as the court ruled they were only a year ago? The stories of real human beings must be told -- again. Those with open hearts, I pray, will listen. No church, no member of the clergy, is being forced to perform any kind of marriage ceremony he or she does not agree with. I also pray that those of us who support equal access to marriage will do so in a way that is without rancor, that looks for the best in people, and not their worst, and seeks always to bring healing and reconciliation among all people.

As religious people, as followers of Jesus Christ, I pray that compassion will be our guide. And compassion should bring us to a place of support for those who wish to live in loving, committed relationships called marriage, with the full protection of the law. What would Jesus do?

Seek patience and passion

The remainder of this week promises to be busy. There is much happening in our church and in the world. 

We celebrate Pentecost this Sunday, and I hope it will be a wonderful celebration of God's call to us through the Holy Spirit to be active in the world, listening, working, healing and seeking reconciliation and justice wherever and whenever we can. 

Pentecost is about being the Church beyond the walls of churches, and that means being involved in the messiness of the world.

Today the California Supreme Court will hand up its decision on Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would ban gay marriage. While the decision applies only to one state, many eyes including here will be watching, waiting, praying, and analyzing every word.

Amidst all of this, I thought I would give you a short poem by Maya Angelou today:

Seek Patience

by Maya Angelou

Seek patience
and passion
in equal amounts.

Patience alone
will not build the temple.

Passion alone
will destroy its walls.

The stance on gay marriage is changing

I have a few items to bring you today. First, from our U.K. friends at Ekkelesia, a story published today about how the stance is shifting in favor of gay relationships among some evangelicals. 

That shift appears to be generational. The New York Times this weekend took note that a PBS poll last fall found that 58 percent of white evangelicals under the age of 30 favor some form of legal status for same-sex unions. Ekkelsia in a story this morning noted:

Four Evangelical groups who believe the churches need a positive change of heart and mind on homosexuality have said condemning hate groups is not enough. They want Christian acceptance of gay people.

They have called on churches and Christian organisations condemning an American anti-gay hate group to face up to their own discriminatory policies and behaviour - and to embrace conversion.

To read the full story, click HERE.

As mentioned above, The New York Times this weekend noted the cultural landscape on LGBT issues is changing. The Times ran two op-ed pieces that are worth your time and discussion. In the first, jointly written by David Blankenhorn (a conservative) and Jonathan Rauch (a liberal), is titled A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage, and suggests a way of compromise. The second piece, by William Saletan, a writer for Slate, is titled This is the Way the Culture Wars End. Both pieces are food for thought and discussion, and may point a way forward.