Note from Rowland: another provocative comment from a very (theologically and politically) liberal Episcopal priest. It's posted here for mature folks like you to argue with, not because I necessarily agree with everything Harry says.

10/02/09

Harry T. Cook

Marriage is once again in the news, and this time it's not the doing of those hopelessly liberal, gay-and-lesbian loving Episcopalians. The newsmaker in this case is a contender for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Virginia who is trying to cast himself as a moderate. Good luck with that. Robert McDonnell's anything-but-moderate chickens have come home to roost in the form of his bachelor's thesis in which he advocated for government procedures that would downgrade "cohabitators, homosexuals and fornicators" in the eyes of the law while favoring couples united in marriage. McDonnell was a little late in his advocacy because that's just about how it already is in a society whose understanding of marriage is generally pretty narrow. "Marriage" is an English noun that names the relationship between persons who have committed themselves to live together and share each other's life. Commonly -- some would say usually -- marriage is licensed by and registered with a local government entity, giving that government what is known as a "compelling interest" in the union against the possibility of its complication in divorce proceedings, consequent division of property and custody of children, if any. Also is the fact that marriage is usually reserved to a woman and a man, though in four U.S. states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont), same-sex marriages are at present licit and performed. In Maine they were permitted as of Sept.11, pending a possible people's veto in November. On January 1, New Hampshire will begin to allow them. A November 2008 referendum in California ended further licensing of them there, leaving pro-same-sex marriage groups to ponder the timing of a challenge. Mirabile dictu, the one-time foes in Bush v. Gore, Theodore Olson and David Boies (the former having prevailed), have come together to fight the California ban. If the State of New York can ever get its legislative machinery unstuck, the marriage of same-sex couples may happen there. Already such marriages from other states and countries are recognized in New York, as they are in Washington, D.C., even though they are not now legally performed in either venue. Meanwhile, the rest of us have been officially discouraged by one of the most absurd of all acts of Congress, the so-called Defense of Marriage law of 1996. Thus to dispense justice to deserving same-sex couples such members of the clergy as your essayist have from time to time offered the church's nuptial blessing to two men or two women seeking recognition of their state of marriage, and have done so, at least in my case, without leave of our bishops. One Episcopal bishop, Leo Frade of the Miami, Fla., diocese, announced recently that he would allow clergy under his supervision to bless the same-sex unions of couples who were legally married in other U.S. states or countries.

Until recently, the bishops of the Episcopal Church USA have felt themselves constrained by the reluctance of the church's national governing body to approve rites for such blessings. That seems now to be changing, as the Miami decision suggests. Earlier, however, there came a pointed commentary from the Most. Rev. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, advocating maintenance of the status quo ante. Williams, the titular leader of the worldwide Anglican communion with which the Episcopal Church is affiliated, is, in effect, a rope being pulled to and fro in a tug of war by the feuding sides of the church's unending argument over human sexuality. At one end of the rope are the church's homophobic, bible-believing conservatives who, laboring under the weight of their evidently incurable intolerance, insist that gay and lesbian persons who reject the celibate state are ipso facto personae non gratae in the church.

At the other end are the American progressives who have come to see that gay and lesbian persons are not, after all, fundamentally flawed human beings and therefore should not be disqualified from full membership, marriage or ordination in the church on the basis of their sexual orientation. Williams is trying to keep both ends tugging, fearing if those at the one end let go and walk away, he'll be left in a heap with those at the other. For him, it seems that keeping the flock together in any semblance of union, however bogus, takes precedence over the realization of justice and human dignity. No good purpose is served by masking that tactic as "pastoral."

It's not pastoral; it's pusillanimous.

In a weak attempt to parse the difference, Williams has decreed that "a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority" of the church any more than a blessing for a heterosexual couple living outside of marriage would have. Really? Does Williams believe that the antique pomp of a clergyperson's benediction is what makes a marriage? In 45 years of parish work, I always made it clear to couples who came for premarital preparation that I would not finally officiate at their wedding unless and until I was certain that by the day and hour of the ceremony they had attained a recognizable state of marriage. I went further to say that they had best live together for a season to make certain that they could actually bring that state to the blessing they sought, meaning, of course, that, contra Williams, they would cohabitate before receiving the nuptial blessing. If Williams' attitude were to prevail in the American church, wherein, by the way, he has not the slightest authority, it would mean that plenty of loyal Episcopalians and many of the church's clergy would be disenfranchised. Williams said in a communiqué earlier this summer that as long as most of the Anglican church "as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle."

First of all, Most Reverend sir, marriage is not a "lifestyle." It is the living out of a commitment two people have made to live together for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health, loving and cherishing each other. Second, do you mean by your statement to say that Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who almost surely will become a party in a state-sanctioned, same-sex marriage, must subsequently lay aside the episcopal vestments? Do you mean that gay and lesbian persons or so-called "straight" men and women who live together unmarried and serve on vestries of hundreds of Episcopal churches in America must either become celibate or resign? As to "serious incongruity," that's precisely the state in which a church animated by the gospel has ever had its being, viz., neither following nor condoning social, economic and political norms that are unjust. Sorry to say, you're going to have to find somewhere else to be arch, bishop.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

© Copyright 2009, Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.