Editorial
Editorial
Blessing of the Times
Last
month was a busy one in the cultural wars– and as I write, the month
is only two-thirds done.
A New York judge ruled that the City
of New York could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Supposedly
gay-friendly Mayor Michael Blumberg immediately directed the city's attorneys
to appeal the decision.
The Tennessee legislature approved
the wording of a 2006 ballot question that would amend the state's constitution
to ban gays from marriage. Fortunately, a separate bill barring gays from
adoption died in a State House committee.
Same-sex partners of Michigan
public employees lost access to health, death and pension benefits through
their spouses if an opinion from the state Attorney General's Office about
the voter-passed Proposal 2 holds sway. The proposal defines marriage
as between one man and one woman.
A California court ruled that just
because it is a tradition of long-standing to do so, there is "no
rational basis" for banning same-sex marriage.
And another bill to write anti-gay
discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by banning same-sex marriage
and civil unions was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.
But despite holy invective from the
Vatican, Canada and Spain are preparing to recognize same-sex marriages.
Burlington became the first school
district in Vermont to add "gender identity and expression"
to its student anti-harassment policy.
And after being brave and compassionate
two years ago in ordaining its first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson,
the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church USA did a fancy two-step
with the Anglican Communion around their outrage and demonization of queers.
At first glance, it looked like one
of our mainstream Christian allies had sold us out. And maybe it will
turn out that they will. Right now the discussion seems to be a lot about
semantics, when it should be about lgbt lives – and for these Christians,
about lgbt souls.
The Worldwide Anglican Communion demanded
an apology from the American church earlier this year for causing such
a ruckus, and ordered that it no longer ordain gay or lesbian bishops
or bless same-sex unions.
Last month, the Episcopal House of Bishops
met in Texas and agreed to apologize to the rest of the Anglican world
for the "breach of affections" that the American Episcopals
had caused by ordaining an openly gay bishop. The group also agreed not
to authorize liturgies for same-sex unions or bless any such unions –
until June of 2006. More on that later.
Sounds like they caved to the pressure
of the most conservative and reactionary elements of their church.
But wait, there's one other thing
the bishops did, akin to straight allies donning the pink triangle: rather
than single out potential gay and lesbian candidates for bishop to refuse
ordination to, the bishops decided that no candidates for bishop of any
gender or sexual identity will be ordained for the next year.
So, the fine print, as elucidated
by Vermont's Episcopal Bishop Thomas Ely, is that the statement agreed
to by the bishops is binding only on the bishops, and only so far as the
bishops individually and collectively have authority over the issues in
question.
"This is an agreement as to how
we bishops will behave," Ely said. Then he explained that he doesn't
normally officiate at weddings or civil unions, unless a member of the
clergy is one of the partners. Current practice in the Episcopal Church
is that any priest wishing to bless a same-sex union must first get permission
from his or her bishop. That hasn't changed.
When the section of the document
banning the bishops from blessing same-sex unions came up for a vote Ely
voted against. In the end, he said, when the entire statement came up
for a vote, the presiding bishop asked whether "we could live with
the document," and after prayer and reflection, Ely voted yes.
The Worldwide Anglican Communion may
read the bishops' statement saying "we" as representing the
whole of the American church. But the House of Bishops represents only
part of the church. That's where the importance of June 2006 comes in.
It's the date of the next Episcopal General Convention, made up of the
bishops – and lay people and clergy (the House of Deputies) deciding
together where the church is going and how it is going to get there.
Maybe a cooling off period is useful for
both sides here. Maybe during that period those in the U.S. and elsewhere
who believe that their god made some people – lesbians and gay men
– inferior, automatically damned, without salvation, maybe they
will find a new revelation about faith and what it means to be human and
made in the image of the god they worship, the image of love, not hate.
And maybe the Episcopal General Convention
will stand up – again – for lgbt Christians, holding out a
light to their benighted co-religionists enduring a dark night of the
soul.
I have not believed in a patriarchal
god in decades. But I recognize the power of churches to shape belief
and reality in ways that continue to affect the world we live in as gay
men and lesbians of whatever faith or none. I send out my energy to the
universe that the Episcopalians will have the strength of their convictions,
and that their convictions will bless all of us eventually.
Euan Bear,
Editor