Open Hands Vol 12 No 4 - Same-Sex Unions

Open Hands Vol 12 No 4 - Same-Sex Unions

12

4

1997

Spring

Same -Sex
Unions
Vol. 12 No. 4
Spring 1997
2 Open Hands
Vol. 12 No. 4 Spring 1997
Resources for Ministries Affirming
the Diversity of Human Sexuality
Open Hands is a resource for congregations
and individuals seeking to be in
ministry with lesbian, bisexual, and gay
persons. Each issue focuses on a specific
area of concern within the church.
Open Hands is published quarterly by
the Reconciling Congregation Program,
Inc. (United Methodist) in cooperation
with the Association of Welcoming &
Affirming Baptists (American), the More
Light Churches Network (Presbyterian),
the Open and Affirming (United Church
of Christ), and the Reconciled in Christ
(Lutheran) programs. Each of these programs
is a national network of local
churches that publicly affirm their ministry
with the whole family of God and
welcome lesbian and gay persons and
their families into their community
of faith. These five programs— along
with Open and Affirming (Disciples of
Christ), Supportive Congregations
(Brethren/Mennonite), and Welcoming
(Unitarian Universalist)— offer hope
that the church can be a reconciled community.
Open Hands is published quarterly.
Subscription is $20 for four issues ($25
outside the U.S.). Single copies and back
issues are $6. Quantities of 10 or more,
$4 each.
Subscriptions, letters to the editor,
manuscripts, requests for advertising
rates, and other correspondence should
be sent to:
Open Hands
3801 N. Keeler Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Phone: 773 / 736-5526
Fax: 773 / 736-5475
Member, The Associated Church Press
© 1997
Reconciling Congregation Program, Inc.
Open Hands is a registered trademark.
ISSN 0888-8833
w Printed on recycled paper.
Same-Sex Unions
IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES
Same-Sex Unions: Introduction to the Issues 4
EDITOR
It’s Not About Marriage—It’s About Civil Rights! 5
MEL WHITE
How do we name the issue and why? How we answer
may unintentionally give fuel to the Religious Right.
The Church and Covenant Relationships:
Moving Toward a Renewed Understanding 8
DAVID BELT
What does it mean for one person to be in relationship
with another? What is the difference between a religious
covenant and a legal contract?
The Prior Question: A Theological Basis for
Blessing Same-Gender Covenants 12
MIRIAM H. PRICHARD
What would Jesus do? What do the Gospels imply? One
description of the issues before a Baptist church in the
Southeast.
Legal Considerations 14
PATRICIA V. LONG
A member of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh
sketches legal problems same-sex couples face.
The Hawaii Case: A Summary 15
EDITOR
SHARING THE STORIES
Companions 16
MAREN C. TIRABASSI
A poet-pastor reflects on funeral decorum where samesex
couples are involved.
The Wrong Question 17
TOM BOLLER
A district superintendent caught short by a General Conference
conversation takes steps to articulate his beliefs.
Spring 1997 3
NEXT ISSUE:
Creating Sanctuary:
All Youth
Welcome Here!
Publisher
Mark Bowman
Editor
Mary Jo Osterman
Designer
In Print—Jan Graves
Program Coordinators
Mark Bowman
Reconciling Congregation
Program, Inc. (UMC)
3801 N. Keeler Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
773/736-5526
Ann B. Day
Open and Affirming
Program (UCC)
P.O. Box 403
Holden, MA 01520
508/856-9316
Bob Gibeling
Reconciled in Christ
Program (Lutheran)
2466 Sharondale Drive
Atlanta, GA 30305
404/266-9615
Dick Lundy
More Light Churches
Network (PCUSA)
5525 Timber Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
612/470-0093
Brenda J. Moulton
Welcoming & Affirming
Baptists (ABC/USA)
P.O. Box 2596
Attleboro Falls, MA 02763
508/226-1945
Editorial Advisory Committee
Howard Bess, W&A
Ann Marie Coleman, ONA
Dick Hasbany, MLCN
Dorothy Klefstad, RIC
Sue Laurie, RCP
Tammy Lindahl, MLCN
Samuel E. Loliger, ONA
Tim Phillips, W&A
Lisa Ann Pierce, SCN
Dick Poole, RIC
Caroline Presnell, RCP
Paul Santillán, RCP
Joanne Sizoo, MLCN
Stuart Wright, RIC
SELECTED RESOURCES
27
WELCOMING
COMMUNITIES
28
MOVEMENT NEWS
30
The Meaning of a Jewish Blessing 18
STEVEN FOLBERG
A rabbi shares a story.
Steps on a Journey 20
ALYSON HUNTLY
Two United Church of Canada congregations seek to be
inclusive with two different kinds of processes.
Experiences of a Bi-National Lesbian Couple 22
ANONYMOUS
Eight years after they became a couple, they still don’t
have permanent residency in either partner’s country—
but they’re close!
R.S.V.P. 24
SUSAN PALMQUIST
A hospital chaplain shares a modern midrash sermon on
Matthew 22:1-14.
SUSTAINING THE SPIRIT
Be for us a model 26
TIMOTHY KOCHER-HILLMER
A hymn for the blessing of a commitment.
Tapestry of Light 26
AMANDA UDIS-KESSLER
A song for a holy union.
ASIDES
Rights and Protections Denied ...... 6
MEL WHITE
Shifting Justification for Sex .......... 9
E. J. GRAFF
Where Does Your
Denomination Stand? ................ 11
EDITOR
Vows of Commitment ................ 13
BETH HEALY AND KATHIE HOPKINS
Closing Words ........................... 14
APACHE PRAYER
Two Men’s Devotion .................. 17
KYLE SWIHART
Resolution of Reform Judaism ..... 18
UAHC
Friends Affirm Same-Sex
Marriage ................................ 19
4 Open Hands
Identifying
the
Issues
Same-sex (same-gender) marriage
has hit the public forum rather
dramatically in the last year or so.
Prior to the Hawaii case and the “Defense
of Marriage Act,” our country was
focused on “gays in the military,” “special
rights” initiatives by the Religious
Right, and local gay/lesbian rights initiatives.
Many activists were working
hard on domestic partnership benefits,
not on legal and congressional approval
of same-sex marriages. Now, state legislators
are rushing to ban recognition
of same-sex marriage from one state to
another.
Today, activists are torn between critiquing
the institution of marriage and
working for gays and lesbians to have
the right to marry. And, as Mel White
points out, the Religious Right has set
the agenda by quickly using the visibility
of the Hawaii case to once again
work against gay rights (see p. 5).
Yet, the issue is not simply political.
We need only recall “The Wedding,”
sponsored by the National Federation
of Metropolitan Community Churches
at the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual March on
Washington (24 April 1993) to realize
that the desire for ceremonies of samesex
commitment has grass roots appeal.
At that event, at least 2600 same-sex
couples, complete with tuxedos and
wedding gowns, made a public commitment
in a mass ritual and then celebrated
their unions in privately organized
receptions around the city.1 Gays
and lesbians want the ritual as well as
the right to marry.
The issue of same-sex unions is now
emerging publicly within welcoming
churches, although pastors have long
officiated at same-sex unions to affirm
same-sex relationships within their congregations—
and sometimes to provide
non-members with religious affirmation
of their relationships. Now, such
pastors are being called to task by superiors;
congregations are being prohibited
from holding such events within
their buildings. What are pastors to do?
How are congregations to view their
ministries?
We hope these articles, highlighting
civil, biblical, theological, and personal/
social concerns and sharing stories of
people impacted by the policies and
debates, will help you struggle with how
to respond to this emerging ministry
concern. Here are some factors to consider:
1) Should this issue be framed as the
historical right of clergy to marry
anyone? Or as an understanding that
congregations offer blessings and
recognize relationships that exist in
their midst?
2) If one approaches this issue as an
equity issue, how should the church
function? Can pastors who seek to
secure civil rights for gays and lesbians
continue to function as a representative
of a state which denies civil
relationship rights to some people?
3) Is it possible to find a middle ground
which upholds both denominational
needs and faithfulness to local
church ministry? What are possible
repercussions of defying a negative
denominational policy? What biblical
foundations support such defiance,
and how might it occur?
Engaging in dialogue about same-sex
unions can be an enriching experience.
Let us discuss— with empathy and honesty—
our understandings of relationships
in a Christian community and
how the community supports or undermines
those relationships. Welcome to
the dialogue!
—Editor
Note
1Troy Perry, “The Wedding: A Demonstration
for the Rights of Gay, Lesbian and Bi
Couples,” in Equal Rites, eds. Kittredge
Cherry and Zalmon Sherwood (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1995), pp. 106-
109.
Same-Sex Unions:
Introduction to the Issues
Spring 1997 5
more ➟
At this moment a fierce and costly
war is being waged against lesbians
and gays by an army of religious
and political zealots. Based on
their own anti-homosexual reading (or
misreading) of the Hebrew and Christian
texts, they are determined to rob
us of our civil rights if not eliminate us
altogether.
Though we are fighting that war on
many fronts, same-gender marriage is
the issue du jour. Every day our e-mail
boxes are filled with reports of battles
lost and battles won, but there is still
no way to know for certain if we are
winning or losing the war. In the meantime,
the toxic anti-homosexual rhetoric
flows, polluting the nation’s moral
environment, trickling down to intolerance,
injustice, injury, and death.
So, what can we do? This century’s
primary apostles of nonviolence,
Gandhi and King, say we have just three
options. First, we can acquiesce to this
latest intolerance, remain comfortably
silent, and hope others will win justice
for us. Second, we can wait until extremist
forces succeed in their campaign to
eliminate our rights altogether and then
take our anger and our violence to the
streets. Or, third (guided by the “soul
force” principles of Jesus, Gandhi, and
King), we can work for justice now, not
just for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered
Americans seeking the rights
of marriage, but for all God’s children
who suffer.
At the heart of those “soul force”
principles are three, life-changing ideas:
First, our Creator calls us to do justice
and our lives can’t really be fulfilled
until we join Her in that task. Second,
our enemies are not evil; they are just
victims of misinformation (as we have
been). Third, we will succeed only by
presenting them the truth in love relentlessly
without ever stooping to
physical or spiritual violence.
Taking a Personal Stand
Now, let’s say you decide to hear
your Creator’s call to do justice.
You want to enlist in that small “soul
force” army of women and men who
are risking their lives (and investing
their resources nonviolently) to win liberty
and justice for all. No matter how
committed you are to winning equal
rights for all people, you cannot fight
on every front. You have to choose your
battles carefully and then focus everything
you have (time, money, energy)
on winning your own “small” victories.
So, how do we decide where to take our
own personal stand? Is same-sex marriage
one of those issues that should
merit our concern?
“Gays are most concerned about
employment, personal safety, and
AIDS,” answers one of our current national
spokespersons. “Only half of
them think marriage is an important
issue.” I don’t know what poll produced
that number. I don’t know how the
question was asked or how many people
actually answered it. But I know this:
to think for a minute that same-sex
marriage is not an important issue to
us all will be a tragic and costly mistake.
First, the statement that marriage “is
not an important issue” adds to the confusion
already surrounding the samegender
marriage debate. Whether we
think marriage (as an institution) is
important or not makes no difference
here. This battle is not about marriage
at all. It’s about winning the hundreds
(if not thousands) of civil rights and protections
that go with heterosexual marriage
for lesbian and gay Americans who
are now denied those rights (see p. 6).
UFMCC pastors and other welcoming
and supportive clergy have been
marrying lesbian and gay couples for
decades and we will go on marrying
them forever (even if it means going
underground to do it). In fact, same-sex
Catholic marriage rites go back to the
ninth century, even before heterosexual
marriage rites were observed.1 No one
can deny us the marriage rite. Instead,
they are denying us the legal rights that
go automatically with heterosexual
marriage. And we must give time and
money to obtain those rights whether
we believe in the institution of marriage
or not.
Second, the statement that only half
of the lesbians and gays polled feel that
marriage “is an important issue” inadvertently
supports the extremists in
their misinformation campaign against
us. The spokesperson didn’t mean to
give aid and comfort to the enemy when
he said only half of us think marriage is
an important issue. But he did.
Robertson’s Christian Coalition,
Coach Bill McCartney’s Promise Keepers,
Beverly LaHaye’s Concerned Women
for America, Randell Terry’s Operation
Rescue, and the other armies
mobilized and massed against us on the
same-sex marriage line sincerely believe
that lesbian and gay Americans are a
threat to “family values.” Without wanting
to, the statement that marriage isn’t
important supports their worst fears.
At the very least the words imply (especially
to those who misunderstand
and fear us) that since (at least half of
us) don’t believe in marriage then (at
least half of us) don’t believe in loving,
loyal, long-term committed relationships.
And if we don’t believe in loving,
loyal, long-term committed relationships,
then we are a threat to real
family values; then we shouldn’t be
granted the rights of marriage; and even
worse, then children are not safe with
us. One false assumption leads to another.
Tragic, true-life suffering follows.
By Mel White
The Same-Sex Marriage Crisis and Our Response
It's Not About Marriage—
It's About Civil Rights!
6 Open Hands
Third, though the spokesperson
didn’t mean this either, his statement
implies that those who are fighting for
same-gender marriage are wasting their
time and money on a lost cause. “We
can’t win this one,” the statement suggests.
“So let’s not waste our resources
trying.” For political activists whose
primary task is to practice “the art of
the politically possible,” it may be true
that we have already lost this “marriage”
battle in a big way.
State-by-state data compiled by
Lambda Legal Defense and Education
Fund and the National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force shows how badly we are losing.
Between 1995 and 1996, thirtyseven
states considered bills against
same-gender marriage. Sixteen states
enacted those bills— one in 1995, fifteen
in 1996, and all thirty-four of the remaining
states are expected to take up
such legislation this year.
Last year in Washington, D.C., inspired
by the same anti-homosexual
rhetoric that motivates state legislators
to pass bills against us, the U.S. Congress
passed— and President Clinton
signed into law— the so-called “Defense
of Marriage Act” (DOMA). DOMA defines
marriage exclusively in heterosexual
terms and allows one state to not
recognize a same-gender marriage considered
legal in another. For the first
time in our nation’s history, the U.S.
Congress and the U.S. President combined
their considerable powers to
make lesbians and gays second-classcitizens
in our own country.
It is no wonder that political activists,
realizing the near impossibility of
turning back this anti-same-sex-marriage
tide, are deciding to spend their
time and money on getting the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
passed. Of course we’re losing this marriage
battle, but we must not leave the
field.
Remembering the
Real Issue
The real issue for our adversaries is
not same-gender marriage. Last year
they used the “threat” of gays and lesbians
in the military to raise money and
mobilize volunteers. Next year (or even
sooner) they’ll be working to deny us
our rights to child custody, foster care,
and adoption. Issue by issue, they are
working to turn the nation against us.
They don’t really care if they win this
anti-gay initiative or lose that court action.
They simply use each campaign
to drum their ultimate message home:
homosexuality is a sickness and a sin.
Their ultimate goal is to deny us all our
civil rights if not to eliminate us altogether.
Therefore, we can’t count our wins
or losses in laws or court decisions either.
We are spirit-based, “soul force”
activists. Our goal is to change the
minds and hearts of friends and foes
alike. Our ultimate goal is to help create
the beloved community where we
can live side by side in peace with everyone,
even our adversaries. To this
end, win or lose, we go on presenting
the truth in love relentlessly. By taking
our stand with dignity and courage, by
refusing to surrender and go back into
our closets, by insisting that the rights
we seek were endowed by our Creator
and guaranteed by our Constitution, by
refusing to stoop to physical or spiritual
violence, we take the moral high
ground. Eventually the nation sees by
our example that the extremists do not
speak the truth.
I am grateful for our political activists
who are struggling to defeat all these
ugly and misinformed anti-gay marriage
laws in every state. We should back their
efforts faithfully with our time and our
money. Give generously to Lambda
Legal Defense and Education Fund, our
national organization who is coordinating
our state-by-state defense against
these bills that deny us the rights of
marriage. Send money to the Hawaii
Marriage Project (where the battle began
and continues to this day; see p.
15) and to the state and local organizations
that are fighting this battle on our
behalf. Write letters and e-mail to editors,
to your national and state legislators,
to the President, and to the clergy.
Do what you can, but convincing the
leaders to support our cause is not
enough. We must also change the
minds and hearts of the ‘real people,’
our friends and neighbors, especially
those who come from religious traditions
like our own. That’s our job as
people of faith.
These misinformed souls really believe
the false and inflammatory rhetoric
they see on Pat Robertson’s 700
Club2 and hear on James Dobson’s Focus
on the Family (or from the pulpits
and lecterns of our local churches).
They have been convinced, quite incorrectly,
that homosexuals are more promiscuous
than heterosexuals, that all
our relationships are unstable and short
term, that we don’t honor or keep long
term commitments, and that children
are at risk when their parents are lesbians
or gays.
Rights and Protections
Denied
Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian
Couples (www.buddybuddy.com)
uncovered approximately 175 to 250
rights and protections that same-sex
couples are denied. A sampling is listed
below.1
Automatic Inheritance
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on
Partner’s Death
Immigration Rights for Foreign
Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage,
School Records)
Medical Decision on Behalf of Partner
Various Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Tax Breaks
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or
Prison.
—Mel White
Note
1However, a recent report by the General
Accounting Office in Washington, D.C.
named 1,049 federal laws that provide benefits,
rights, and privileges based on a
person’s marital status.
Spring 1997 7
Changing Minds and
Hearts
We can only change the minds and
the hearts of those who fear us
when they know one or more of us personally;
when they get acquainted with
lesbians and gays who are sexually responsible;
when they meet same-sex
partners who are obviously committed
to loyal, loving, long-term relationships;
when they see our healthy, happy children
and witness our commitment to
them. Until our adversaries have a
chance to know us personally, the gains
we win through legislation or the courts
are temporary at best. Here are four
(rather obvious) suggestions of thingswe
might do to change the minds and
hearts of the people we know:
1. Coming out changes minds and hearts
The extremists lose ground every
time a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered
person takes that first, scary
step towards emancipation. Being
honest about yourself is the only way
to change the minds and hearts of
your family and friends. But don’t
do it for them. Do it for yourself.
Living in a closet shrinks your
soul and cripples your spirit. God
created you and loves you exactly as
you are. God has dreams for your life.
Seeing those dreams come true can’t
begin until you accept your sexual
orientation as a gift from your Creator.
Begin your journey towards
fulfilling God’s dreams for you; and
at the same time, let God use your
life and example to bring justice for
us all.
2. Holy unions change minds and hearts
If you are contemplating a samesex
holy union (or know someone
who is), consider how powerful that
event can be in combatting the lies
about us. You can do so much to
enlighten our family and friends
about our family values with a public
wedding. Ask your pastor to conduct
your holy union in the church.
If church leadership needs time to
consider your request, give them the
time they need, but stay after them.
The discussions, and even churchwide
studies, that may follow your
request often lead to major breakthroughs
for our community.
When the date is decided, get
your photo and a brief history of
your relationship to your local papers
(straight and gay/lesbian alike).
If they won’t include it with the
other wedding announcements,
make a fuss until they do. Place your
name in the various store registries
and tell your friends to buy you
something expensive. (Yah, right!)
Our economic clout will also help
change the minds of clerks, store
managers, and managers of national
chains and the huge corporations
that own them.
Invite your family and friends to
your wedding, including those least
likely to attend. For those who don’t
come, send them a little “missed
you” love note with a program and
a photo, even an audio or a video
tape. If you are really brave, send an
invitation to your local TV or radio
station news manager. Call a talk
show host and offer to be interviewed.
Do everything you can to
say: “We love each other and we
want the world to know it.”
3. Anniversary celebrations change minds
and hearts
Lesbian and gay couples who
have been together ten, twenty,
thirty, even fifty and sixty years are
the greatest untapped resource we
have for combatting the false rhetoric
about our “unstable lifestyle” and
ending this current war against us.
Whether it’s your first anniversary
or your fiftieth, invite family and
friends to celebrate it with you. Or
ask a long-term couple if you can
plan a celebration for them. With
their permission, get photos and
brief bios to the newspapers. Let local
(radio and TV) morning talk
shows or regular news programs
know that you will share your story
publicly. Even if you don’t let the
media know, celebrating the anniversaries
of our loving commitments
will make a lasting difference with
family, friends, and neighbors.
4. Honest, thoughtful discussions change
minds and hearts
The entire country is talking
about this same-gender marriage issue.
Add your voice (even if you’re
just asking honest questions). When
you hear the issue raised, remind
friends and foes alike that we’re not
talking about marriage rites, but the
rights that go with marriage. Review
the sampling of rights (see p. 6) that
lesbians and gays are denied. Consider
the tragic consequences of second-
class citizenship in your life, in
the lives of those you love. Share the
truth in love relentlessly.
One last thing. An honest conversation
among ourselves about marriage
is long overdue. How do you feel about
lesbians and gays getting married? Do
you believe in long term, loyal, committed
relationships? Are you willing to
take on the moral and legal responsibilities
that go with marriage if and
when we are granted that right? What
are the principles that guide your most
intimate behaviors? While the battle
rages, there may not be time to sit down
calmly and discuss the current state of
same-sex relationships, but it is certainly
a task that our faith-based organizations
must take on. ▼
Notes
1See John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern
Europe (New York: Villard, 1994).
2In 1996 we produced a 30-minute video
demonstrating and responding to Pat
Robertson’s false and inflammatory rhetoric
against lesbians and gays, other minorities,
and women. To order The Rhetoric of
Intolerance (and a 12-page user’s guide) send
$5.55 (for duplicating, packaging, and mailing)
to VIDEO, P.O. Box 4467, Laguna Beach
CA 92652. For more information, see Mels
Justice Net Homepage: www.melwhite.org.
Mel White serves as
justice minister for the
Universal Fellowship of
Metropolitan Community
Churches. He is
the author of Stranger
at the Gate: To Be
Gay and Christian in
America.
8 Open Hands
In recent years there has been considerable
discussion in the public
forum concerning “family values.”
This phrase has served to claim an assumed
moral high ground for those
who express conservative views, a focal
point for those espousing centrist views,
and a battle cry for extremists. For many
such persons, family values are centered
around heterosexual marriage. This
may explain why this standard has
emerged in recent months as the raison
d’être for those who have fought against
same-sex marriages and the legalization
of rights for persons in committed
same-sex relationships. Under the banner
of family values the public discussion
has been shifted from one of
“rights” and “the nature of covenants
or commitments” to the gender of the
individuals in such relationships. While
this shift is regrettable, the ongoing discussion
does open the possibility of
examining the meaning of family, marriage,
and covenantal relationships.
One need not be conservative politically
or religiously to argue that heterosexual
marriage is in serious trouble.
The conclusion, though, that heterosexual
marriage is in trouble because
of same-sex covenantal relationships, or
that heterosexual marriage would be in
deeper trouble through the recognition
of same-sex marriages, is fallacious.
Heterosexual marriage is in trouble as
a result of a complex series of sociological
and cultural circumstances and is
not under attack by same sex marriages.
In fact, the examination of what it
means for one person to be in covenant
with another person, regardless of gender,
may be a helpful tool in repairing
heterosexual marriage. One of the first
steps in such an examination is to take
a closer look at the image of “family”
in our society, and to ask the question:
“Is this image realistic, adequate, and
sustainable?”
Family Image: A Look Back
An old cliché describes a traditional
family as a man, a woman— married
of course— 1.8 children, a dog, a
cat, and a Dodge mini-van in the garage.
While stereotypic, this image is instructive.
What becomes immediately
obvious is that this description is of an
idealized, white, middle-class family—
a modern-day version of the 1950s
sitcoms “Ozzie and Harriet” or “Leave It
to Beaver.” In the haze of familiarity few
seem to remember, perhaps even to
know, that this stereotypic family of the
1950s was a new model for the family.
Prior to the Second World War the predominant
model was one of an extended
family, with multiple generations
present in the same household,
all struggling together to make ends
meet. Such a family setting was portrayed
in the popular television program
“The Waltons.” Following the
war the economy boomed. With the
increase in financial opportunities,
newly forming families were encouraged
to move out of the multi-generational
setting and to establish independent
homesteads. Such changes were
encouraged by generous financial support
from a federal government deeply
appreciative of the efforts of those who
went to war and those who supported
the war efforts.
Along with the rise of independent
households came a new set of values.
No longer were persons satisfied with
merely getting along. Stephanie Coontz
suggests that there was interest in “producing
a whole world of satisfaction,
amusement, and inventiveness within
the nuclear family…”1 The radio or
newspaper was being replaced by television,
and the traveling amusement
show was replaced by a trip to Disneyland.
The automobile moved from
luxury, to necessity, to means of expression.
The suburbs emerged in response
to a new-found freedom and as a result
of sociological changes in the cities. The
values which were developing from
changing economic and sociological
realities had no precedent in our history
and made a significant impact on
the development of the family.
Many of the characteristics of the
idealized family can be traced into the
nineteenth century. As Coontz described
in “The Way We Never Were,”
the model Victorian middle-class family
included the role of the woman as a
pampered keeper of the household. Status
was determined by the ability to
have servants doing the household
chores while the man worked outside
the home. In the 1950s the gender roles
remained basically the same, with the
man working outside the home, and the
woman, now without servants, serving
as the functionary for completing the
household chores. Middle-class white
families were understood to be centers
of domestic tranquillity and familial stability,
while ethnic or working class
families were thought to be chaotic
and unstable.2 The images of tranquil
middle-class white families are nostalgically
and tenaciously held on to by
many of those espousing “family values.”
For many persons, though, reality
was not as kind as the image. Many
of the problems facing families, including
violence, divorce, poverty, and
abandonment were to be found lurking
just below the tranquil surface.
Church Image: A Look Back
While the 1950s may not have
been as idyllic a time as memory
paints them, they were a time in which
the middle class invested its time and
money in the church. Established congregations
flourished with middle-class
families serving as willing workers and
as the economic engines. Peak member-
By David Belt
The Church and Covenant Relationships:
Moving Toward a Renewed Understanding
Spring 1997 9
ship often occurred in established
churches in the 1950s and early 1960s.
New churches began to be built in the
suburbs as families left their parental
homes and struck out on their own.
Church leaders were drawn from these
ranks, and have only recently, and often
reluctantly, begun to pass on the
baton of leadership. Even though this
leadership change is now well underway,
the values by which these persons
lived, and the images of church and
family which predominated in their
midst, are found to be deeply embedded
in the collective memory and structure
of congregations. However, the
world in which this generation flourished
no longer predominates and likely
will not be re-created. A new generation
of church leadership is left with the task
of establishing its own leadership priorities,
which includes examination of
these images and values for their usefulness
in response to today’s reality.
This is a process which may well trigger
fear of abandoning ethical and
moral standards understood as traditional
and/or eternal. It is important
that new leadership define values and
describe models which are relevant to
today, and which represent a more complete
view of family and covenant.
Marriage Re-examined
In addition to re-evaluating family
models, marriage, as an institution
is in need of re-examination. Seldom
has there been a monolithic view of the
relationship of the church to marriage.
Early church eschatological thinking
went so far as to suggest that marriage
was not particularly helpful, perhaps
even dangerous, to the faith of the individuals
involved (see 1 Corinthians
7). For many centuries in western Europe,
marriage was understood as a civil
arrangement in which the church
played a minimal role. Marriage “services”
were the province of the local
secular authorities and involved contractual
relationships between families
dealing primarily with property. Roman
secular authorities conducted marriage
services for Christians in the first centuries
of the Common Era. Such services
had little impact on the faith communities.
Even after the church became
more involved in marriage services,
they continued to reflect the practices
of the Roman state.3
The reliance on secular practices for
marriage services has resulted in a “curious
amalgam of Christian and pagan
elements” even to this day.4 According
to James F. White, the pagan elements
include some of the more familiar elements
of modern marriage ceremonies,
including: the joining of hands and giving
of rings; the wedding banquet with
a wedding cake; throwing of rice— a fertility
symbol; giving the bride away;
bridesmaids dressed alike to confuse
evil spirits; the use of a wedding veil to
confuse evil spirits; and the offering of
money.5
Only slowly did the church take over
the primary responsibility for the performance
of wedding ceremonies. This
change occurred because of a need in
the developing legal systems for written
documents authenticating the marriage.
In many localities one of the few
persons who could read and write was
the priest. In order for the marriage to
be authenticated, the priest had to be
present to witness the ceremony and
compose the necessary documentation.
At first these ceremonies took place in
secular places, eventually moving to the
steps of the church in order that they
might be in the sight of God. The move
inside the church resulted from the
priest beginning to offer a mass for the
couple following the wedding, with the
service outside the church and the mass
inside.6
During the English Reformation of
the sixteenth century, the entire wedding
was finally moved into the church.
During this time the marriage rite was
quite explicit about the intent of marriage
as an institution. For example, the
rite of the Church of England, still in
use, has the line, “with this ring I thee
wed.” The next line, “with my body I
thee worship,” clearly indicates the
sexual nature of the intent for marriage.7
The Reformation was clear that marriage
involved sex and was to result in
children. The purposes of marriage, according
to Reformation leaders, was to:
(1) produce children; (2) prevent fornication;
and (3) provide mutual help and
comfort. English Puritans reversed the
order, placing mutual help and comfort
first.8 To this day there are persons who
would argue the order of these purposes.
Ethicist James B. Nelson notes that
“…there is little doubt that the present
confusion about marriage (and sexual
morality in general) is intimately linked
with the changing functions and perceptions
of the family in our society.”9
Some segments of society have begun
to realize the efficacy of broadening the
definitions of family, and hence the
nature of marriage, to include non-traditional
family units. The broadening
of the definitions has led to an acknowledgment
of the importance and legitimacy
of persons choosing to remain
single. Families are now beginning to
be accepted as including single adults
with children, same-sex families, and
same-sex families with children. If
Nelson is correct, though, such changes
will be more than enough to create confusion
and consternation for the traditionalist.
Changing definitions have also
caused a re-evaluation of the meaning
and content of marriage rituals. Many
clergy have begun to question the nature
of the relationship which exists
between the state and the church as regards
marriage. The state clearly has an
interest in establishing the lines of legal
and contractual relationships. However,
with the decline in numbers of
secular officials with the authority or
the interest in conducting marriages, it
could be argued that clergy have become
functionaries of the state. In most
localities, the county provides legal
documentation to heterosexual couples
more ➟
Shifting Justification for Sex
…Once same-sex couples can marry, marriage
and divorce laws can never again be
defined either by the expectation of childbearing
or by gender….
Legal same-sex marriage would ratify the…
idea that sex is justified instead by the
personal happiness of the pair, that interests
of the state, family, or property cannot
usurp the instructions of the heart….
—E.J. Graff
“Something Old…Something New”
Ms. May/June 1996, p. 94
10 Open Hands
seeking to be married and clergy are
required to sign these documents for
the marriage to be declared “legal.” (Of
course, a couple may still go to a civil
“justice of the peace” if one is to be
found.) Without these signed documents
a couple is not understood to be
“legally” married, regardless of what has
transpired in sacred ritual. When
pressed, persons may acknowledge the
validity of being married in the eyes of
the church, though seldom would that
be understood as “enough.” This has
enabled secular authorities to examine
the credentials of clergy in order to
authorize his or her performance of
“legal” marriages, and has blurred the
relationship between church and state.
The powers of the state to declare
legality, to legislate who may legally
marry, and to control the clergy in their
participation in marriages, along with
the continued use of pagan rituals in
marriage, indicates that the state of
marriage is more secular than sacred.
Serving as an exclamation point is the
fact that most clergy have had the experience
of persons requesting to be
married in the church who have never
crossed the threshold of a sanctuary,
and are likely only to do so again when
they are in need of funeral service. The
church, by participating in this current,
tangled arrangement, not only perpetuates
the confusion, but functions as an
unpaid agent of the state in property
matters. I believe it is clearly time to reestablish
the priority of the sacred understanding
of marriage as covenantal
relationship, regardless of the desires of
the state.
Covenantal Relationship
Explored
Holy scripture is clear in its understanding
of the importance of covenantal
relationships. In scripture such
relationships were first established between
God and humans, and then between
humans. Covenants are central
to Judaism, with those established
between God and Noah; God and
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and God
and Israel as paradigmatic examples.
Christianity also honors covenants,
both by the extension of the covenants
between God and Israel, and with the
establishment of covenant through
Jesus Christ.
The word covenant comes from a
Hebrew word which primarily means
“a binding pact,” the parties of the pact
binding themselves to one another.10
Covenants made between humans are
understood to be bound by the terms
accepted at the time of ratification.
When the covenant is made between
God and humans, the terms are those
stipulated by God, with humans having
the option of accepting or rejecting
those terms, though not of changing the
terms. Acceptance of the terms stipulated
by God will result in being blessed,
so long as the covenantal terms are kept,
while non-acceptance or breaking of the
terms will result in being cursed.11 A
similar understanding, that of being
blessed by covenant adherence and
cursed by non-adherence, exists in covenants
between humans.
The centrality of covenant
to the Christian
faith community is
exemplified by the use of covenantal
language in its liturgical resources. The
services of Holy Eucharist contained in
The United Methodist Hymnal all use covenantal
language, both implicit and
explicit, in the Great Thanksgiving, the
central part of the service. Similarly, the
services of baptism are found under the
title, “The Baptismal Covenant,” and
make several references to covenant.
Particularly relevant to this article,
the current Service of Christian Marriage
of the United Methodist Church includes
rubrics indicating Christian marriage
is to be understood as a “…sacred
covenant reflecting Christ’s covenant
within the church.”12 In its introduction
to marriage services, The United Methodist
Book of Worship indicates the
“Christian marriage is proclaimed as a
sacred covenant reflecting the Baptismal
Covenant.”13 Informing this use of
covenantal language is a theological
understanding of
mutually affirming,
Spring 1997 11
loving relationships in which the participants
bind themselves to one another
in a manner which reflects the
ideal relationship between God and
humans. In essence, such affirming,
supportive, loving relationships are the
visible manifestation of God’s love toward
us and serve as a harbinger of the
eschatological consummation of that
relationship.
…I do not unite the
covenant members, they
unite themselves.
Covenant is established between two
or more parties; in the case of marriage,
between two persons. The presence of
clergy in covenant/marriage services is
to provide the church’s formal liturgical
blessing over the public proclamation
of the established covenant, and
to represent the community of faith in
this sacred moment. For the past several
years I have told the persons establishing
covenant, and those gathered to
witness the vows of covenant, that I do
not unite the covenant members, they
unite themselves. My function is to join
in their celebration and to offer the
church’s blessings and admonitions to
faithfulness. I am not able to bind them
in a unique manner. No waving of my
hands or speaking of certain words will
establish a covenant that does not exist
or prolong a covenant that has ended.
Only the constant work of both parties
will be able to accomplish the work of
covenant. While I believe covenants are
intended to be established for life, when
one or both persons no longer uphold
the covenant by being faithful, supportive,
affirming, and loving, that covenant
no longer exists. The presence of a
signed, secular document does not alter
that reality. Neither does the fact that
the service of covenant took place in
the presence of, or at the direction of,
clergy. There are many examples of covenant
relationships which have become
destructive relationships, and whose
covenantal relationships are clearly broken,
even though the legal entity continues
to exist. As such, these relationships
no longer adequately represent
Where Does Your
Denomination Stand?
Here is a brief summary of several
denominational stances on issues of
same-sex unions.
American Baptist:
Has two official General Board Resolutions.
One states “We affirm that
the practice of homosexuality is incompatible
with Christian teaching.”
The other, in part, calls on American
Baptists to “acknowledge that there
exists a variety of understandings
throughout our denomination on issues
of human sexuality such as homosexuality”
and to “respect and defend
the individual integrity of all
persons within our denomination and
their Christian commitment as we engage
the issue of human sexuality.”
Neither is binding on churches/individual
Baptists; they do affect policies
of national staff.
Disciples of Christ:
Has no public policy directly related
to same-sex unions. The general civil
rights resolution (1977, 1993) does
not include anything about same-sex
relationships.
United Church of Christ:
In 1996, two national agencies
adopted policy statements affirming
equal rights for same-sex couples. An
educational/advocacy campaign,
“Equal Rights In Covenant Life” is beginning.
General Synod has made no
policy statement on same sex marriage.
United Methodist Church:
In 1996 General Conference affirmed
“the sanctity of the marriage covenant
that is expressed in love, mutual
support, personal commitment,
and shared fidelity between a man
and a woman…. Ceremonies that celebrate
homosexual unions shall not
be conducted by our ministers and
shall not be conducted in our
churches.” It is unclear how or
whether this statement can be enforced
since it is a “Social Principles”
resolution which does not have the
weight of church law.
God’s covenant with humanity, though
they may quite adequately represent the
broken nature of humanity.
For these reasons, there appears no
justification for denying persons of the
same gender the opportunity to be
united in a holy union. A covenant established
between persons of the same
gender can be just as fulfilling as those
established by heterosexual persons.
They should be recognized as being just
as valid. It seems inappropriate for the
church to be engaged in supporting the
state in denying the right of persons
to establish covenants. If more attention
were paid to developing a greater
appreciation for the significance of covenant
and its relationship to the covenant
between God and humanity, both
holy unions and heterosexual marriages
would benefit. ▼
Notes
1Stephanie Coontz, “The Way We Never
Were: American Families and the Nostalgia
Trip” in Family: Drawing the Circle Wide, eds.
J. Ann Craig and Linda S. Elmiger (New York:
General Board of Global Ministries, 1994),
p. 53.
2Coontz, p. 54.
3James B. Nelson, Embodiment: An Approach
to Sexuality and Christian Theology (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1978), p. 132.
4James F. White, Introduction to Christian
Worship (Nashville: Abingdon, 1986), p.
238.
5White, p. 239.
6White, p. 240.
7White, p. 241.
8White, pp. 244-245.
9 Nelson, p. 130.
10John R. McRay, “Covenant” in The Dictionary
of Bible and Religion, ed. William H.
Gentz (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989), p. 229.
11White, p. 229.
12The United Methodist Hymnal (Nashville:
The United Methodist Publishing House,
1989), p. 864.
13The United Methodist Book of Worship
(Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing
House, 1992), p. 115.
David Belt is pastor of
Trinity United Methodist
Church, a reconciling
congregation in
Kansas City, Missouri.
12 Open Hands
Consider the context: here, in the
twentieth century, there is a
large segment of people, perhaps
10 percent of the population, who
acknowledge a same-gender sexual
orientation. For this, they are being
denounced, vilified, discriminated
against, and subjected to emotional and
physical violence by society in general.
What is an appropriate Christian response
to this cultural reality?
Instead of being precise about defining
the legalisms, the limits, and the
punitive consequences of specific actions,
we as Christians are constrained
to consider this issue within the context
of the Christian faith. We worship
a God beyond words and beyond
legalisms, a God with whom we can
commune and from whom we can seek
guidance. We worship a God who has
come, who continues to come…an immanent
God, a God-with-us. This is the
truth which Christ came to demonstrate,
to teach, and to be.
God was in Christ. Christ was God
incarnate when he walked among
people during his earthly life in his
earthly, physical body. After his death,
the community of believers became his
“Now Body” in the world and were
commissioned to continue the witness
and ministry which Christ lived out
during his time on earth in his “Then
Body.” Therefore, for Christians, the
basic question, the prior question with
regard to all decisions and behaviors, is
“What would Jesus do?”
What Would Jesus Do?
For help in answering this question,
we turn to the Gospels to immerse
ourselves in the accounts of Jesus’ life
and words, praying that the Holy Spirit
will be our interpreter as we read. We
understand that this will be a spiritual
journey and not just an intellectual exercise.
What do we see of Christ in the Gospels?
We see a person who always goes
out to the disenfranchised, the marginal,
the shunned, the sinners. His
message was unfailingly a message of
invitation—“Come”—and his pre-eminent
warnings were against exclusion,
judgment, legalisms, spiritual self-righteousness,
and pride. As far as we know,
Jesus never spoke about homosexuality.
Issues involving human relationships
are where the church gets to act
out the gospel claim that Christ receives
“all sorts and conditions of people”
equally, not with a surreptitious intention
to change those people or to
subject them to some formula which
scrutinizes whether they are, in fact,
“worthy.” The guarantee of Jesus’ acceptance
is that it is unconditional.
Looking at the life and ministry of
Jesus we see that the “good people,” the
scribes and Pharisees, didn’t seem to
mind much when Jesus talked about
“whosoever” and about going out to
fetch lost sheep, but when he actually
sat down to eat, to “consort,” with the
outcasts and sinners, a new dimension
was introduced. It was the dimension
of personal involvement, of acting out.
Here, for all to see, was graphic correlation
of word and act. Here, “the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us, full
of grace and truth.” Here was a demonstration
of the perfect integration between
how Jesus spoke and how he
lived. It was the Word made plain. And
it was this “acting out” which infuriated
the religious leaders of history.
Those meals which Jesus shared with
“all sorts and conditions of people”
were social occasions with highly symbolic
content. They were graphic pictures
of genuine acceptance which put
reality and life into his words of love,
inclusion, and welcome…words which
would have rung with a hollow sound
in the ears of the rejected masses without
the demonstration of their reality.
“As acts of joy and of deadly protest
against the old order, these meals became
parables of the reconciling presence
of God in the midst of humanity.”1
Concerns and Responses
While 98 percent of the voting
Pullen Memorial Baptist Church
membership affirmed that “all are
welcome and accepted into the worship
and fellowship of the Pullen community,”
and while 93 percent affirmed
“the participation of gay men and
lesbians in our congregational life together,”
many could not bring themselves
to “support and affirm the
blessing of same-gender union” and
could not support the proposition “that
no rituals of the church be denied to
any member of Pullen on the basis of
sexual orientation alone.” Plaintive
questions were often heard. “Why can’t
they be content with what’s been offered?
Why did they push us so far?
Haven’t we done enough already?” For
those who had extended themselves to
affirm acceptance and participation by
homosexuals, the request that the
church bless a same-gender covenant
seemed an audacious affront.
Might it not be possible that this
“acting out love” is a witness which our
world twenty centuries later needs
badly? Might not a church’s reconciling
words and welcoming statements
made in the name of our Creator, Redeemer,
Sustainer, and Friend be made
graphic and authentic through the total
and unequivocal inclusion of homosexual
people within the fellowship?
Might not going the second mile in
blessing a same-gender covenant serve
the same purpose for our day that was
served by Jesus’ public socializing with
marginalized people in his day? Might
it not be a sign to the world that a
particular body of believers accepts
the responsibility of living out the
redemptive (often casually used) “good
news” words?
Other concerns of those who disagreed
with Pullen’s decision relate to
Pullen’s witness to the world. What kind
of message does this send? How can the
congregation have the effrontery to
By Miriam H. Prichard
The Prior Question: A Theological
Basis for Blessing Same-Gender Covenants
Spring 1997 13
flout cultural norms and traditions?
Isn’t it raw ignorance to bypass longheld,
time-honored, basically unquestioned
principles?
In a remarkably comparable incident
recorded in Mark 7, Jesus addressed this
issue. He was being chastened for a societal
infraction which set aside the tradition
of the elders. When he was asked,
“Why do your disciples not conform to
the ancient tradition…?”, Jesus answered,
“You neglect the commandment
of God in order to maintain the
tradition of men…. How well you set
aside the commandment of God in order
to maintain your tradition!” (Mark
7 5, 8-9, NEB). Clearly, Jesus is saying
that the discerning Christian must not
substitute the comfort of traditional
religious ideas for the arduous spiritual
journey into present revelation.
A Complex, Risky Quest
Some suggest that the query, “What
would Jesus do?” is too simplistic.
On the contrary, seriously asking the
question launches one on a complex
and risky quest. Those who ask this
prior question must endeavor to learn
from extant records of the life and
teaching of Jesus what he might do today
in each present problematical
situation as it arises. This is a daunting
task and one which must be approached
with a high degree of faith, humility,
and caution. This is also a lonely quest
because it is a quest predicated on a
personal response to the Event of Jesus
Christ. In this regard, it is much like the
initial conversion experience. Neither
the quest nor the outcome can be directed
or mediated by another or by
creeds, rules, or institutional proclamations.
Here, the doctrine of the individual
priesthood of believers becomes
deeply personal.
How can this question be answered?
Won’t any answer, at best, be but
conjecture…a pitting of perspectives as
multitudes of people arrive at widely
differing conclusions? Perhaps, but this
is the Christian way…that each person
answer for his or her particular time and
situation, the penetrating searching
question which Jesus put to his disciples.
Not merely, “Who do these
people say that I am?”— but more importantly—
“Who do you say that I am?
Who am I to you?”
If Christians approached every life
decision by way of “the prior question,”
perhaps there would be a new relevance,
vitality, and spiritual awakening within
the Christian community. The tired old
mode of addressing issues in terms of
expedience, convenience, and public
approbation would give way to soulsearching
appraisals of what must be
done by the Now Body of Christ living and
witnessing in the present world.
Specific Guidance
In sum, what specific guidance can be
found in the recorded life of Jesus
which has relevance for Christians
grappling with the issue of blessing
same-gender covenants?
1) Jesus always positioned himself on
the opposite side of the powerful
majority and always on the side of
the devalued members of society.
2) Jesus not only spoke on behalf of the
sinners, shunned and disregarded,
but he demonstrated his acceptance
by extending his friendship on social
occasions.
3) Jesus was forthright about his priorities,
setting aside those conventional
mores of the day that he interpreted
as being opposed to the “commandment
of God.”
4) Jesus reminded his disciples that they
must make a personal response to
him. In effect, he said, “It doesn’t
matter what other people say about
me. What do you say?”
In an age of bland and commercialized
religion which normally is viewed
as following a set of rules and standards
which most “good” people would agree
Vows of Commitment
Out of all the people in my life, I choose you, (Beth/Kathie), to be my partner in this
relationship of commitment. I, (Beth/Kathie), commit to you my deepest devotion, as a
partner, lover and friend. I promise to work, play and dream with you, with passion and
honesty, and to stand by you through times of difficulty and sorrow. I will do my best to
understand and honor the essential (Beth/Kathie), to pay tender attention to what makes
you you, and to help discern what you need to thrive and grow. I pledge to take care of
myself. It is only when I am true to myself and love myself that I can support and love you
the way you deserve to be loved. I promise to love, honor, and tolerate you. [As
anticipated, this got a laugh…] With the help of the source of all love, I will work to make
this commitment lifelong.
—Beth Healy and Kathie Hopkins
Source
Vows are reprinted from “Take My Life as My Vow,” Crossbeams (September/October 1996), p. 3.
Crossbeams is a newsletter of the Gay, Lesbian and Affirming Disciples Alliance. Used with permission.
DANCING TOWARD COMMITMENT: Beth Healy (left) and Kathie Hopkins
dance down the aisle as their ceremony begins.
more ➟
14 Open Hands
Legal Considerations
Most people are familiar with
the privileges and responsibilities
of marriage. Many are
not aware of the practical problems gay
couples face because they have no legal
recognition. For instance, a gay
spouse is not legally next of kin and may
not be admitted to intensive care to see
his/her spouse in case of critical injury
or illness unless the partner’s family
grants permission. A natural parent who
is gay or lesbian can be denied custody
of his or her children solely on that
basis, without regard to behavior.
Gay partners cannot file joint tax returns.
If a gay or lesbian partner dies
intestate, the partner inherits nothing.
If a gay partner is specified in a will, an
estate under $600,000 will pay inheritance
tax not required if a married
spouse inherited. Gay partners may
have to buy two insurance policies to
protect their belongings in a single
household. If a lesbian or gay couple
adopts a child, the adoption must be a
single parent adoption by one of them.
The other partner has no legally recognized
relationship to the child. If a gay
natural or adoptive parent dies, the surviving
partner has no custody rights
over the children, even though he or
she has lived with them and been a parent
to them. A gay man or lesbian cannot
cover a partner or a partner’s child
on a health insurance policy. Gay
couples with children do not qualify for
family membership rates.
Special benefits (such as travel to
conventions, purchase discounts, flying
free) extended by employers to employees’
husbands or wives are generally not
extended to gay partners. If a gay man
or lesbian is fired from a job or evicted
from an apartment solely because his/
her orientation becomes known, there
is no legal recourse under federal law….
Reporting anti-gay violence to police
may result in prosecution of the victim
rather than the assailant.
We [the Pullen Memorial Baptist
Church Task Force on Same-Gender
Covenants] believe these circumstances
do not provide fair and equal treatment
under the law for all citizens. We would
like to see a society whose laws encourage
the establishment and maintenance
of permanent relationships and stable
families, whether the adult partners are
same-gender or opposite-gender. Such
legal provisions could reduce the promiscuity
in both the homosexual and
the heterosexual communities. In a few
places, domestic partnership legislation
[or extension of benefits by corporations]
already allows responsible nontraditional
families of various kinds to
assume the duties and privileges enjoyed
by traditional families….
But beyond the need for legal remedies,
we recognize the need for a
change in society. We hope our action
will contribute to new attitudes that
more nearly reflect the coming of God’s
kingdom: respect for all persons, appreciation
of diversity, faithfulness to commitments,
and recognition of our
common humanity…so that we may become
more truly the body of Christ. ▼
Source
This material is excerpted from a longer article
published in Celebration of Same-Gender
Covenants, a task force report of Pullen
Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, North
Carolina. Used with permission.
Patricia V. Long, who grew up in Virginia,
is an office manager in Raleigh, North
Carolina. She is a member (since 1979) and
former deacon of Pullen Memorial Baptist
Church. She is the author of Enlarging
the Circle, the story of the process by
which her congregation
decided to offer celebrations
of committed
same-sex relationships
in the church. She and
her partner were the second
couple to have such
a service at Pullen.
on, it is a challenge, opportunity, and
inspiration to be part of a congregation
where one is straight-forwardly confronted
with the ultimate ethical question,
“What would Jesus do?” ▼
Note
1Joseph Weber, A Biblical Basis for Reconciling
Ministries. This article was written by the
late Dr. Joseph C. Weber, Professor of Biblical
Theology at Wesley Theological Seminary,
and originally published in Manna for
the Journey, vol. 1(1). A copy of this paper
may be obtained from the Reconciling Congregation
Program, 3801 North Keeler, Chicago
IL 60641.
Source
This article is reprinted from Celebration of
Same-Gender Covenants, Task Force Report
of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church, Raleigh,
North Carolina, Submitted April 1993. Used
with permission.
Miriam H. Prichard is a long-time Pullen
member who came to North Carolina from
Mississippi by way of
Southern Seminary in
Louisville, Kentucky.
Now retired from the
Wake County School
System, she is married
and the mother of two
children.
Closing Words
Now you will feel no rain,
for each of you will be shelter to the
other.
Now you will feel no cold,
for each of you will be warmth to
the other.
Now there is no more loneliness.
Now you are two people,
but there is only one life before you.
Go now to your dwelling to enter
into
the days of yours lives together.
And may your days be good, and
long upon the earth.
—Apache prayer
Source
“Sample Service IX” in Same-Gender Services
of Union: A Planning Resource from
the Office of Lesbian & Gay Concerns. A
booklet published by the Unitarian Universalist
Association.
By Patricia V. Long
Spring 1997 15
Today’s public legal debate about
same-sex marriage began in
Hawaii in 1990 when a gay male
couple and two lesbian couples requested
marriage licenses from the state
health department. In 1991, when their
applications were denied (as expected),
the couples appealed to the Hawaii
Supreme Court.
The state supreme court ruled in May
1993 in the case of Baehr v. Lewin that
denying same-sex couples the right to
marry amounts to unconstitutional discrimination
on the basis of sex (not
sexual orientation) unless the state
could show a compelling interest in
such denials. The case was returned to
a lower court, the First Circuit Court of
Judge Kevin S. C. Chang, for the state
to try to show such compelling interest.
Meanwhile in 1995 one state enacted
a bill against same-sex marriage and refused
to honor such marriages done in
other states. In 1996, fifteen additional
states enacted similar legislation. Legislators
in the remaining thirty-four
states are expected to introduce bills in
1997.
In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the
so-called “Defense of Marriage Act”
(DOMA) and President Clinton signed
it. This act defined marriage as a union
between one man and one woman and
allows a state to not recognize a samesex
marriage from another state.
In September 1996, Judge Chang
heard the arguments of the state of
Hawaii. The state argued that Hawaii
has a compelling interest in fostering
and protecting children and that samesex
marriage is incompatible with that
goal. On 22 November, a Hawaiian
Commission on Sexual Orientation and
the Law, appointed by the governor, recommended
legalizing same-sex marriage
and noted that the Baehr v. Lewin
case is “a close parallel” to a landmark
ruling in Loving v. Virginia (where the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that
“There is patently no legitimate overriding
purpose” for the state of Virginia
to prohibit marriage between a white
person and a person of another race).
Judge Chang on 3 December rejected
the argument of the state of Hawaii. He
found that “the sexual orientation of
parents does not automatically disqualify
them from being good, fit, loving,
or successful parents” and in fact
that children may be assisted because
they would be able to obtain protections
and benefits that come with marriage.
He also noted that in Hawaii and
elsewhere people marry for a variety of
reasons: having or raising children; stability
and commitment; emotional
closeness; intimacy and monogamy; the
establishment of a framework for a
long-term relationship; personal significance;
recognition by society; and certain
legal and economic protections,
benefits, and obligations. He ordered
Hawaii to begin issuing same-sex
couples licenses immediately. This ruling
was a first from a judge in the United
States. The next day Chang put the effects
of his decision on hold while state
officials appeal to Hawaii’s Supreme
Court. He said that it would be confusing
if gay couples got married and then
the high court overturned his ruling.
—Editor
LOOKING FOR
MORE IN LIFE?
Retreats/Workshops
Gay Men
Coming Together in
Psycho-Spiritual Community
to:
* Explore
* Challenge
* Empower
* Encourage
* Support
* Grow
Free Calendar & Brochure
Call
* 914-439-5815 *
Dawn Manor Country
Retreat Center
Livingston, New York
The Hawaii Case:
A Summary
AD
16 Open Hands
Bates, Lee and Wilson has a decorum
for it—
a long front row of seats—
family together—
then a space and a single chair
for the partner, the roommate,
the friend.
but usually I am instructed
not to say anything
about the one
who buys the flowers
and cries the tears.
What kind of secret is love?
Two schoolteachers in their nineties
from Burlington,
a store clerk and a bank teller,
a public health nurse and a
history instructor—
stories of tenderness
and trust and hiding
so often hover in the over-breathed
funeral parlor air, but are
not spoken.
But this morning will be different.
Phil was born and raised in Berwick,
used to baby-sit his niece and nephews—
more a kid than they.
they say he taught them
to crack raw eggs on their heads.
loved to gamble—
roulette,
the nightly numbers.
soft-spoken.
never vindictive.
traveled to Florida, Vegas, the Islands.
owned his own shop in Kennebunk,
retired at sixty, managed
a motel for a while.
loved David for twenty-seven years,
Companions.
David was not sure if Phil was
Protestant or Catholic.
he lived a simple life,
decent, kind, full of laughter,
the golden rule.
sometimes they went to Christmas
midnight mass.
Bates, Lee and Wilson thought—
under the circumstances—
Protestant would be safer.
I would be safer.
And as profligate as the casket spray
of sixty-four yellow roses
that counted out Phil’s years
in beauty, and the
suddenly spring-warm of a day
with the smell of sea salting the air
for burying,
is the gift of my freedom
to mention—somewhere between
the gentle laughter-anecdote
about lucky numbers
and the dust and ashes prayer
where words wound to force
an ending—
God’s extravagance
of embrace
for men who love men and
women who love women,
and these two gentlemen who
have been for more
than a quarter of a century
sharing bread with
one another. ▼
Maren C. Tirabassi is
a poet and teaches
poetry in schools and
prisons. She is pastor of
Northwood Congregational
UCC in Northwood,
New Hampshire.
By Maren C. Tirabassi
“one who shares bread with”
Companions
Sharing
the
Stories
Spring 1997 17
I had this conversation during the
break at the General Conference of
the United Methodist Church in April
1996. The delegates had just defeated a
proposal that would have allowed
United Methodist clergy to officiate at
same-gender marriages. He walked
away and I was plagued again with the
thought that I hadn’t been able to explain
my willingness to do weddings for
gay and lesbian couples. After General
Conference I reflected on this and other
conversations. I knew I needed to move
my commitment for the care of gays
and lesbians from my heart to my head.
I needed to find the words to support
my convictions. I needed words that
encourage people to listen to my position
and hopefully to join with me in
working toward opening the ministry
of the church to all persons.
The question “will it last” seems
rather foolish. Statistically about one
half of all two-gender marriages end in
divorce. I’m not sure that the church,
or at least some clergy, is concerned
with that question as they continue to
officiate at one marriage after another.
Some clergy change their practice of
premarital counseling to almost nothing
as they become discouraged with
the lack of impact it has on the lives of
persons. Some clergy feel that the wedding
is a time for people to “use the
church” for the beauty and pomp of the
wedding. They are moving in the direction
of doing weddings as a legal benefit.
The Christian wedding is more than
a legal action for the benefit of the state
and the couple. It is a covenantal agreement
witnessed by the church. That
covenant is between the couple by and
with God. God then participates in the
daily life of the couple and provides the
element of grace to enable them to forgive,
hope, work, and love together.
That energy from God for these things,
when acknowledged and therefore used
as a resource, can help marriages work
even today.
When the institutional church denies
marriage to gays and lesbians, it is
as if the church is saying some people
are unworthy of that grace of God. That
is a direct contradiction to what the
church states in other ways. This is a
place where the church needs to put its
claims into practice. When the church
withholds “a means of God’s grace,” we
are making choices for God. The grace
of God is the source of strength for any
person to keep a promise. By denying a
covenantal marriage service, we are limiting
the possibilities of how the church
can work in peoples lives. We are trying
to control how God will work in
the lives of God’s people.
It is not the responsibility of the
church to judge or reject the love of any
person for another. It is the responsibility
of the church to nurture and support
every act of love. Jesus said, “I did
not come to end the law but to fulfill
it.” Love of God and others as self is the
fulfillment of the law. Why do we find
Two Men’s Devotion
Kyle Swihart writes of his and Charles
Brown’s commitment ceremony in Dallas,
Texas.
“…The ceremony…was written by God
through me. It was something that I
prayed about many times…. Scriptures,
messages, and feelings were conveyed
to me. They were conveyed without any
warning but it was apparent that they
were intended to be in our ceremony.
Our ceremony was…intended to proclaim
our devotion to God, to ourselves, and
to each other, but we knew there would
be an opportunity to touch others who
were attending….”
Source
“Two Men’s Devotion to God and Each
Other” in Crossbeams (September/October
1996), p. 3. Crossbeams is a newsletter of
the Gay, Lesbian and Affirming Disciples
Alliance. Used with permission.
“What do you think of these gay marriages?”
“Well, ah, I’m in favor of them. I mean, I would be
willing to perform a marriage for a gay or lesbian couple.”
“But will it last?”
“What do you mean?”
“Will they make a lifelong commitment?”
“I think so….”
it so difficult to understand and support
acts of love?
The question for the church is not
“Will it last?” The question is “What can
the church do to help every person fulfill
commitments to others?” I believe
the answer is to recognize the capability
and need for each person to be in
a loving relationship. Then do all that
can be done to support each person.
Reclaim the authority of the church
to validate the covenant of marriage.
Make the channel of the covenant—
marriage— available for all people,
straight or gay, and acknowledge that
God’s love and grace are for all. ▼
Tom Boller is a district superintendent in
the Yellowstone Conference of the United
Methodist Church. His
charge conference is
Huntley United Methodist
Church in Huntley,
Montana.
By Tom Boller
The Wrong Question
18 Open Hands
At temple Beth-El, the large synagogue
in the New York suburbs
where I served as associate rabbi
before I came to Austin, it was the custom,
several times a year, to invite
couples celebrating “milestone” anniversaries
to attend a special Friday
night service. My senior rabbi, Jerome
Davidson, would read the names of the
couples and they would rise one at a
time. He would begin with partners that
had been married five years, then ten,
fifteen, twenty, and so on. It was always
a unique kind of joy to see the couples
getting older and older. Occasionally,
we’d be lucky enough to witness an elderly
pair married fifty-five or even sixty
years slowly rising to their feet to be
honored. It was always an awesome,
moving sight; the congregation would
softly “ooh” and “ahh.” Then Rabbi
Davidson would read a prayer about
“the joys shared and the dark times
overcome,” concluding with a plea
for God’s continued protection and
guidance.
An old acquaintance of mine whom
I shall call Barry Gold was (and still is)
one of the most active, caring, visible
members of Temple Beth-El. Barry holds
his Ph.D. in Theater Studies. He was a
former Sunday school teacher and a
volunteer on many temple committees.
He is a “character” in the best sense of
the word, and a good Jewish soul. Another
old acquaintance from my Long
Island days, a successful attorney whom
I’ll call Jeff Schwartz, also was (and still
is) an active and stalwart member of
Temple Beth-El. Jeff often served as a
member of the usher corps at Beth-El,
and I can still picture him greeting worshippers
as they entered the impressive
Beth-El sanctuary on a Friday night. His
hearty “Hello, Steve” and friendly handshake
are etched into my memory.
Seven or eight years ago, Barry and
Jeff approached Rabbi Davidson with a
special request. They had been a monogamous,
loving, committed Jewish
couple for twenty years. They honored
Shabbat and the Jewish holidays in their
home and in their congregation. I can
still in fact picture them sitting together
on the far right of the sanctuary, tenth
or twelfth row back, every Friday night.
And so they asked Rabbi Davidson if he
would consider allowing them to rise
at the next milestone anniversary service
to be blessed in the sight of the
congregation.
I’m sure that Rabbi Davidson and I
must have discussed the question, although
the substance of those discussions
has faded from my memory. What
I do remember—and will never forget—
is the Ritual Committee meeting at
which we discussed the issue of Barry
and Jeff’s milestone anniversary blessing.
After explaining the request which
had been made of him, Rabbi Davidson
began the meeting with the following
words: “Friends, I’m going to do this
blessing for Barry and Jeff because I
believe that is the right thing to do.
What I want to discuss with you is how
I should carry this out. That’s what I
want to hear your feelings on tonight.”
You can probably imagine how tense
that meeting was. You know: the kinds
of meetings or conversations from
which you emerge with those huge,
embarrassing perspiration rings under
your arms?… Yes, that intense! One of
the things that I learned that night, and
have learned again since, is that when
it comes to questions surrounding gay
issues, a person’s age or even general
political leanings are not necessarily
predictive of their attitudes; not the
least, when the issue ceases to be theoretical
and hits close to home.
There were surprises all around the
table. One of the senior members of the
committee—a woman in her eighties—
seemed to have no great problem with
the blessing. “Mazal tov for them,” she
said. Later, though, when she fully realized
what was being considered, she
said, “But doesn’t the Torah say it’s a
sin?” Another member of the committee,
an educated white-collar professional
who was to my mind (up to that
point) a thoroughly decent fellow, referred
to Barry and Jeff with an anti-gay
epithet so ugly and crude that my jaw
literally dropped when I heard it. And
then there were the folks who simply
said, “Barry and Jeff? Gay?! Really!?” It
was truly an amazing meeting.
Many key issues were discussed that
night. “What message will this send to
our kids who are there?” (“A good message
of tolerance and understanding,”
said one member.) “Will the parents of
the next morning’s b’nei mitzvah1 be
embarrassed?” (“It’s Barry and Jeff’s
simcha2; what is there for them to be
ashamed of,” said another.) But the
most memorable exchange of the
evening for me occurred when the conversation
turned to “whether we really
want to endorse homosexuality.”
Now although you work really, really
hard as an assistant rabbi, one of
the advantages of that position is that
Resolution of
Reform Judaism
Member congregations of the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations are
called to:
— Encourage lesbian and gay Jews to
share and participate in worship, leadership,
and general congregational
life;
— Develop educational programs in the
synagogue and community which promote
understanding and respect for
lesbians and gays;
— Employ people without regard to
sexual orientation…;
— Recommend to the CCAR (Central
Conference of American Rabbis) Committee
on Liturgy that it develop language
that is liturgically inclusive.
—Passed by the biennial convention
of the Union of American Hebrew
Congregations in Chicago in 1987
The Meaning of a Jewish Blessing
By Steven Folberg
Spring 1997 19
if you choose to, you can stay neutral of
explosive congregational issues. But at
that point, sitting and listening to the
rest of the group, I felt that the time
had come to speak up. I raised my hand
and, glancing nervously at my senior
rabbi, I put in my proverbial two cents.
“Look,” I said, “I don’t really think
that this is a matter of ‘endorsing homosexuality.’
More to the point, since
we’re talking about a blessing for Jeff
and Barry, in order to truly understand
what’s at stake here, you first have to
consider what the function of a blessing
is in Judaism. To say a blessing is to call
your own attention to something in
your life for which you are grateful,
something special or holy which might
otherwise go unnoticed. That’s why our
sages tell us that we must strive to recite
no fewer than one hundred blessings
a day; that’s the extent to which
we’re supposed to be sensitive to the
miracles of life and existence. We’re
supposed to constantly remind ourselves
of God’s presence in our lives.
‘Thank you God: for the bread on my
table, for my child’s first steps, for the
chance to do this mitzvah.3’”
“Somebody used the word homophobia
earlier. Well, am I homophobic?”
I asked (only semi-rhetorically).
“Yes, I am. I clearly do not understand
the physicality of Jeff and Barry’s relationship.
Indeed, on some level—
sexuality being the basic element of
the human personality that it is— the
thought of their intimacy is profoundly
uncomfortable and threatening to me.
But that, too, is not the issue; I need not
understand how Jeff and Barry relate to
each other on that level. There are, however,
things that I do understand: love,
devotion, faithfulness, the desire to
know that you are never alone in the
struggles and triumphs of life. Those
things I do comprehend.”
“And so,” I said, “to me the question
is this. Here we have two Jews who
love each other, are committed to each
other, and have been faithful to each
other for twenty years. Will we or will
we not allow them to thank God for
what they share, and have shared, in the
sanctuary of our synagogue? That is the
most important question.”
In the end, the blessing did take
place. Listening to the feedback of the
Ritual Committee, Rabbi Davidson de-
Friends Meeting Affirms Same-Sex Marriage
At the first Meeting for business of the newly formed Northampton Friends Meeting in
February 1994 the following minute was joyfully adopted:
Same-Sex Marriage
The Meeting affirms the goodness of committed, loving relationships and
offers recognition and support to those who share this ideal and desire to enter
into a permanent relationship based upon it. By tradition, the Meeting recognizes
committed union in a celebration of marriage under the care of the Meeting.
The same loving care and consideration will be given to both same-sex and
heterosexual applicants as outlined in Faith and Practice.
The Meeting shares a vision of a future that extends all the same rights to
homosexual couples as are now enjoyed by heterosexual couples under the law.
The Meeting’s vision of marriage will not be complete until the unification of the
legal and the spiritual is complete and available to all.
Source
From “Minute on Sexual Orientation,” a two-page document dated 9 June 1996. Available
from Bruce Hawkins, 61 Henshaw Avenue, Northampton MA 01060. Used with permission.
cided to have Barry and Jeff stand up
together for their blessing, but only after
all of the other, married couples had
been blessed. Rather than extemporize
a prayer, he carefully wrote his words
out in advance. Sadly, I missed the blessing
that evening, since I was away with
the youth group at a retreat. But from
what I heard, there were more than a
few tear-filled eyes in the pews that
night. ▼
Notes
1Plural of bar or bat mitzvah, i.e., the youth
being honored.
2Joyous occasion.
3Commandment; religious act.
Source
This story was the first part of a D’var Torah
(sermon) preached by Rabbi Steven Folberg
on Rosh Hashanah Morning, 1996/5757, in
which he invited his congregation to consider
adopting the inclusive resolution of
the UAHC. Copyrighted by Steven Folberg.
Used with permission.
Steven Folberg served for six years as assistant
and associate rabbi at Temple Beth-
El of Great Neck, New York. He currently
serves as senior rabbi of Congregation Beth
Israel in Austin, Texas, where his congregation
is considering adopting the
inclusive resolution. He is married to
Saundra Goldman, a writer and curator
in the field of contemporary art.
20 Open Hands
In August 1988, The United Church
of Canada made a landmark decision
that sexual orientation would
not be grounds to exclude from membership
or from ministry. “We affirm
our acceptance of all human beings as
persons made in the image of God regardless
of their sexual orientation.”
The church declared that all people, regardless
of sexual orientation, are accepted
as full members with all rights
and privileges. Some people feared, and
others hoped, that this decision would
open the doors to even wider tolerance
and acceptance. “Why we might even
have people of the same gender getting
married in our churches!” declared one
outraged opponent. And so they are.
Many clergy and congregations officiate
at same gender-covenanting services.
Several United Church congregations
have explicit policies supporting
this.
Trinity-St. Paul’s
Statement Changes
Last September, at Trinity-St. Paul’s
United Church in downtown Toronto,
Teresa Burnett and her life-partner
Ruth Cole exchanged rings and
vows in a ceremony of celebration and
commitment. Candles were lit. Family
members read scripture. Rev. Joan
Wyatt officiated.
“God comes to us in relationship,”
explained Wyatt, and so “it’s natural”
to want to draw us together and “invoke
God’s presence now and in the
ongoing relationship.”
The Trinity-St. Paul’s congregation
has traveled far since its earliest discussions
of homosexuality. In the early
1980s the presence of an openly lesbian
candidate put the issue squarely in front
of the congregation. The debate at first
was rancorous, at times painful. But by
the time Burnett and Cole held their
covenanting, the congregation had a
clearly developed policy of inclusion
and acceptance, including same-gender
covenanting.
In 1994, Trinity-St. Paul’s embarked
on a process to become an “Affirming
Congregation” within The United
Church. This program, sponsored by
Affirm United, provides resources, a
process, and consultants to enable congregations
to learn, change, and become
more inclusive of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
people.
A committee was formed in the congregation
to guide the process. Subsequent
meetings and congregational
study sessions looked at all aspects of
congregational life. In a series of educational
sessions, the congregation was
invited to watch videos, talk about their
own feelings, and hear personal stories.
The final stage of the process included
a review of the congregation’s mission
statement to specifically include lesbian,
gay, and bisexual people. An “affirming
congregation” statement and
“affirmative action policy” completed
the process. The board approved a
policy statement amending the congregations
mission statement as follows:
“We affirm that all who seek to live
faithfully, regardless of ability, age,
ethnicity, gender, race, or sexual orientation,
are full participants and we urge
all to take responsibility in the life,
membership, and leadership in the
church.”
While the congregation was basically
supportive of sexual orientation issues,
it was recognized that further work was
needed “to carry forward the work involved
in becoming a congregation that
affirms people of all sexual orientations”
particularly in areas such as “pastoral
care, outreach to other congregations,
awareness building, and
development of same-gender covenanting
services.”
It was clear to Wyatt and others at
Trinity-St. Paul’s that amending the
mission statement automatically paved
the way for same-gender covenanting.
“Becoming an affirming congregation
meant that we would do same-gender
covenanting,” said Wyatt. “That has
been the case for awhile, but now we
are open about it and are explicitly stating
that’s who we are and this is what
we do.”
Initially, the congregation agreed
that the same policy would be applied
to same-gender couples as for heterosexual
ones; that is, that couples had to
be actively connected to the congregation.
The congregation does not perform
marriages “off the street,” as Wyatt
put it. However, the policy was later
amended to be more inclusive of homosexual
than heterosexual couples. “We
realized we needed to offer services to
all [same-gender] couples regardless of
whether they are members at Trinity-
St. Paul’s,” said Wyatt, because there are
so many congregations that are still
exclusive. “They may not be able to
have same-gender covenanting within
their own congregation.”
A policy change to this effect passed
easily at the Official Board. Trinity-St.
Paul’s has just added a line to its masthead
declaring that it is an Affirming
Congregation.
First United Engages in
Discernment
Same-gender covenanting was much
more of an issue at First United
Church in Ottawa. Opposition to the
issue of ordination had been stronger.
Opinions were still divided, and feelings
high, when the congregation received
a request in October 1991, to permit a
same-gender covenanting between two
lesbian members.
Rev. Sharon Moon conveyed the
request to the Session of Elders and
launched what she describes as “a very
By Alyson Huntly
Congregations in The United Church of Canada develop policies for celebrating same-gender covenanting.
Steps on a Journey
Spring 1997 21
powerful process.” Two elders on Session,
not previously out in the congregation,
came out to the session at that
first meeting. “It was a movement of
the Spirit,” says Moon. “The request enabled
two lesbians to come out. And our
whole community made a choice to risk
faithfulness and solidarity.”
The Session felt that because the request
had such enormous implications
for the congregation it needed to be
dealt with by the Official Board (the
governing body). Official Board in turn,
decided to take the matter to the whole
congregation. In good United Church
fashion, a committee was established—
a committee of people who were supportive,
people who weren’t, and at least
one person who was openly gay. Elder
Sybil Brake was part of that committee.
She wasn’t out when she started, but
“my involvement in the process meant
coming out to the whole congregation.
I felt called to do that, despite initial
trepidation. Unless you can be yourself
in the church, what’s the point? It
turned out to be the third liberating
experience of my life.”
The committee met and began to
work out a process for getting congregational
involvement. It was very threatening
for many—for closeted gays and
lesbians fearful they would lose a supportive
community, for people openly
homophobic, for adults who had experienced
abuse as children. Says Moon,
“There were all these pastoral care
needs. At the same time, it was incredibly
healing for many people.”
The congregation held what they
called a “day of discernment” to discuss
the request and its implications. “We
were setting a precedent,” said Clerk of
Session, Norman Ball. “Whatever we
decided on this one request would be
our policy.”
Study kits and a copy of the request
letter were given to all members. People
were invited to pray, and questions for
personal reflection were provided. Several
“meet the gays and lesbians you are
worshipping with” gatherings were held
to help build congregational awareness.
The discernment day itself began
with Sunday morning worship, Taizestyle,
with lots of silence, and no sermon.
“There was no preaching about
the issue,” said Moon, “just an invitation
to listen to the Spirit.” People met
over lunch to review First United’s mission
statement, talk about what members
valued about the congregation, and
hear a history of the process. This was
not a day to take a vote, it was a day to
listen. The Official Board would make
the decision, according to United
Church policy, but it would be informed
by this day. The discernment
process then continued with information
about covenanting ceremonies,
including reading a liturgy from a recent
ceremony.
A crucial element of the process was
the sharing of losses and opportunities.
Rather than pro/con or for/against,
these were lists the congregation compiled
of things that might be lost and
gained, which ever way the decision
went. Everyone, regardless of their opinion,
was invited to share in the compiling
of these lists. This process broke
down barriers— people supportive of the
request named some of the potential
losses for those who were opposed.
People who were opposed were able to
see opportunities for the congregation
in a decision that they did not support.
There were moments of pain, moments
of anger, signs of struggle, and always
a sense of the presence of the Spirit as
the congregation paused frequently
through the meeting for silent prayer.
In March 1992, the Official Board
met to make its final decision. It voted,
17 for, 6 opposed, “to accept the proposal
for the performance of holy union
ceremonies at First United Church between
same-sex couples.” The Board
noted that space was still needed to respect
differing points of view, and the
criteria would have to be worked out.
The current policy is that the same
guidelines apply as for heterosexual
weddings. No one left the church over
this issue. Even those who disagreed
with the final decision acknowledged
that they felt heard and respected in
their opinions.
The decision, and the discernment
process had a tremendous impact. According
to Moon, it “has influenced
everything we’ve done since. It has
given us a model for decision-making,
a model for dealing with differences.”
Sybil Brake is still an elder at First
United. In fact, she has just been elected
the Clerk of the Session, the highest
elected office in the congregation. Says
Brake, “the discernment process and the
outcome set off a ripple effect that is
still going on six years later. I have a
sense that, in our congregation, the lions
and the lambs are at ease with each
other.”
Lesbians and gays within the United
Church of Canada are asking the
church to recognize and celebrate their
relationships. The United Church does
not yet have a national policy on samegender
covenanting, although Affirm
United, as an advocacy organization,
along with some presbyteries, has requested
that a supportive policy be developed.
These two congregations are
amongst several within our denomination
that have taken seriously the decision
of our national church to “work
out the implications of orientation and
lifestyles in light of Holy Scripture.” In
other words, our church is committed
to continuing to grow, change, and be
transformed as we seek justice for gays
and lesbians in church and society. ▼
Alyson Huntly is a United Church diaconal
minister, a lesbian, and a mother of three.
She is editor of Consensus, the journal of
Affirm United (Lesbians,
Gays, Bisexuals
and their friends in
The United Church of
Canada).
22 Open Hands
The theme of this issue of Open Hands
prompted me to call the editor with a suggested
article. As I explained how my partner
and I have been together for over eight
years yet still don’t have the ability to reside
permanently together in either of our
countries, tears of desperation choked my
words. Ironically, just weeks later, I write
with the assurance of having been allowed
to apply for permanent residency in the
U.S. without delay.
Our Journey
Jean and I met overseas in 1988. We
were resource persons at an international
conference sent respectively by
church bodies we worked for in the U.S.
and United Kingdom (U.K.). Our relationship
developed and grew in commitment,
sustained by long letters, expensive
telephone calls, and costly
airplane tickets.
After three years of this “long-distance”
relationship, Jean moved to the
U.K. to join me and look for work in
the hope of staying there permanently.
Since our relationship was not recognized
by the U.K. government, residency
privileges were denied. Jean
arrived with a tourist visa, “no employment
allowed, good for six months.”
In fact, her simply looking for work in
the U.K. was illegal and grounds for
immediate deportation. Nearing the
end of the six months, and with still no
employment in sight, Jean faced the
interrogation of U.K. immigration officials
to renew her visa.
“You’ve already been here for six
months, why do you want to
return?”
“Where are you employed?”
“Why is your vacation taking so
long?”
“What is your means of support?”
Having slightly embellished the
truth to gain another tourist visa, Jean
endured six more months of learning
that no prospective U.K. employer
wished to undertake the legal hassle of
employing a foreigner. When she was
offered work in the U.S. by her former
employer, we decided to try the reverse
situation. I came to the U.S.
I entered on a tourist—“employment
prohibited”— visa with much the same
restrictions as Jean had had. This visa
was good for only three months; I had
to keep returning to the U.K. to gain
additional tourist visas as these could
not be renewed by going to any country
contiguous to the U.S. or the Caribbean
Islands. It was now my turn to
experience the humiliation, helplessness,
and hurt engendered by immigration
officials’ questions. After three such
round trips, I finally met an employer
willing to file the papers to apply for a
work permit. However, this permit gave
us just one year’s security! A renewal of
the work permit granted me a further
three years, which then gave us a little
breathing space to figure out the best
way to petition for a permanent residency.
However, the work permit I now
held was a “non-immigrant” one good
for an aggregate six years during my
entire lifetime! Gaining permanent residency
through that employer and visa
was not an option.
Following the advice of our immigration
lawyer (all fees were paid by us),
I applied for permanent residency on
the basis of my work which is, ironically,
helping fellow immigrants acculturate
to the U.S., not the least through
English language acquisition. Thus began
a grueling process of “proving myself”
worthy of being allowed to stay in
the U.S.— “in the national interest,” the
government called it. For months I collected
documentation and recommendations.
When my petition was denied,
I appealed and to further “prove” my
worth had to ask professionals who had
never met me to write letters of support
for the type of acculturation and
teaching I advocate. Try securing letters
of support from people in national positions
who have never heard of you!
When this appeal was denied, I was crest
fallen. What did the U.S. government
want? Why did I have to “prove” myself
just to remain in the country with
the woman I love? A heterosexual partner
of a bi-national couple would never
have had to go through this! Their relationship
would have been sufficient
because it would have been considered
legitimate.
On my third and final appeal, I submitted
even more documentation, now
backed up by academic tomes found
amidst hours of library research. All in
all, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service received a stack of papers
from me that reached over three
inches in height with thirty-five appendixes!
I submitted four petitions, was
denied three times, appealed three times
and was finally granted permission to
apply for permanent residency without
delay in late 1996— a full four years into
the legal process. If at this point you
feel overwhelmed by the complexity of
the process, just imagine the stress of
living it!
My Reflections
Many other aspiring immigrants
face similar marathons to mine.
However the injustice facing bi-national
lesbian and gay couples is that our family
ties, love, commitment, and faithfulness
carry no legal weight whatsoever.
We cannot apply for permanent
residency based on our committed
relationship alone. Yet heterosexual binational
engaged or married couples are
automatically granted permanent residency
and subsequently the right to
apply for citizenship.
The so-called Defense of Marriage
Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in the
summer of 1996, specifically denies
immigration privileges to the life-partners
of lesbian or gay U.S. citizens. Ironically,
current immigration laws in the
U.K. indicated that now that I have permission
to reside permanently in the
U.S., my partner’s chances of gaining
residency in the U.K., based on our
By Anonymous
Experiences of a Bi-National Lesbian Couple
Spring 1997 23
relationship, are virtually annulled. I
guess they figure one country is enough;
we gays and lesbians ought to be happy
and leave it at that.
My journey to accept my lesbian
identity in a heterosexually-oriented
society (and related fears of intimacy)
may have led me to seek a relationship
which initially offered safe distance.
Could it be for similar reasons to these,
in addition to proportionally higher
education levels and concurrent international
opportunities among lesbians
and gays, that there is a higher percentage
of bi-national lesbian and gay
couples than heterosexual couples?1 I
find this questioning hasn’t proved
helpful. It leads me to turn the injustice
of the situation back on myself,
blaming myself, the victim, for getting
into this complicated labyrinth of immigration
exclusions, which certainly
aren’t of my making! The stresses endured
by bi-national lesbian and gay
couples are enormous. These stresses
exist in addition to those routinely experienced
by lesbian and gay couples
in a heterosexist/homophobic society.
I don’t know if I could have tolerated
this long drawn-out process without
my spiritual resources, a United
Methodist Reconciling congregation,
and the support of friends and professionals.
In the course of this process I’ve
felt both negative and positive dependency.
For a good many years I have
been dependent on others’ decisions
about my situation, and this has mostly
been a debilitating experience: immigration
rulings, restrictive legislation,
voluminous appeals. However, a positive
kind of dependency has also
emerged—“letting go, and letting God.”
I realized everything has its own pace,
and that, as individuals, we can’t really
“push the river,” no matter how desperately
we want to.
My eyes have been opened to advocacy
for the deserved rights of lesbian,
gay, and other forms of liberation. I’ve
also gained courage in asking for help
from many different sources, especially
from my church community and from
people who can use their positions of
authority to influence others (employers,
related professionals, state and federal
representatives). For now I realize
that, together, we can indeed “divert the
course of the river”! My approval notice
from the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service demonstrates
that.
Friends who have supported us
throughout our quest to live freely and
permanently in one another’s countries
ask us “How do you keep going?” Jean
answers, “Our relationship is a gift from
God. The grace of God has kept us together.”
I answer “I’m just plain stubborn—
we’ve come this far, I’m not going
to let them make me give up now!”
▼
Note
1Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task
Force Newsletter (Summer 1996) New York,
New York.
The writer of this article resides on the East
Coast. She asked to remain anonymous
while her application for permanent residency
is checked by the FBI, a routine procedure.
She is unwilling to jeopardize the
fruits of eight years’ efforts.
Groundbreaking Bible Study
Now Available!
Claiming
the
Promise Mary Jo Osterman
An Ecumenical Welcoming
Bible Study Resource on Homosexuality
Claiming
the
Promise
An Ecumenical Welcoming Resource on Homosexuality
▼ Examines biblical references to same-sex conduct in light
of the Promise that we are heirs of God.
▼ Explores biblical authority and biblical interpretation.
▼ Discusses positive biblical images of hospitality and
sexuality.
▼ Tackles hard questions of “right relationship” and “sexual
responsibility.”
▼ Calls us all to live out the Promise as reconciling disciples.
48-page study book; extensive leader’s guide
offers flexible teaching plans
To order call:
Reconciling Congregation Program
773/736-5526
or contact your welcoming program.
AD
24 Open Hands
Years ago a baby was born. The
parents had wanted children and
were thrilled when they conceived.
They watched with amazement
as the pregnancy developed. They
talked about how life would be different
when they were parents. They talked
of their hopes and dreams for their little
one. They negotiated names. Unlike
today, they didn’t know what the baby’s
sex was prior to birth. Even immediately
after the baby was born, whether it was
a girl or boy wasn’t known. As the baby
lay on its mother’s still-swelled abdomen,
already nursing from her breast,
all three— mom, dad, and baby—glowed
with the exhilaration and exhaustion
of new life. Finally, they remarked to
each other “What a precious gift from
God!” “Isn’t our son special?”
The parents and the son, whom they
named Mark, went through the normal
succession of events in a child’s life.
They struggled with fatigue as he awakened
time and again in the middle of
the night. They delighted at the first
smile; held out their arms in expectation
as he took his first step; did battle
seemingly with him over his need to
control when he would finally be potty
trained; and cried tears when he had his
first day at school.
As he grew older, they continued to
say to one another “What a precious
gift from God!” and “Isn’t our son special?”
But other feelings were also expressed:
“I just wish he would do what
I ask!” “Why does he have to be so independent?”
“Did he really come from
our family?” “I hope the day comes
when a responsible bone shows up in
his body.” He was a pretty typical kid,
in a lot of ways, except one.
Mark was gay. He knew it, he says,
from the time he was old enough to
remember anything. As he grew up, he
went through the motions of dating
girls, knowing that was expected of him
and also thinking that it might change
how he felt; but it didn’t. Finally, he
came to terms with who he was and
began to seek out other men like himself.
Mark lived in fear of coming out to
his parents. He knew they would be disappointed
that he wouldn’t follow the
traditional path of marriage. He knew
they would be disappointed that he
wouldn’t give them the grandchildren
they very much wanted. Would he be
rejected by them?
To complicate matters, Mark came
from a royal family. His dad was the
king. To not have an heir to inherit the
throne was a big issue.
Mark knew that he had two choices.
He could go deep into the closet and
simply go through the motions of marriage
and having children in order to
appease his parents. In a royal family
this would be relatively simple to pull
off. Having lovers would be possible;
people would help him to keep that
secret. But he wanted more out of life
than to try to keep a lid on a secret. He
wanted more than to live under false
pretenses. In his relative youth he had
the wisdom to know deep within himself
that he would be miserable. So he
considered his other choice: come out
to his parents.
Somehow, deep within his being,
Mark thought that the bond he had with
his parents would hold his family together—
eventually. He figured his coming
out would at first trigger his dad’s
incredible temper. He feared that outburst.
He also feared that his mother
would cry about this so much that she
would eventually fall apart. And yet, he
held onto his innate sense that his parents,
given time, would support and
love him as they always had in his life.
So he chose to come out. One day,
the expected conversation about marriage
and an heir came up. With incredible
courage, Mark said to his parents,
“I would like to get married someday,
but I don’t think I will ever find a
woman I want to marry. When I marry,
I know it will be to a man.”
It was an unusual way to come out.
But his parents got the message. First
there was a loud, pregnant silence.
Then, they responded as he expected.
His mom began to cry and his father
raised his voice: “How could you do this
to us?”
Mark withdrew into his chair and
shook as he watched his parent’s reaction
to his news. Their reaction was
strong and honest. They parted that day
not able to embrace each other the way
they usually did. It was a very painful
time for all three of them.
Mark kept his distance over the next
couple of days. He came and went as
usual. He spoke to his parents only
when necessary. They were polite, but
distant.
Finally, after a few days of brewing,
talking, and crying behind closed doors,
Mark’s parents asked to speak with him
again. “Mark,” his dad said, “I have
loved you from the moment I laid my
eyes on you when you were born. I have
celebrated your uniqueness. I have had
dreams for your future. Your news this
week caused me to question if I could
still dream for you and celebrate your
life and love you. At first, I thought I
could not. Then, as I watched you come
and go in near silence, I realized that I
still love you. I realized that even
though your dreams for yourself may
be different from mine, my love for you
and longing for happiness and fulfillment
for you had not changed. I also
Midrash: “Any of the rabbinical
commentary and explanatory
notes on the Scriptures
written between the beginning
of the Exile and c. A.D.
1200.”
—Webster’s New World
College Dictionary,
Third Edition
By Susan Palmquist
A Modern Midrash Sermon Based on Matthew 22:1-14
R.S.V.P.
Spring 1997 25
realized that the uniqueness I began to
see so soon after you were born is some
of what is emerging in your identity
now. As I celebrated that when you were
a baby—even though at times I rolled
my eyes at it— so now, I celebrate who
you are— uniquely.”
His mother added, “Mark, all we ask
is that you honor and respect us by including
us in your life. Include us in
your joys and sorrows. Allow us to be
there for you. We will always love you
and hope for you in your future.”
As anyone who has come out to their
parents knows, the kind of response
Mark got from his was highly unusual.
Mark knew that and honored them for
their gracious welcoming of who he
really was into their lives.
Over the years, Mark dated numerous
men. Finally, he met the person he
wanted to spend his life with. He and
Samuel began to dream of a celebration
of their relationship. Eventually, they
went to Mark’s parents and asked for
their blessing.
To Mark and Samuel’s amazement,
Mark’s parents wanted to have a wedding
celebration for them. His mom and
dad were so excited, they began to make
plans for them before they were even
done telling their news. Seeing the incredible
support from them, Samuel
and Mark couldn’t refuse.
It is here that today’s biblical text
comes in. The king sent word to all
the people that there would be a wedding.
He invited them to come for the
celebration. As was customary, no time
was set, and when the celebration was
ready, the king sent his servants to proclaim
that the wedding banquet was
ready.
Like today in our world, homophobia
was rampant in this community.
Word had leaked out that the wedding
was of the king’s son to another man,
and people began to talk among themselves
that this was wrong. So when
word came that the feast was ready, they
began to tell the servants excuses.
“I cannot come” they said again and
again. Their excuses were varied. Some
were better than others.
Well, the king didn’t excuse them.
Having business or family priorities
wasn’t enough for him. The king had
expected the people to respond to his
invitation. Even if they didn’t understand
what was happening, he at least
expected obedience. When word got
out that some of the people had become
violent and had killed some of his servants,
he became furious. Becoming
protective of his son, he began to lash
out. He told his soldiers to kill the ones
who had killed his people. The city was
burned. It was a horrible tragedy.
The king wasn’t about to let the
people have the victory, though. He
sent his servants out again to gather
people for the wedding feast. He told
them to invite whoever they could find.
Finally, people began to come.
People with whom the king had never
had any dealings came. Men, women,
children, people who were poor, who
had physical and mental disabilities
came—prepared to celebrate with the
king. The rumors had reached them and
most came in genuine respect for the
king and his son and his new spouse.
But some came simply out of curiosity.
Some came and were emotionally
distant, as if what they were observing
was simply a circus, a freak show.
The king saw this. Again it triggered
his anger. “Where are your wedding
clothes?” It was as if he was asking,
“How come you are here if you are less
than supportive of the love that is proclaimed
this day?” The king threw out
these people and cursed them.
This is a difficult story. It is a story
of wanting to celebrate love, but
coming up against the walls of hatred,
of social paranoia, of fear that tries to
keep people out, that tries to deny
people’s love.
It is a story of response and lack of
response to an invitation that brings out
pent-up and unchecked fear and anger.
It is a story that begins and ends with
the deepest and most sacrificial kind of
love that is possible for human beings,
but that reveals the most frightening
underbelly of evil humanity as well.
It is a story that interplays good and
evil, love and hate, as does the story of
Jesus’ life and death.
We are given an invitation in life.
And we are asked to respond. The invitation
is to love of the deepest kind. It
is human love. It is divine love.
Prepared for us is the feast of life.
What is our response? There certainly
are reasons for some to choose not to
come to this particular table this day.
However, as human beings we are summoned
to respond with more than an
outsider’s curiosity to the larger banquet
of love and life, of celebrating uniqueness,
of proclaiming joy in creation.
This is a banquet that we are asked to
go to with more than hushed tones. It
is a banquet for which there is no room
inside closet walls.
So let us come. Let us come like new
parents holding out our arms to feel
love and life in ways that we never could
fully know before. Let us come to the
banquet of love— of life. Amen. ▼
Susan Palmquist is a United Methodist
clergywoman from the West Ohio conference.
Currently she is working as a hospital
chaplain in St. Louis, Missouri. She is
part of Lafayette UMC (an unofficial but
very reconciling church).
Mother and daughter: Susan lives with
her daughter, Leslie Cerny, in St. Louis.
You’re
Invited
R.S.V.P
26 Open Hands
Sustaining
the Spirit
A Hymn for the Blessing of a Commitment
Text and tune by Timothy Kocher-Hillmer
Be for us a model
of how to live our lives.
With your love before us
our search for wholeness thrives.
Through daily new beginnings
community arrives.
Help us push the boundaries
while learning how to bend.
Firmly pushing truth-ward
with unity our end.
God’s vision now enjoins us
as lovers and as friends.
God’s love is a model
replacing status quo
helping us to vision
a way of letting go.
As future turns to present
together let us grow.
Let us love together
with living peace our goal.
Justice then shall follow
our lives transformed and whole
by loving God who makes us
with heart and mind and soul.
© 1994 Timothy Kocher-Hillmer
Used with permission. To reprint these words for any purpose or to
obtain music for this hymn, please contact Timothy Kocher-Hillmer,
969 Lilac Street, Pittsburgh PA 15217-2228. Phone: 412/521-7746.
Timothy Kocher-Hillmer, a member of LC/NA and a life-long
Lutheran, is a “worship activist” and meditator who works with
local and national groups creating worship experiences with and
for anyone who wants to push the boundaries.
Song for a Holy Union
Text and tune by Amanda Udis-Kessler
All our lives we’ve been taught the way to feel, the way to
care.
If that’s not the way we are, we’re told we’re wrong.
But we celebrate today the fact that love will find a way
Past the barriers of ignorance and hate, for love is strong.
Refrain:
The state decrees are missing but this union can’t be
broken.
Today we live in thankfulness that God through love
has spoken.
The bond that you’ve created here let no one put
asunder
As you live your lives in peace with hope and love and
wonder.
All the work that you’ve put in has not been wasted or lost.
You have built a base of strength on which to grow.
There are always those who say that you can’t do what
you have done.
Let this moment be your testament, and let the doubters
know:
Refrain.
Bless this house and all assembled here.
God, keep this couple in Your sight.
may the threads of their lives tangled
Weave a tapestry of light, a tapestry of light.
All the days that lie ahead will show the meaning of your
bond.
We are here for you, whatever you may need.
Keep your home a place of joy. Keep your hearts a place
of rest.
Let your love shine through each thought and word and
deed.
Refrain.
© 1988, 1993 Amanda Udis-Kessler
Used with permission. To reprint these words or to obtain the
music, contact Amanda Udis-Kessler, PO Box 1814, Cambridge
MA 02238. Phone: 617-273-9462.
Amanda Udis-Kessler is a musician and writer in the Boston
area. A member of Arlington Street Church, she hopes to be a
minister some day.
Tapestry of Light
Be for us a model
Spring 1997 27
Selected
Resources
Basics on Same-Sex Unions
Boswell, John. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York:
Vintage, 1994. Boswell presents evidence that “at one time
the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches not only
sanctioned unions between partners of the same sex but sanctified
them—in ceremonies that bear striking resemblance to
heterosexual marriage ceremonies”—and he reproduces actual
examples.
Brooten, Bernadette J. Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses
to Female Homoeroticism. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1996. After you read Boswell, read this one, which
offers evidence of marriages between women in the ancient
Roman world. A major new contribution.
Hunt, Mary E. “You Do, I Don’t,” in Open Hands (Fall 1990),
pp. 10-11. Order from RCP, 3801 N. Keeler Avenue, Chicago
IL 60641. This feminist theologian explores three concerns
she has about lesbian/gay marriage ceremonies.
Long, Patricia V. Enlarging the Circle: Pullen’s Holy Union Process.
This 105-page monograph details the decision-making process
of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, North
Carolina. To order, write to 1805 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh
NC 27605.
McNeill, John. Freedom, Glorious Freedom. Boston: Beacon, 1995.
See especially ch. 9, “Coming Out Through a Public Rite of
Covenanted Union.”
Pullen Task Force on Same-Gender Covenants. Celebration of
Same-Gender Covenants. Submitted April 1993. Some excellent
articles from this local Baptist church’s process. See
Long’s and Prichard’s in this issue. Others focus more
specifically on biblical issues. To order, write to 1805
Hillsborough Street, Raleigh NC 27605.
Sherman, Suzanne, ed. Lesbian and Gay Marriage: Private Commitments,
Public Ceremonies. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1992.
Legislation and Domestic Partner Benefits
Eskridge, William N. Jr. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From
Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment. New York: Free Press,
1996. This attorney and law professor at Georgetown University
offers a strong argument (for both liberal and conservative
reasons) for supporting gay and lesbian marriage. He
believes legal same-sex marriage will civilize both gays and
straights.
Freedom to Marry: Questions and Answers. A pamphlet on The
Marriage Project, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund,
Inc. 666 Broadway, Suite 1200, New York NY 10012-2317. 212/
995-8585. A small pamphlet explores some basic questions:
Why do we need “gay marriages”? What about domestic partnership?
Isn’t marriage really about procreation? and others.
Fried, Barbara and others. Domestic Partner Benefits: A Case Study.
Human Resource Monograph Series. Stanford: Stanford University
College and University Personnel Association, 1992.
This monograph summarizes Stanford’s review of domestic
partner questions, with a short summary of other institution’s
benefits and an exploration of costs and legal
ramifications.
Perry, Troy. “The Wedding: A Demonstration for the Rights of
Lesbian, Gay and Bi Couples,” in Equal Rites. eds. Kittredge
Cherry and Zalmon Sherwood. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 1995, pp. 106-109. Perry explains briefly why he organized
the wedding event in front of the Internal Revenue
Service building and then provides the text of the mass
ceremony.
To Have and To Hold: Organizing for Our Right to Marry. National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1995. Order from NGLTF, 2320
17th Street NW, Washington DC 20009.
Same-Sex Union Ceremonies
Affirm/Affirmer. Covenant Services of Commitment for Same Gender
Couples. The United Church of Canada. Available from
Affirm United, Box 333, Station Q, Toronto, Ontario M4T
2M5 Canada.
Butler, Becky, ed. Ceremonies of the Heart: Celebrating Lesbian
Unions. Seattle: Seal, 1990. A collection of liturgies and more.
Weidig, Jane C. ed. Blessing Ceremonies: Resources for Same-Gender
Services of Commitment. United Church Coalition for Lesbian/
Gay Concerns, 1993. Order from UCCL/GC, 18 N.
College Street, Athens OH 45701.
Cherry, Kittredge and Zalmon Sherwood, eds. Equal Rites: Lesbian
and Gay Worship, Ceremonies, and Celebrations. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1995. A unique collection of
worship services, ceremonies and celebrations—for many different
times in the lives of lesbians and gay men. See especially
the sections on funeral and memorial services and on covenant
rites for couples.
Same-Gender Services of Union: A Planning Resource from the Office
of Lesbian and Gay Concerns. Unitarian Universalist Association,
25 Beacon Street, Boston MA 02108. This resource
includes discussion of the parts of a union service, sample
services, and other practical materials.
Children’s Books
These three colorful children’s picture books explore same-gender family situations.
Newman, Leslea. Heather Has Two Mommies. Northampton: In
Other Words, 1989.
Willhoite, Michael. Daddy’s Roommate. Boston: Alyson Wonderland,
1990.
Willhoite, Michael. Daddy’s Wedding. Los Angeles: Alyson Wonderland,
1996.
28 Open Hands
More Churches Declare Welcoming Stance
First Congregational, UCC
Bellevue, Washington
The only church located in the high-rise core of downtown,
this congregation of 400 members is excited about outreach
that will help the city be a “community with soul.” Having
completed a $300,000 remodeling project, the church is
exploring ways to keep its building and programs available to
the people around it. Among the groups currently meeting at
the church is Parents, Family, and Friends of Lesbians/Gays (PFLAG).
The congregation recently celebrated its first ONA anniversary
with a service and a time of thanksgiving for, and
renewal of, this commitment.
First United Church
Oak Park, Illinois
Jointly UCC and Presbyterian (since 1975), First United is a
suburban congregation of 1100 members. Its location on the
edge of one of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods presents many
opportunities for mutual partnerships with groups working
to improve life in the city. Through a special mission endowment
(funds from the sale of a building at the time of the 1975
merger), the church is currently focusing its outreach on gay/
lesbian issues, self sufficiency/welfare, and preventative health
care. It also supports organizations working on local gay rights
issues like domestic partnership policies.
Mountain Rise UCC
Fairport, New York
This suburban congregation of 375 members is characterized
by a generosity of outreach involving energy and money.
Its spirit is enhanced by “worship in the round”—in a hexagonal
arrangement that allows for various forms of creative celebration.
All members are encouraged to participate in both
Kin Groups (which help prepare for Sunday morning worship/
fellowship and provide personal support) and Commitment
Units (which carry out the work of the church). Mission projects
range from those in nearby Rochester to sending a medical
student to El Salvador for several months. The church also
shares its ONA process and commitment with churches in the
area which are interested in becoming ONA.
Welcoming
Communities Celebration of Life Presbyterian
Mesa, Arizona
Celebration of Life Presbyterian began the process of
becoming a More Light Church following the meeting of the
General Assembly. In February, the Session revised its commitment
to peace-making by including a statement on inclusiveness
and voted to join the More Light Churches Network.
Cottage Grove Presbyterian Church
Des Moines, Iowa
Cottage Grove Presbyterian, a congregation of approximately
170 members, is the first More Light Church in Iowa.
The inner-city congregation’s main mission focus is a ministry
helping people ineligible for government aid who are facing
evictions or utility shutoffs. The church also serves a large
Sudanese immigrant population.
Cove UMC
Lakewood, Ohio
Cove United Methodist Church will celebrate
its 100th anniversary in 1998. In 1970, it moved into its current,
strikingly-beautiful building in this suburb adjoining the
northwest side of Cleveland. This 250-member community
offers a variety of spiritual growth programs and community
ministries. A meditation group meets weekly and a healing
service is held each month. Cove UMC serves a community
meal once a month, sponsors a parish nurse, and houses several
recovery groups. The discussion to become a Reconciling
Congregation, which took several years, grew out of conversation
on how to address the sin of homophobia. The RC
decision has brought several new persons to the church
recently.
Desert Chapel UMC
Apache Junction, Arizona
This congregation was established as a community church
in 1952 and soon became United Methodist. It is known as a
“snowbird” congregation and is comprised mostly of
northerners who spend the winter in this community east of
Phoenix. Worship attendance in winter reaches about 1200,
with an average of 150 during the summer. The congregation
is older and working class. Worship is the center of community
life. Not known as a “liberal community,” Desert Chapel
raised the question of becoming a Reconciling Congregation
after heated debate on gay issues at the 1996 annual conference.
The desire to make it clear that its doors are open to
anyone and everyone impelled the RC decision at Desert
Chapel.
East Vancouver UMC
Vancouver, Washington
Originally located on the eastern edge of Vancouver when
it was founded about ninety years ago, East Vancouver UMC
has watched the city grow around it. This middle-class
MORE LIGHT
RECONCILING
OPEN AND AFFIRMING
Spring 1997 29
congregation of 400 members spans all age groups. A child
care center serves eighty children. The church has active junior
and senior high youth groups, five circles of United Methodist
Women, and a weekly coffee for retired men. East
Vancouver UMC, known as a “welcoming and caring” community,
supports a food bank, women’s shelter, and several
missionaries in Central America. The decision to become an
RC was expanded to look at many different groups of persons
who are not always welcome in churches.
First UMC
Gardena, California
Located on the southern edge of Los Angeles, First UMC is a
multicultural congregation in a largely Spanish-speaking community.
The life of this congregation of 120 members focuses
on mission to the community. The congregation houses the
Harbor-Gateway Center which offers services to persons in transition.
A monthly community-wide meeting at First UMC
brings together community members and leaders to share information.
The congregation provides meals and other services
to low-income families on Saturdays. First UMC’s emphasis
on outreach to the larger community led to the discussion and
decision to become a Reconciling Congregation.
Hazelcrest Community UMC
Hazelcrest, Illinois
Just over 100 years old, Hazelcrest Community UMC built
its current building in 1962 in this south suburb of Chicago.
Its 265 members are racially mixed, tend to be older, and are
noted for their generosity. The congregation heavily supports
missions, sponsors a food pantry, and opens its doors to homeless
persons one night a week as part of the Public Action to
Deliver Shelter program. A strong music program, which supports
the worship program, performs musicals regularly.
Hobart UMC
Minneapolis, Minnesota
This congregation of 150 members is known as a friendly
church which is very involved in its community. One of its
older members was the first infant baptized there ninety-three
years ago. Hobart houses a number of community groups in
its transitional urban neighborhood. The music program is
small, but strong. An area-wide Thanksgiving dinner serves
over 100 persons each year. The congregation is in the process
of establishing the Hobart Neighborhood Center which, when
open this fall, will offer programs for children.
Kings Highway UMC
Brooklyn, New York
This congregation dates back to 1850 when it was Flatlands
UMC. When the congregation moved to its current site and
changed its name in 1925, Norman Vincent Peale was the pastor.
Currently the congregation is in transition toward becoming
a largely West Indian congregation. Kings Highway is heavily
involved with community ministries which serve all ages from
a nursery school to senior citizens programs. The congregation’s
recent growth seems to stem from its biblically-centered, traditional
worship with good singing.
WELCOMING CHURCH LISTS AVAILABLE
The complete ecumenical list of welcoming churches is
printed in the winter issue of Open Hands each year. For a
more up-to-date list of your particular denomination, contact
the appropriate program listed on page 3.
Campus Christian Community
Fredericksburg, Virginia
The Campus Christian Community of Mary Washington
College has students, faculty, and staff from many denominations
as active participants. Its mission statement (written
by the students) states: “The Campus Christian Community
is a loving and supportive commmunity which welcomes diversity
while seeking to know and understand what Jesus has
asked of us.” Becoming a Reconciled in Christ/Reconciling Congregation
seemed to be a natural consequence of its mission
statement. It has become racially inclusive as well. One African-
American woman said simply, “I knew you accepted everybody,
so I knew that I would be welcome too.” This “loving
and diverse community” continues to include folks who are
not comfortable with being RIC/RC, but would rather be in a
community of welcome than a community of judgment.
Faith Lutheran Church
Phoenix, Arizona
Faith Lutheran Church, an ELCA congregation of 52 years
in central Phoenix, decided last fall to become a Reconciled in
Christ congregation. When the church council discussed the
proposal presented by their pastor, Rev. Richard C. Staats, they
responded, “Why Not? We’re already practicing as an RIC congregation.”
Once a congregation of 2,000 people, now again
approaching 400, Faith is truly blessed with the energy and
variety of its new members. Faith’s friendliness has become its
most obvious strength, yet the congregation seriously and regularly
ponders how to reach the people of its neighborhood.
Faith is asking God to work in and through the congregation
as God will, and the surprises are becoming evident.
St. Andrews Lutheran Church
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania
St. Andrews Lutheran Church is a small congregation serving
a diverse, transitional area which includes three universities
and several major medical centers. Its motto is “Love Everyone;
Exclude No One.” This inclusive philsophy led St.
Andrews to build a ramp making its building accessible, to
restart a nursery and Sunday School program for families with
young children, and to become an RIC congregation. Specific
ministries include serving people who are HIV+ and those who
are in Pittsburgh waiting specialized medical procedures. The
process of becoming RIC took seven years. “Education, openness,
and changing of institutions is often long and slow,”
notes St. Andrews’ pastor Janet B. Grill. “Gentle persistence on
the part of those who understood the importance of this formal
step persuaded those who were uncomfortable with naming
gays and lesbians as being specifically welcomed.”
RECONCILED IN CHRIST
30 Open Hands
Movement News
RCP Launches Leadership Training
Twenty local activists from ten midwestern annual conferences
gathered in Chicago from April 4-6 for the first-ever
Reconciling Congregation Program Leadership Training Weekend.
RCP staff Mark Bowman and James Preston planned and
led this event which immersed participants in the RCP message,
style, and organizing strategies. Participants learned how
to make RCP presentations, talk to the media, enroll Reconciling
United Methodists, nurture new Reconciling Congregations
and Campus Ministries, and tell stories which witness to
the work of God in the RC movement. Woven through the
weekend were scriptures and songs which embody the RCP
message of welcome and hospitality.
The participants were quite enthusiastic in their evaluation
of the weekend: “The weekend helped me reclaim the
scriptures and my United Methodist heritage.” “The positive
message of welcoming me in God’s name was very empowering.”
“I will use this to rejuvenate my congregation’s RCP
ministry.” “This weekend I have been educated, renewed, and
have felt accepted and validated for who I am and what I have
to offer.” “This is what the church needs to be about.”
Using the evaluation of the participants in this test weekend,
RCP staff will refine this training model and begin offering
regional training events in different cities in the fall.
Research on Same-Sex Covenanted
Relationships Proposed
The Episcopal Divinity School, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
and a Baltimore group, headed by E.D.S. trustee
and Johns Hopkins physician John Payne, have designed a
five-year prospective study aimed at understanding the facts
concerning church-supported same-sex covenanted relationships.
“Within a climate of emotionally charged and sometimes
ignorant church debate, this research will offer the prospect
of factually-based conversation and, one hopes, informed
decision making,” notes President William W. Rankin of E.D.S.
(who also serves as dean and as Charles B. Wilson Professor of
Christian Ethics).
The carefully designed research study, built on state-of-theart
social science research methods, is a carefully articulated,
quantitative, longitudinal investigation of personal and social
factors. It has been carefully scrutinized and approved by
the Joint Committee on Clinical Investigation of the Johns
Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins
Hospital. Using Episcopal Church congregants, the study will
explore such major questions as: What is the comparative stability
of same-sex versus heterosexual covenanted relationships?
Would many lesbian and gay couples seek religious
ceremonies if these were truly available? How would the
church support same-sex relationships, if at all. No such study
has yet been undertaken within a church context. Ten dioceses
scattered across the United States are already committed
to the project, which hopes to enroll at least 300 couples prior
to their marriage or blessing of covenant—half gay/lesbian and
half heterosexual.
“The potential impact of this study is great,” notes Rankin.
“Some thirty-five parishes are ready to enroll couples. That so
many bishops, clergy, and lay leaders are prepared to join the
study indicates the gap between church rhetoric that religious
blessings of same sex covenants are not occurring, and the
reality that they are.” Whatever the final results of the study,
the researchers believe that the study should be helpful in
grounding in reality, and possibly changing private opinion,
public discussion, and policy in the church and perhaps in
the wider society.
The project is estimated to cost $220,000 over five years.
An initial grant of $50,000 has been received from the E.
Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Foundation.
“Fidelity and Chastity” Amendment Ratified
The commonly called “fidelity and chastity” amendment
to the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church has been
ratified by more than 50 percent of the presbyteries and will
be certified as church law at this summer’s meeting of the
General Assembly.
The full text of the amendment is as follows: “Those who
are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience
to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional
standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement
to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage
between one man and one woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in
singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged
practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained
and/or in stalled as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word
and Sacrament.”
The changes in the church’s constitution were designed to
prohibit the ordination of gays and lesbians as church officers
or pastors, but the language of the amendment is so broadly
written that many argue that no one will be able to be found
fit for ordination. It is certain that the newly adopted amendment
will provoke a great deal of action in the church courts.
RCP LEADERSHIP TRAINING: Activists from across the midwest attend
a first-ever RCP leadership training weekend in Chicago in April.
Spring 1997 31
Call for Articles for Winter 1998
We’re Welcoming! Now What?
Seeking articles on what happens in a local church once the decision to make a
public welcoming statement has occurred: struggles, successes, steps taken to
heal rifts, planning processes undertaken to identify ministry options, specific
ministries developed, etc.
Write with idea: July 15 Manuscript deadline: October 15
If you would like to write an article, contact Editor, RCP, 3801 N. Keeler, Chicago, IL 60641
ABC Metro Removes Ban on Gay
Ministerial Ordinands
The Family Council of the American Baptist Churches of
Metro Chicago, meeting on 8 March 1997, amended its regional
ordination policies regarding the sexual orientation of
candidates. The most pertinent clause states that candidates
will not be withheld from the ordination process on the basis
of their declared sexual orientation. The policy does not speak
to the issue of sexual orientation itself; it places the responsibility
of recommending candidates for regional review in the
hands of the local sponsoring church. Although potentially
divisive debate was anticipated, the meeting proceeded very
smoothly. Discussion was heard fairly from all sides until everybody
that wished to speak had an opportunity. A ballot
vote was called with 42 voting delegates present representing
at least 19 churches. The result was 31 in favor of the amendment,
8 against, and 3 abstaining. The policy is the result of
four years of dialogue involving local churches and the cabinet
of the region.
Patty Jenkins and Kelly Sprinkle of Grace Baptist in Chicago
(a Welcoming & Affirming church) commented, “...we
are happy that the Metro Chicago region has taken this historic
step toward honoring the witness of gay and lesbian Christians....
This decision...calls upon the churches and individuals
to trust one another. It is our hope that, as we begin to
more fully trust one another, we may begin to seek reconciliation
in regard to issues of human sexuality.”
Upcoming Gatherings
23-25 May “Never Turning Back,” 13th Annual More Light
Conference, Portland Oregon. Contact Dick
Hasbany, 541-345-44720.
26 June W&A Biennial Meeting and Service of Worship
for attendees of ABCUSA’s Biennial Meeting.
Contact Brenda J. Moulton, 508/226-1945.
28-30 June “Wade On In: Dancing at the Water’s Edge,” La
Verne, California. A weekend of worship and
the arts. Contact Brethren/Mennonite Council
for Lesbian and Gay Concerns, 712/722-6906.
30 June-3 July “A Rainbow of Hope,” 17th National UCCL/GC
Gathering, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Celebrates the Coalition’s 25th anniversary.
Special invitation to young people. Contact Jan
Griesinger, UCCL/GC, 1-800/653-0799.
24-27 July “Come to the Table,” 5th National Reconciling
Congregation Convocation, Atlanta, Georgia.
Contact RCP, 773/736-5526.
25 July GLAD Alliance meeting, Denver, Colorado.
Contact Eugene Brink, 719/488-0458.
Greater Atlanta Presbytery Retains Member
After Sex Change
Greater Atlanta Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) has voted that a minister ordained as a man can retain
ordination after a sex-change operation. It is believed to be
the world’s first case of a mainstream church body giving such
official recognition to a transsexual person.
The matter became an issue for the church when Eric
Swenson, a 49-year-old father of two adult daughters, asked
for a change of name—to Erin—in church records. Swenson
had undergone a sex change. After considering the situation
for a year and debating it at a meeting on 22 October 1996,
the presbytery voted 186 to 161 that Swenson could retain
her ordination.
A Gift of Song Received
The ONA Program of the United Church Coalition for Lesbian/
Gay Concerns recently received a wonderful “gift of song”
from longtime Coalition member, Mary Dougherty, of Seattle,
Washington. In consultation with musician, Skylar Carroll,
also of Seattle, Mary commissioned noted composer and lecturer
Brian Wren to write a hymn that would give musical
expression to the joy and challenge of being Open and Affirming
congregations. Wren responded with not one but two
hymn texts, “Great Love, Your Loveliness Is Signed” and
“Come, Let Us Welcome, With Warm Acclamation.” They will
be sung for the first time this summer at the UCCL/GC’s 17th
National Gathering in Columbus, Ohio.
James Forbes to Preach at W&A Service
Rev. Dr. James A. Forbes, Jr., senior minister of the Riverside
Church in New York City, will preach at a W&A Service
of Worship, sponsored by the Association of Welcoming &
Affirming Baptists for attendees of the ABCUSA Biennial Meeting.
Dr. Forbes is internationally known as the “preacher’s
preacher.” The service will be held at Christ Church Cathedral
in Indianapolis on Thursday, 26 June, at 4:30. The public
is invited. Immediately preceeding the service (at 3:00), W&A
Baptists will gather at the Hyatt Regency Hotel for their biennial
business meeting and will then process to the Cathedral
for worship. For more information, contact Brenda J. Moulton,
Association Coordinator, 508/226-1945.
Bisexual Writers Sought
Writings by bisexual people of faith are needed for an anthology.
Personal reflections/stories, academic/theological essays,
journal entries, liturgy/prayers, poetry/songs welcome.
Deadline: 30 August 1997 (extensions okay). For complete submission
information, contact Amanda Udis-Kessler, 617/273-
9462 or 617/776-8540, email: aukcrc@world.std.com.
32 Open Hands
QTY BACK ISSUES AVAILABLE
___ Be Ye Reconciled (Summer 1985)
___ A Matter of Justice (Winter 1986)
___ Our Families (Spring 1986)
___ Our Churches’ Policies (Summer 1986)
___ Images of Healing (Fall 1986)
___ Minorities within a Minority (Spring 1987)
___ Sexual Violence (Fall 1987)
___ Building Reconciling Ministries (Spring 1988)
___ Living and Loving with AIDS (Summer 1988)
___ Sexual Ethics (Winter 1989)
___ Lesbian & Gay Men in the Religious Arts (Spring 1989)
___ The Closet Dilemma (Summer 1989)
___ Images of Family (Fall 1989)
___ Journeys toward Recovery and Wholeness (Spring 1990)
___ The “Holy Union” Controversy (Fall 1990)
___ Youth and Sexual Identity (Winter 1991)
___ Lesbian/Gay Reflections on Theology (Spring 1991)
___ The Lesbian Spirit (Summer 1991)
___ Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals in Ministry (Spring 1992)
___ Our Spirituality: How Sexual Expression and Oppression
Shape It (Summer 1992)
___ Aging and Integrity (Fall 1992)
___ Reclaiming Pride (Summer 1994)
___ The God to Whom We Pray (Spring 1995)
___ Remembering…10th Anniversary (Summer 1995)
___ Untangling Prejudice and Privilege (Fall 1995)
___ Airing Out Closets (Summer 1996)
___ Transgender Realities (Fall 1996)
___ Sowing Seeds of Inclusion (Winter 1997)
___ Same-Sex Unions (Spring 1997)
❑ Please send me the back issues indicated ($6 each; 10+ @ $4).
❑ Send me Open Hands each quarter ($20/year; outside U.S.A. @ $25).
❑ Send Open Hands gift subscription(s) to name(s) attached.
Enclosed is my payment of $ _______ OR
Charge $ _____________ to my VISA MASTERCARD (Circle one)
# __________________________________________ Expiration _____/_____.
Name on Card ____________________________________________________
Signature ________________________________________________________
My Name ________________________________________________________
Address _________________________________________________________
City/State/Zip _____________________________________________________
Daytime Phone (______) _____________________
Local Church _____________________________________________________
Denomination _____________________________________________________
Send to: Open Hands, 3801 N. Keeler Avenue, Chicago, IL 60641
Phone: 773/736-5526 Fax: 773/736-5475
Published by the Reconciling Congregation
Program in conjunction
with More Light, Open and Affirming,
Reconciled in Christ, and Welcoming
& Affirming Baptist programs.
A Unique Resource on
Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual
Concerns in the Church for
Christian Education • Personal Reading
Research Projects • Worship Resources
Ministry & Outreach
Reconciling Congregation Program
3801 N. Keeler Avenue • Chicago, IL 60641
773/736-5526; fax—773/736-5475
PRECONVOCATION FORUMS FOR:
• clergy • parents of l/g/bi persons
• persons of color • youth, students, & seminarians
July 24-27, 1997
Emory University, Atlanta
Don’t Miss It! The fifth national
convocation of
Reconciling Congregations
a spirit-filled gathering of the
whole family of God
AD