The two most sacred commitments in my life–my calling to the ministry and my same-gender marriage–are under attack because they are deemed threatening to a church and a society troubled by the lack of family cohesion, so-called “traditional family values.” Our culture fails to see this as a largely heterosexual problem but instead scapegoats homosexuals, just as we who are gay and lesbian attempt to maintain relationships within our biological families and establish our own family units. Our birth families often come under attack for supporting us; our chosen families are refused recognition. Our families of faith treat us as society once treated illegitimate children. In the body politic, rights taken for granted by heterosexuals are called “special” when applied to us.
I’ve lived long enough in the gay movement to witness those who oppose us come full circle in their reasons that we should be outcasts from church and society. Twenty years ago, gay love was opposed because it supposedly didn’t lead to long-term relationships and the rearing of children. Today gay love is attacked because gay people in committed relationships and gay couples with children are coming out. In the past, gays were denounced because we supposedly were “selfish” and “irresponsible.” Now we’re denounced if our selfless service–from the ministry to the military–is revealed. This damned-if-we-don’t-and-damned-if-we-do syndrome should offer a clue to our opponents that their basis for being anti-gay is not reason.
From 1976 to 1978 I served on a national Presbyterian task force whose mandate was to lead our denomination in a study of homosexuality, particularly as it related to ordination. During one regional hearing, a minister testified that homosexuals shouldn’t be ordained because we didn’t form lasting relationships. Another pastor spoke proudly of leading a female couple in his church to see the “error” of their ways, thus breaking up their 20-year relationship. During these hearings, when anyone mentioned the possibility of sanctioning gay marriages, audible gasps came from the crowd. We could talk about gay ordination, but marriage was more sacrosanct!
In 1991 a Presbyterian committee on human sexuality endorsed a sexual ethic of “justice-love” for sexual relationships, including heterosexual marriage and homosexual unions. Fellow churchgoers went ballistic. To suggest that heterosexual marriage was not the bastion of all that is good and sacred about sexuality was too radical a concept for most of the church. The committee’s report pointed out that heterosexual marriage as a holy paradigm had clay feet, mentioning the subjugation of women in most marriages, the problems of marital rape and parent-child incest, as well as adultery. The study also clearly affirmed gays and lesbians and our relationships. During the assembly that rejected the report, some opponents seemed to be saying to gay people, “We’ll give you ordination–just give us back marriage.”
Resistance to calling same-sex unions marriages is beyond my understanding. In no way does it lessen the sacred or civil nature of marriage. Indeed, its value is bolstered by the recognition that both homosexuals and heterosexuals wish to enter into such a covenant. Commonly, both procreation and companionship are viewed as independently satisfactory goals of marriage. Gay and lesbian couples enjoy companionship; some lesbians bear children; many lesbian and gay couples rear them.
It’s true that the most ancient Biblical sexual ethic is procreation-obsessed. That’s why the Bible accepts practices we now find unacceptable, such as polygamy, concubinage and required sexual intercourse with the childless wife of a dead brother. It is also true that Jesus, the source of Christianity, saw fidelity, not gender, as the central issue in marriage and redefined family as fellow believers rather than blood relatives. Until a few centuries ago in Western culture, marriage was primarily an economic institution that ensured inheritance rights, protected political arrangements and produced offspring. Only relatively recently did the ideal of romantic love supplant these reasons. That change redefined marriage far more dramatically than will the inclusion of same-gender couples under the rubric.
When my partner’s and my relationship was blessed two years ago by our Presbyterian church in Atlanta, I felt transformed by our exchange of vows before God and a supportive community of family, friends and church members. I felt even more tenderly toward my partner and I understood more profoundly the sacred nature of our commitment. But when the local newspaper ran a notice of our ceremony, other Presbyterians demanded that our pastor be reprimanded and our blessing “undone.”
Another male couple attending the ceremony expressed regret that they had never had such a ceremony. Less than two weeks later, one was killed in a traffic accident. Because most members of their congregation were unaware of the significance of their relationship, the surviving partner did not receive the support that might have otherwise been offered by fellow churchgoers.
Even as the position on anti-gay ordination goes to presbyteries for ratification and the marriage bill is taken up by the Senate, I’m grateful to know that if something were to happen to me or my partner, our congregation, family and neighborhood would be there for us, caring for us in trouble, challenging us to keep faith in God and one another. I grieve that the same cannot be said of all congregations, families and communities throughout this land.
