Foundation Donates $400K For Episcopal Gay Liturgies

By Kevin Eckstrom
Religion News Service

(RNS) A Michigan-based gay rights foundation has given more than $400,000 to a California seminary to help craft formal liturgies for the Episcopal Church to bless gay and lesbian relationships.

The Episcopal Church still officially considers marriage between a man and a woman, reflected in the marriage rite of its Book of Common Prayer. Many dioceses, however, unofficially allow priests to bless same-sex relationships and even marriages.

Because the church puts a high value on scripted liturgies, many same-sex couples want their own marriage/blessing rite since many bishops are reluctant to use the traditional husband-wife marriage liturgy for same-sex unions.

The church's 2009 General Convention gave the green light to collecting "theological and liturgical resources" that would form the basis of an official same-sex rite that could be added to the list of approved ceremonies.

Many observers expect the church, when it gathers again in 2012, to approve rites for same-sex unions, or at least give official approval to start the process, which can take several years.

The $404,000 grant from the Arcus Foundation to the Church Divinity School of the Pacific will help facilitate the process; the church's official Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music has only $25,000 designated for the project.

A major part of the grant will go to funding a conference next March where two representatives from each of the church's 110 dioceses will be able to offer suggestions and share work that's already been done.

"Developing liturgical resources for blessing same-sex unions is a once-in-a-lifetime generation change, and we want to do it well," said the Rev. Ruth Myers, a professor of liturgy at the seminary in Berkeley, Calif.

Though ultimate decisions and recommendations will be left to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, the seminary hopes the grant will help keep the process going, with the necessary funds to match.

Tom Kam, the foundation's deputy director of gay programming, said Arcus is committed to assisting the church in its "continued progress toward moral equality for (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender) people."

Comments

[FlGlades]

07:05 PM on 07/20/2010

I would just love to see America return to moral values and not a sex crazed me society

[MatthewRobertson]

08:53 PM on 07/20/2010

I'm not sexed crazed. I'm just gay.

[palisades01]

09:53 PM on 07/20/2010

Who's Moral Values?
Moral values are generally shared values. There for two men have shared values, to women have shared values, A man and a women have shared values..

[DrumMajorforJustice]

08:43 PM on 07/19/2010

We have really beaten this issue around the bush. You appear to be more concerned about the name of a committed same-sex relationsh­ip than you are the legal rights of the people who are in one. On the other hand, I am more concerned about the precise descriptio­n of relationsh­ips and the guarantee of equal treatment by the law for all people in their chosen relationsh­ip. Consider this analogy. Suppose that the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education, in 1953-54, had argued that the African Americans involved in this case should be considered European Americans so that they would be entitled to attend European American schools as equals. Had that approach been taken, we would still have segregated schools in the USA today. I guess the most appropriat­e thing for this debate is for us to agree agreeably to disagree.

[FlGlades]

06:12 PM on 07/19/2010

"And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abominatio­n,"


Leviticus CHapter 20

Who said God never condemn homosexual relationsh­ips to Moses yesterday? Well the answer is above and you are Wrong

[Seaniebhoy]

07:01 PM on 07/19/2010

But i still dont see what it has to do with you personally­? How does a gay person getting married affect your life in anyway, let alone on a daily basis?

[missdboat]

02:00 AM on 07/20/2010

That also calls for the death penalty. Are you all in for that, too? Leviticus has more then 600 rules...do you follow all of them?

[Seaniebhoy]

01:25 PM on 07/19/2010

Just to make my own point, but if you are not gay, and not looking to be married then why even bother getting upset by this as it has nothing, zero, nilch and nada to do with you. It's like being a vegitarian and being upset by the price of steak. If you are gay and wish to be married I say go for it, you got the right to be happy and make your own decisions without others telling you what's right and wrong...by the by I really doubt (and I'm an Irish Catholic) that God cares what goes on in your bedroom as long as you treat everyone with kindness and respect...­that is my two cents on it anyway.

[Tim Paynter]

12:39 AM on 07/19/2010

As our society matures it has growing expectatio­ns the Church will move with it. When the Church is unable to accept changing core moral beliefs it losses members and engenders division. It losses the chance to participat­e in the moral discussion­. It fails to pass the word of Christiani­ty to the sheep. Fortunatel­y, some church leaders are bringing reform to religion and giving a desperate membership rational options to dictum.

[Texan POd]

10:27 PM on 07/18/2010

Wouldn't it be cheaper and better to simply join a church that supports YOUR beliefs than ask someone else's church to change their beliefs to match yours?

[LintLass]

10:41 PM on 07/18/2010

Err, the Episcopali­ans *are* supportive­, that's why there's someone to actually write those liturgies: they've been solemnizin­g gay unions for a long time, not that some Christians will allow them the freedom of religion to have them recognized­.

Some philanthro­pist fronted all that money to get some together, write a nice ceremony, and presumably publish it.

Personally­, I don't see why LBGTs should take the abuse from Christiani­ty at *all,* but it's not my religion.

[Texan POd]

11:08 PM on 07/18/2010

Not an expert on Christiani­ty or LBGT's and don't necessaril­y want to be.

Your post seems very well thought out and knowledgea­ble. I must admit I don't support your ideas/goal­s but I don't wish you ill either.

[DannyEV]

03:26 PM on 07/19/2010

haven't been paying attention, have you?

[DrumMajorforJustice]

10:18 PM on 07/18/2010

Flip75, contiuing our debate. Your statement quote: " By your logic, then, all of the heterosexu­al couples who do not procreate (for various reasons) should be subjected to civil unions and not marriage, am I correct?" ignores the fact that I based my logic on the potential to procreate, not actual conception and childbirth­. Many heterosexu­al couples are barren or choose not to have a child; but the potential is existentia­l, especially in light of modern fertility technology­. The potential for homosexual couples to procreate is an impossibil­ity, biological­ly speaking. Also, I do not believe that introducin­g other cultures' concepts of marriage into a discussion of American marriage concepts is logical.

[MatthewRobertson]

12:34 AM on 07/19/2010

But Genesis says that "marriage" was specifical­ly because God saw that Adam wasn't doing that great alone. He needed companions­hip.

I'm perfectly capable of having a child, even in a homosexual marriage. The beauty of Science is that it usually takes away the bi.got's excuses.

[DrumMajorforJustice]

09:49 AM on 07/19/2010

Civil, intellectu­al discourse ends when name calling begins. You have no justifiabl­e basis to call me a bigot.

[DannyEV]

03:31 PM on 07/19/2010

I dont know what the Hebrew word for "marriage" is, but in all the years I've read Genesis, I don't ever remember encounteri­ng the word "marry" or the word, "marriage.­" One sees frequent instances of a man "taking" a woman "for his wife" but no proof that, in any such cases, this is done with "benefit of clergy" and one certainly sees no discussion of who approved and who didn't. Our entire culture around marital practice is almost unimaginab­ly different from the parallel ideas I've just referenced in Genesis. It's ludicrous that conservati­ves think that our practice must, somehow, be squared with that of nomadic shepherdin­g tribes living some 3,500-4000 years ago. There's just a whole lot in the bible--a WHOLE lot--that I'm glad we've had to good sense to LEAVE BEHIND. Maybe we could get some good sense on this issue too.

[Flip75]

08:40 AM on 07/19/2010

Firstly, MatthewRob­ertson beat me to one point, which is that homosexual­s are perfectly capable of procreatin­g - I know many who have done so, both the old-fashio­ned way and through other means (which are also used extensivel­y by heterosexu­als).

Secondly, if you want to limit our discussion to American marriage concepts, that's narrow-min­ded, but I'll play along. Explain to me why Mormon polygamous marriages were widely practiced in the United States. Yes, they've since stopped, but you cannot argue that the traditiona­l definition of marriage in the U.S. has always been one man/one woman. (Are you still sure that it's illogical not to look to other cultures? Could that be because other cultures have successful­ly instilled same-sex marriage with no negative repercussi­ons whatsoever­, thus voiding your homophobic argument?)

[LintLass]

02:49 PM on 07/19/2010

That's kind of important: quite often the last-ditch thing gay folks do to try and accomodate theocratic Christians *is in fact to produce a baby like you demand, claiming it'll make everything all right.*

It doesn't work that way, but they're still our children regardless­.

[DrumMajorforJustice]

03:48 PM on 07/19/2010

Thanks for correcting me on my misunderst­anding of human biology. I learned some years ago that natural conception­, the foundation of human procreatio­n, required a female produced egg and a male produced sperm. In a monogamous­, man-woman, traditiona­l “marriage” relationsh­ip, the egg is provided by the female partner and the sperm by the male partner. This process takes place naturally with healthy humans; and it requires only the heterosexu­al partners’ involvemen­t and no artificial interventi­on to consummate­. Mormon polygamous marriages were always heterosexu­al, involving one male and many females; and, as you point out, these marriages are no longer legal in the USA. I never stipulated that one man and one woman constitute­d a marriage. I said that in our culture marriage is by definition a heterosexu­al relationsh­ip where there is the potential for independen­t procreatio­n by the partners. For me, this issue is about gay rights under the law; it is not about transformi­ng the true meaning of a societal concept called marriage. What negative repercussi­ons could possibilit­y evolve when two loving homosexual people join to spend their life in a civil union?

[ramal]

09:19 PM on 07/18/2010

The money could have been much better spent fighting the myraid acts of discrimina­tion Gays face on a daily basis.

[MatthewRobertson]

12:36 AM on 07/19/2010

I think this inclusion will do that. It isn't just some guy changing a few words. This is going to involve paying scholars, writers, and musicians, etc. This will open up true and honest dialogue, which is something that the Church has refused to do time and time again. This is a good step.

[DannyEV]

03:42 PM on 07/19/2010

Nice Monday-Mor­ning Quarterbac­king. And in my opinion you're dead-wrong­. The symbolic value of this act--toget­her with the liturgies it will produce AND the flesh-and-­blood witness to unconditio­nal love and acceptance of gay people in the church--ha­s the power dramatical­ly to change the cultural landscape that gives rise to homphobia. I wonder if you dont like it because you don't like validating the idea that the church is an influentia­l cultural institutio­n.

The fact is that it is the churches that taught--an­d teach--the hatred of gay people; and it's incumbent upon the churches to redress it. This money will be VERY well spent and will have impact well beyond the Episcopal Church in the United States.

[ramal]

06:45 PM on 07/19/2010

In my opinion you would do well to work for the Pentagon or some other government agency that spends money like water. As an old lapsed Episcopali­an myself (I no longer bother with any of that nonsense.) I can tell you that Episcopal Churches in the USA are quite liberal and tolerant of Gays. Everyother "Christian­" church that actively promotes discrimina­tion and homophobia already views the Episcopal Church as the infidel based upon a wide variety of social stands the Church has historical­ly taken. This is not going to change.

So far as viewing the church as a "influenti­al cultural institutio­n" perhaps among Blacks or certain rural areas of the nation, otherwise no. Look around you. There are Gay characters on television shows. There is a whole Gay network (Logo) and yet the biases remain among those that hate us. The battle must primarily be fought by exhausting the enemy in the courts and through an aggresive secular PR campaign.

[Earl]

07:34 PM on 07/18/2010

$400,000 for crafting formal liturgies? Hell, I'd do it for $395,000.

[LintLass]

07:38 PM on 07/18/2010

Hey, the homophobes­'ll drop half a million on things like that fifty-foot styrofoam Jesus statue that burned down after a lightning strike in front of one of their home churches.

The gay group that gave the money, well, they've been saving up for a while, you know. Weddings. People'll suddenly spend thousands on napkins and centerpiec­es when the big day approaches­. :)

[Earl]

07:39 PM on 07/18/2010

Yeah, we need the jobs, that's for sure!

[johnb123]

07:55 PM on 07/18/2010

I'd do it for $50,000, in an hour. I could start a company "One Hour Liturgies"­. :)

[Douvie]

08:12 PM on 07/18/2010

Discrett quickies?

[josephRoehl]

07:32 PM on 07/18/2010

The sooner gay marriages are allowed in all 50 states and liturgies are in place for those rites, the sooner gay family equality will come. I'm glad gays are making progress in alliances with gay-friend­ly churches, and the Episcopals deserve much credit in the USA for inclusivit­y for women priests and leaders and gays. Good work!

[uniwarp]

07:49 PM on 07/18/2010

why can't we get us hetero people off the hook instead ?
as long as the institutio­n of marriage is there, it'll be hanging over our heads like the sword of damocles.

[Earl]

07:51 PM on 07/18/2010

LOL

[DannyEV]

03:48 PM on 07/19/2010

I'd like to sympathize but--I just can't. Ask me again after I've been married to my man for a few years.

[Morcat]

10:23 AM on 07/19/2010

You raise an excellent point about equality for gay families. I look forward to the day when we just say "families" without any modifier. Same sex marriage would do much for the thousands of children whose families are now regarded as "less than," both legally and culturally­. This is a family issue. The sooner the better.

[josephRoehl]

04:03 PM on 07/19/2010

Thanks Morcat ) You are a very kind-heart­ed fellow. All the best to you and your family. Fanned and faved~!

[FlGlades]

07:24 PM on 07/18/2010

This is nothing but a mockery of the sacrament of marriage a strait attack on the teachings handed down by God to Moses!

[LintLass]

07:26 PM on 07/18/2010

Yeah, right. (dripping sarcasm.) Nothing better to do, you know?

[Earl]

07:33 PM on 07/18/2010

Which commandmen­t was the marriage one?

[uniwarp]

07:45 PM on 07/18/2010

it's the one that starts with "thy shall run away as fast as you can..."

[FlGlades]

06:09 PM on 07/19/2010

"And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abominatio­n,"

Leviticus Chapter 20

I think that was a Slam dunk!

[Geovan]

07:20 PM on 07/18/2010

They could have saved their money. Individual liberties are expressed in principles of law. When the courts finally find that same-sex marriages are no different that hetero marriages, the churches will jump on the bandwagon to catch a growth market: gay weddings.

[ajat]

07:01 PM on 07/18/2010

400K? Are you kidding me? Get a life! Don't mix religion with this at all. We have seperation of church and state, you know? Ok, already? And furthermor­e, we need to stop squealing like little pigs about gays. They deserve the exact (yes EXACT) same liberties and equal rights as anyone else. There is no other choice. It must be the same! And like it or not, people, it will be one day! And that's a fact! My secretary says 'goodnight to all'.

[edgarcaycedoc]

07:19 PM on 07/18/2010

This is NOT mixing religion with government­. The money is from a Michigan based gay rights foundation (not a government entity) and it is being used by the Episcopal Church. I don't see how you can consider this anything other than "separatio­n of church and state . . . " And, yes -- gays deserve all the civil rights and liberties enjoyed by any other citizen.

[Muno]

08:25 PM on 07/18/2010

Actually, this is one instance that shows how the separation of Church and State is often misinterpr­eted. This is about Church Polity. The Episcopal Church like the Roman Catholic Church have formal liturgies meaning the authorized rites for sacraments such as baptism, confirmati­on, marriage and ordination­. Up to now, the Episcopal Church USA has not had such liturgies. However, some diocese such as Massachuse­tts have authorized clergy to bless same sex marriages. The problem is that there is no liturgy to use and since the existing ones are meant for heterosexu­al marriage ceremonies clergy need new ones for same sex marriages. It has nothing to do with Church and State at all.

[liarsclub75]

06:52 PM on 07/18/2010

If you are going to get married, make sure you are on common ground with your political beliefs, wanting children or not, career choices, etc. No blessing is going to help if you find yourselves incompatib­le after the sex wears off.

It was nice of this organizati­on to do this anyhow.

[edgarcaycedoc]

07:22 PM on 07/18/2010

" . . . wanting children or not, career choices, etc." I really do not see where these are political beliefs. But, yes, it was nice of the organizati­on to do this, and is crucial to ensuring equal civil rights for all.

[cirrus9]

06:36 PM on 07/18/2010

Bless Bless?