The Church of England recently released a statement condemning the British government's intention to move forward in legalizing gay marriage. Although the government has been clear that religious institutions will never be forced to marry couples of any gender if it is against their conscience, the Church expressed its fear that European courts might use equality rulings to force them to accept any couple seeking marriage -- and this might lead to the Church being forced to change its relationship with the nation for which it has been the established church since the time of Henry the Eighth.
I spent Sunday morning talking to BBC radio stations around the U.K. about this issue and why I didn't see it as a crisis. The Church of England announcement comes, of course, shortly after President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the States, and the situations in the U.K. and U.S. -- while not identical -- are similar enough that they suggested some responses.
Yes, gay marriage is a cultural tidal wave washing over religious conservatives in both the States and Britain.
No, it is not an insoluble problem, nor is it one that should require ministers or congregations being to make unwelcome concessions that violate their beliefs.
Knowing clergy on both sides of this issue both in the States and in the U.K., I am sympathetic to the fears of the conservatives, even as I side with the liberals. As an old body-surfer, I can attest that it is a scary thing to have a huge wave bearing down on you and to feel as if you are about to be tossed and turned at its pleasure without being able to do much in response to it. This wave is large, and it is growing. Currently in the States, polls indicate half or more adults favor gay marriage. Figures are similar in the U.K., with 68 percent of Scots supporting gay marriage in a recent poll, and another indicating that 60 percent of people in the U.K. calling themselves religious, and 80 percent of those under 50, supported the right to marry. (This latter suggests an important demographic point: opposition to gay marriage is largely in older generations, with younger being generally sympathetic. With the passing of the years, this issue will pass away.)
The "End of the Church" rhetoric being employed currently by the Church of England is familiar to us in the States because it is the Culture War rhetoric employed by those on the right for a number of years. It goes something like this: If "X" is permitted, then we will no longer be the same people we were before. In extreme cases, we are told this: If "X" becomes the law of the land, it will mean the end of "Y" (with "Y" being solved variously for "Church," "nation," "traditional marriage," or what have you).
In the States, the fight over gay rights and homosexual clergy has split many denominations for years, although we now seem to be moving past these issues, and will one day look back on them -- and these battles -- as ridiculous. My friend Phyllis Tickle observes in her fine book "The Great Emergence" that -- along with slavery/civil rights and the rights of women and their role in the Church -- the issue of LGBT Christians in the Church and in society represents the last great gasp of the appeal to Scripture as the sole authority for believers.
The Church has actually begun to reach some conclusions that seem both faithful to the tensions Christians may feel about this issue, and faithful to the desire to be pastoral to all God's children. In Sweden, where there is an established church, gay couples may be married either at the town hall, or in the Church of Sweden if the pastor is willing. In Scotland, it has been suggested that churches would not be forced to carry out gay marriages, but would be at liberty to do so if they wanted.
In the American Episcopal Church, bishops have been reaching individual decisions about how to react to this summer's expected approval by the national church of same-sex blessings. (Since gay marriage is not widely legal in the United States, liturgical blessings have been the sticking point.) Andy Doyle, the Bishop of Texas, has decided to permit several larger churches such as my own parish, St. David's, Austin, to decide if they wish to offer same-sex blessings, while smaller or more conservative churches are not being asked to overturn their ethos at this time.
I fully expect St. David's to decide to offer same-sex blessings, and think this model of voluntary participation being set up in the Staes and elsewhere is the answer to the fear of the Church of England. I know the tensions they feel -- if they are too liberal, conservatives will peel off from the CoE or perhaps even become Roman Catholic under the special program Pope Benedict has set up to lure Anglicans and Episcopalians back to the Roman Church. As the Mother Church to the Anglican Communion, the Church of England also has to reckon with the vast majority of Anglicans who now live and worship in homophobic African churches.
But I fully expect the Church of England to find a satisfaction short of disestablishment, and I certainly don't think that this is, as some have said, the biggest crisis for the Church in 500 years.
If so, it's not merely troubling; it's tragic.
The Church should be about its work of serving and saving people -- not obsessing about whose weddings they intend to celebrate.
There is no doubt that there will be splits in churches because of this; but I would say that it is better to be divided by truth than united in error.
All of this "ministers in the U.S. not be required to perform marriages they don't agree with" is redundant, but if restating the First Amendment reassures some people, that's fine with me.
Since the state in the U.K. technically could intrude on the Churches of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland if it wanted to, it is at least a question that civil marriage equality proponents need to have an answer for. It's probably unnecessary there, too (if the state did try to intrude on the Church, they would probably end up separating church and state, which wouldn't bother me a bit), but it doesn't hurt to have talking points ready.
A situation that also exists in society is that of transgender people and they are the most discriminated against people in the world.
But they are still people and they deserve equality in our society; some of these people are married, even in the sight of God having being married in church usually as man and wife.
However what we see is not always what we get and sometimes gender roles change and the relationship in that marriage if it survives, becomes one of same sex in societal terms.
Presently many governments want to interfere and force dissolution of the marriage even though it may have been made in the sight of God, in order to make right the idea that only opposite sexes can be married.
Fortunately many in society have seen the inequality of this situation.
It is now recognised as one of the key points in the UK same sex marriage policy as they attempt to set all people on equal terms.
Conclusion: This marriage debacle is not just about Gay marriage it is inclusive of all who wish to live their lives together in equality.
Please see actual UK Home office recommendations on this matter in link below.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/equal-marriage-consultation
The word Gay seems to invoke in many a kind of unacceptable situation about to evolve and if it does, all manner of problems will occur.
While it may cause problems for some, it does not for others.
As a society we should be mindful of what already has happened in our world.
It must be recognised that Gay people exist and in many cases they live their lives with other gay people in the same way that the rest of society does.
Societal norms happen when two people decide they want to spend their lives together, they seek approval from the rest of society who give this union a name – marriage.
Society itself does not demand that this relationship require any religious connection.
Much of today’s world recognises all people regardless of their religious beliefs simply as people, and in the case of marriage it is now basically a societal term used to denote the way two people relate to one another.
Slowly society is coming to recognise that fact and is the reason the process and recognition of the term marriage must become one of equality first and foremost.
The UK government have actually got it right, they actually define their intentions clearly by stating it is about same sex marriage, not, gay marriage.
In my next comment I will try to explain further.
Homohatred-- whether given a sheen of "sincere religious belief" or simply admitted for what it obviously is to any thoughtful, compassionate person-- is an ancient, durable, deep prejudice, intimately tied with equally ancient ideas of manhood, femininity, sexuality, and gender.
Because it is so ancient and tied to deep fears about the adequacy of the self, it's like cat piss on your bed-- it permeates everything, and stinks badly. If you don't think you own a cat, or believe that cats exist, it takes a major effort to ever clean out of the fabric of your existence.
That's only half The other half exactly is this: "the issue of LGBT Christians in the Church and in society represents the last great gasp of the appeal to Scripture as the sole authority for believers." Their greatest fear is people saying, "If the church is wrong about THIS, what else are they wrong about?"
What they don't understand is the incongruence of faith and reality has never been a barrier to faith EXCEPT when faith continues to insist on its own objective reality in the face of real reality. Where there is no proof-- is Jesus the son of god, does the devil exist-- faith steps in easily. But tell someone their dearly beloved Uncle bob represents the destruction of civilization by dirty monsters, faith will ALWAYS take a beating.