Who'd known?

Anne smiles after Jane has signed the marriage license.

Who'd known? Never in a hundred, thousand, million, billion years did I ever expect to have the legal status of 'married.' For 12 years, Anne and I have been legally joined in a Vermont civil union — we had our holy/civil union in August 2000, a month after civil unions, a radical act indeed, became legal in Vermont.

Time went on, other states moved to marriage equality, Vermont came on board, too, but the legislature did not automatically convert pre-existing civil unions to marriage.

So, ten days shy of our 12th anniversary of our holy/civil union and in our 23rd year of being together, we had lunch with six dear friends, talked all about General Convention, the state of the church, peace concerns (notably Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq) and just enjoyed one another's company. We all sat outside on a screened porch and one of the household cats periodically came out to try to catch bugs.

In the course of the afternoon, Jane, who presided at our holy/civil union signed our license, thereby dissolving the civil union (a bit odd, I'd say) and converting our status to being married in the eyes of the state of Vermont. And then we toasted the whole day, the twelve years, the 22 years with some Gruet champagne.

Does this change our status with the Feds? Of course not. Anne will continue to pay 20+% in taxes on any medical reimbursements I receive because in the eyes of the Feds we are not related.

But she and I know we are related and more. And we know it. To celebrate, tonight we had Bierzo, special wine that reminds us of the Camino de Santiago.

On Marriage

Some day, some day, people will really get it.

They will understand that their concept of marriage is cultural, as in the 'wedding industry' that lures couples into spending thousands of dollars they do not have for an evening, whereas those of us who counsel said couples are more interested in five to ten years down the line.

They will understand that their concept of 'biblical' marriage is totally wrong, that this notion of one man/one woman more often than not does not show up as the norm in the bible (try Salomon and his gazillions of wives and concubines or Levite marriage).

They will understand that their concept of the actual rite involves both state and church and perhaps, it would be better to separate church from state in this case, as it is in all other rites.

They will understand that the concept of samegendermarriage is incredibly conservative and traditional and is not going to tear apart their (fragile) heterosexualmarriages.

They will understand that the sex lives of gays and lesbians are boring, and not cracked up to what their fantasies think they are, that the gays and lesbians are not out there 'doing it' all the time but actually are quite bogged down in the mundane tasks and responsibilities of daily life.

End rant.

In the meantime, the arc toward justice is incredibly long and slow.

Post millennial blues

We all thought the world was going to collapse with the Y2K change. But here we still are ten years later. What is changing is that the world is becoming more and more conservative. I dread to think of where it will be in another ten years.

In today's paper: Catholic Bishops Elect Dolan

'The election consolidates the gradual shift in leadership and priorities for the bishops conference. From the 1970’s through the 1990’s, the conference was a center for progressive Catholicism in a distinctly American guise, releasing ambitious teaching documents on issues such as economic inequality, workers rights, the environment, peace and war. While the bishops still do take up issues such as immigration and poverty, they are far more focused on shaping public policy to stop abortion and prevent the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples.'

Yup, it is way, way more important to regulate the expressions of human sexuality (i.e., one would not have to deal with abortion if contraception were permitted in this value system).

In this day and age, The Episcopal Church can no longer count on disaffected Catholics crossing the street. They walk out the door to become part of the great de-churched alumni/ae association because institutional religion is seen to be too bigoted. We've got an archbishop across the pond in England who is trying to emulate the Roman hierarchy while making Anglicans into confessing people. And he is trying, through the dint of repetition, to create ex nihilo the Anglican 'Church,' as though this communion is a monolithic church rather than the collection of provincial expressions throughout the world. Then there is this proposed covenant which should never have gained traction but it still seems to have a life of its own.

We have so much work to do.

But will there still be a church?

Or is the millennium a decade or two behind in arriving for the millennialists?

Wow, I am honoured

From Walking with Integrity

Thought for the day

If the Republicans are going to pull a filibuster, then they need to DO it and stay in the Senate chamber all night talking rather than get it and celebrate, i.e., they need to work for that filibuster.

Shame on them. Shame on them for denying a discussion on DODT.

Quote of the day

From an article about a federal judge in Massachusetts who found Thursday that a law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, ruling that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples:

Professor Balkin, who supports the right to same-sex marriage, said the opinions ignored the federal government’s longstanding involvement in marriage issues in areas like welfare, tax policy, health care, Social Security and more. The opinion in the advocacy group’s case applies the Constitution to marriage rights, he said, undercutting the notion that the marriage is not a federal concern.

“These two opinions are at war with themselves,” he said.

The arguments concerning the 10th Amendment and the spending clause, if upheld, would “take down a wide swath of programs — you can’t even list the number of programs that would be affected,” he said.

By citing the 10th Amendment and making what is essentially a states’ rights argument, Professor Balkin said Judge Tauro was “attempting to hoist conservatives by their own petard, by saying: ‘You like the 10th Amendment? I’ll give you the 10th Amendment! I’ll strike down DOMA!’ ”

A different take on this morning

from the Living Church...

Of course the first item is the sexuality one whereas that does not really show up in the ENS article.

Questions asked of Kenneth Kearon

Here are the questions that the World Mission Standing Committee of Executive Council prepared and asked this morning of Kenneth Kearon.

There is a covenant being considered that has in it certain processes, some of which have caused great concern for some of the provinces on how fairly they would be applied. For example, the Province of New Zealand gave only partial approval to the covenant, with members of its General Synod noting that Section 4 could “get into a situation where we sanctify a process of exclusion or marginalization” and that it might be implemented in ways that are “punitive, controlling and completely unAnglican.” Do the recent actions of the Archbishop of Canterburygive credence to theseconcerns? [Canon Rosalie Balletine, Esq., Chair of the World Mission Legislative Committee, Diocese of the Virgin Islands]

There are always consequences to living authentically as Christians. Within relationships among Christians, however, we ought to have opportunity to question those consequences, lest all end up walking on eggshells. Is there such a process now? And, do you foresee a season of such sanctions or is the removal of ecumenical committee appointees from The Episcopal Church an isolated event?[President of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson, Diocese of Michigan]

You have stated that The Episcopal Church does not “share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion.” Given the place of the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral in our common life as The Episcopal Church, how was it determined that The Episcopal Church does not share this faith and order? [Blanca Echeverry, Esq., Diocese of Colombia]

I am Jim Simons, a priest resident in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh which, as I’m sure you are aware, went through a recent and painful schism. Currently, there are over 100 priests, deacons and one bishop canonically resident in the Province of The Southern Cone as well as another Bishop canonically resident in the Province of Rwanda functioning in our diocese without licenses and laying claim to some of our parishes. This is in clear violation of the canons and it is also not unique to our diocese. What if any disciplinary action do you anticipate toward provinces who engage in such jurisdictional incursions? [the Rev’d James Simons, Diocese of Pittsburgh]

As a lesbian priest, in a 20-year relationship, legally recognized civil union in my state for ten years , and serving in a congregation, I ask this question because inclusion is very important to me. In his Pentecost letter, the Archbishop of Canterbury said, “We are praying for a new Pentecost for our Communion. That means above all a vast deepening of our capacity to receive the gift of being adopted sons and daughters of the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It means a deepened capacity to speak of Jesus Christ in the language of our context so that we are heard and the Gospel is made compelling and credible.” Removing people by executive action seems counter-intuitive to furthering inclusion. How is the exclusion of Episcopal Church members reconciled with the language of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost letter? [the Rev’d Canon Lee Alison Crawford, Diocese of Vermont]

The Church of England remains in full communion and ecumenical dialogue with the Old Catholic Church, which blesses same-sex unions, and the Church of Sweden, which has a partnered lesbian bishop and blesses same-sex marriages. Given this fact, how are we to reconcile the removal of Episcopal Church members from ecumenical bodies? [the Rt Rev’d Wendell Gibbs, Bishop of Michigan]

+

He visibly blinked and drew back as I identified myself. I thought that body language was telling... when faced with the 'issue' at hand, it is a bit harder to deny its existence, though the answer was clear that blessings of same-sex relationships has risen to the level of faith and order and seems to be the deal-breaker in ecumenical discussions, that because TEC has engaged in same-sex blessings and consecrating a partnered lesbian to the episcopacy, we no longer can participate in these conversations because we do not ascribe to the faith and order. My follow-up question should have been: Since when and how has blessings become so important?

I will say that EC was gracious and restrained in its comportment. I am also very glad that EC voted against going into private conversation as requested. (The press gasped when he asked this of us.)

More later.

Go to it

all you Cafe Press folks...

In response to my question about inclusion, and why were TEC people now excluded from conversations on the ecumenical level, the answer was totally directed toward 'faith and order,' that is, for most practical purposes, same-sex blessings is now a communion-breaking 'issue' of faith and order.

Had I had my wits about me, I would have asked, Since when has blessings become so important that it is the deal-breaking question of faith and order?

So, my proposed t-shirt is:

My relationship is a Communion-breaking issue of 'faith and order.'

Go to it.

Twenty-four hours later

I wrote the kernel of this in a response over at Mark's blog, but figure it is worth (?) expanding... so here goes.

The blogosphere has erupted in analysis of the latest missive of the Archbishop of Canterbury with comments ranging from, 'It is a slap on the wrist,' to the predictable, 'It does not go far enough.' Most of the comments land in the realm of, 'Here we go again, it is another attempt to kick out The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.' Mark, over at Preludium, has posted those names of people who would, by the criteria of the letter, no longer be able to function on the 'Anglican curia' or in ecumenical dialogue but most of the blogosphere seems to think who are we kidding when we suggest that the southern churches would be blocked from participating.

Having attempted earlier this week to mediate an unhappy situation that risked becoming an unholy fire, and realising that we were never going to get the two parties to agree, I worked instead on finding a way of apologising, letting go and moving on. And so I ask in this situation what I did earlier this week:

How come the ABC can't do as a mediator would by saying: 'I realise that all parties hold their perspective on the point in dispute, they have their own truths. Rather than try to find a common narrative because I realise we are never going to agree on this particular point, let us instead let go and move on forward.'

Of course it is naive to think that those who are so anti-gay would let go — we have seen too many times that it is a fight to the death cause — and therein lies the wrench in the works. And because of that intractability, the other side (me) says, 'Fine, we're going on ahead regardless because we do not want to be dragged back.' Still, some leadership that would acknowledge the variables, recognise the cultural readings on this, and respect the traditional Anglican approach toward scripture which is not a literalistic reading, instead of creating some sort of punitive document (aka the Anglican Covenant), could help immensely.

For the ABC's saying that the Anglican Covenant is not punitive I dare to disagree given his explanation to the press that follows his Pentecost letter. Kicking people off committees is just the start.

I do think that formulating a response to the Anglican Covenant on the part of TEC is spitting in the wind. A quoi bon? The ABC has already decided what he wants to do with us. I do not want to see TEC backtrack in the name of appeasement.

And what has been done — ordaining people of whom the ABC does not approve — cannot be undone. For the Bishop of Durham to reference the Long Beach ordinations as everything wrong with the church simply shows everything wrong with the straw arguments emanating from the other side of the aisle. Why are people complaining about the smudging? How does that differ from censing a priest before s/he begins the eucharistic canon? And why is it offensive to have dancers from the different peoples within the Diocese of Los Angeles? To those who disagree, I suggest not so gently to get a grip. As for the consecration liturgy, it is beyond me what was wrong or missing except the fact that for some it involved two women and for others, it involved a woman whose life-partner is a woman.

When I think of the time and money that has been spent on this covenant business, I get quite cross. When I think of the energy that has been misdirected into this realm of discussion in lieu of God's mission in the world, I get even crankier.

Yet this is the deck of cards we have been dealt so we might as well play this hand out to the end, regardless where we end up, in or out. Regardless, not all of the individual relationships that people from TEC have established with communion partners will dissolve even if the communion does.

Just some morning cup of coffee musings as it sprinkles out (thereby making it impossible to mow the lawn).

[image: Los Angeles hands on a cross one arm of which is shorter than the rest, symbolising our incompleteness and brokenness, that we are not all yet one... if I remember correctly what Bishop Bruno said of the cross at the consecrations]

Back on the east coast

to a backlog but I will put down some of my impressions about the consecrations yesterday in Long Beach but let me post two photographs that mean a lot to me.


Archbishop Barahona came up from El Salvador to participate in the consecration, his last act of Primate of the Anglican Church of the Region of Central America. Post consecration he spoke of how powerful it is at the moment of laying on of hands because the Holy Spirit is so present. In the evening, he talked about how support of the LGBTI community is a question of human rights because our sexuality is a part of human nature and a gift from God. His ministry, support and witness have been gifts from God to the rest of us. May God continue to protect him.


There is no going back! Each bishop needed two pages for all the signatures and seals. Incredible!

I could not keep from singing, 'Hail thee festival day, blest day that art hallowed forever...'

In my lifetime?

Will there be same-sex marriage on a federal level in my lifetime (now that I am easily more than halfway through it)? I doubt it.

Witness the latest nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, who says quite bluntly that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

For this reason, à quoi bon state level marriage if it is not recognised across the country? So one can live in Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and New Hampshire in same-sex marriage and that is it.

For the time being, however, same-sex couples still have to file single tax returns on the federal level, go through immigration and customs as though they have no family member travelling with them and countless other indignities.

Like a broken record, all I can ask is, 'Of what are people so afraid? If opposite-sex marriage is so fragile that it needs to be protected from the gays, then there is something wrong here.' Until we do our homework on what marriage is and is not, we are not going to advance in this stalemate.

The deal-breakers

... nothing new really but just more reason why this Anglican Covenant should die a graceful death.

From the Global South crowd:

We believe that all those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10. Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

Lambeth 1998 I.10 ad nauseum. If that resolution which has no legal authority is a deal-breaker, then those provinces that hitherto have categorically refused to engage in a thoughtful, reasoned conversation about human sexuality and who continue to treat the LGBT community as disordered also need to respect the portion of said resolution that calls upon them to do these things: talk about sexuality and treat all people as worthy of God's love AS THEY ARE. Until then, they are hypocritical and cannot command a higher moral authority.

God forbid that we end up with the primates acting as our magisterium. We are Anglicans, for pity's sake. There is a wideness in God's mercy as there is a wideness in Anglican theology. We do not need litmus tests that these bishops would want to impose on the rest of us. Thank you very much but no thanks.

These folks need to form their Baptist/Calvinist/Evangelical Church and stop calling themselves Anglican.

Grump.

The ABC has caved

And I quote Archbishop Rowan Williams: ' In all your minds there will be questions around the election and consecration of Mary Glasspool in Los Angeles. All of us share the concern that in this decision and action the Episcopal Church has deepened the divide between itself and the rest of the Anglican family. And as I speak to you now, I am in discussion with a number of people around the world about what consequences might follow from that decision, and how we express the sense that most Anglicans will want to express, that this decision cannot speak for our common mind.'

Well.. some of my questions are: Why did it take so long to elect another highly qualified priest, someone who could run circles around many of us other clergy?

Why should one adjective ('lesbian') disqualify her from becoming a bishop?

As for TEC deepening the divide between itself and the rest of the Anglican family (a word I have always steered clear of, let's call it the koinonia)... we are not isolated. There ARE other provinces who rejoice in this election. We are not by ourselves. He may want to think we are isolated but we are NOT!

Consequences? Kick us out. Our relationships with parts of the Anglican Communion will continue.

I am appalled. Utterly appalled by this caving to bigotry, fear mongering and pandering to a loud, well-funded group. He has caved, he is in a cave of fear.

He needs our prayers even more than ever.

Rhetorical question

Why does Mary Glasspool's receiving consents garner a comment from the Archbishop of Canterbury almost instantaneously (they must have had the text pre-written for either scenario) whereas when one of the 38 primates of the Anglican Communion nearly loses his life in an assassination attempt that results in his driver being gravely injured we hear nothing?

Forbidden word

Everyone else in the world has commented on the news coming from Los Angeles but lest I be lost in the shuffle, let me add my alleluia to the expanding chorus.

Given that The Episcopal Church will now have TWO (count 'em) out people, and anticipating the hue and cry coming from those for whom this is anathema, does it really make sense to continue exploration of a so-called Anglican Covenant? After all, in the eyes of the people who are contra the ordination of anyone who is not male and straight, no matter what we do is going appease them... any more than yesterday. In the cosmic scale, the world has not vastly changed since 24 hours ago.

Not having Photoshop on this computer, I can't erase the 'Christ is Risen,' but in some ways, the news is yet one more manifestation to me of Christ's kindom entering this world.

C'est vachement fatiguant

From Bishop Pierre Whalon:

Some have said that the moratoria will end when we act to end them. Such an action, undefended, would only perpetuate the present anomie, and raise a real question about a “General-Convention fundamentalism”—“the majority voted it, therefore God said it, and that settles it.” Rather, we need to continue to keep "gracious restraint" until we have done the necessary work in order to end it. We do not have to wait for the rest of the Communion to approve our arguments, of course. But it is terrible that we as a church have continued to avoid that work, and all therefore continue to pay a heavy price, both within and without The Episcopal Church. If we go on blessing same-sex unions and consecrating people in those partnered relationships, and yet continue to refuse to do that work, will that mean that we cannot justify our actions? And if we cannot, then what — in God's name — do we think we're doing?

Go over to the Lead and read the discussion.

It is so incredibly wearying (the name of this post) to be told we haven't done the theology. We have done it ad nauseum. It's just that the bishops don't think so. Their theology committee which lacks a LGBT person, AFAIK, has not produced whatever paper it will. I think Katie Sherrod hits it on the nail: they are still arguing over women's ordination.

And for those who think that the 2009 GC did not move beyond 2006-B033, I remind them of these words from 2009-D025, a resolution of which I have intimate knowledge, having been on the subcommittee that perfected the original words that Deputy Becky Snow of Alaska et. al. authored:

Resolved, That this 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of these relationships have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst, often without the Church’s recognition of their lifelong committed relationships and the blessings bestowed by these relationships; and be it further resolved

Resolved, That this 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, which call is tested through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitutions and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further resolved

Resolved, That this 76th General Convention acknowledge that while the members of The Episcopal Church, as of the Anglican Communion, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, disagree about these matters.

[I will post the final adopted version later when I have time to dredge it up; this is what our legislative committee passed on.]

Oversight

So this is some of the oversight in which some of the Church of England bishops are engaged (from the Guardian):

'Last Tuesday, bishops in the House of Lords were still fighting for the church's right to discriminate in employment, not just among the clergy (there is already exemption for them), but its other employees too. They were opposing the government's equality bill and, since it is unlikely that they want to discriminate against black or disabled folk, one must presume it is sexual orientation that is at issue. Dr Peter Forster, bishop of Chester, argued that the proposed legislation "concentrates too ... excessively on the rights of the individual, essential as these are".'

Guess they have overlooked that bit in scripture (Galatians) that talks about how in Christ all are one.

State of Marriage

Vermont Public Radio is doing an excellent presentation on the history of marriage equality, starting with Vermont's civil union and taking the history up to day.

What strikes me is that almost but not quite all the voices against same-sex marriage are (white) males. It is not at all surprising... I go back to Susan Faludi's Backlash that came out ten years ago in which she posits that with the loss of power, white men feel more and more threatened and strike back more and more.

When I graduated from college in 1979, we thought that equality for women would be achieved in our lifetime. We are not there yet by any stretch of the imagination but we have advanced some... but patriarchy is taking a very long time to die, which is what is going on.

You can download this report up on their website. They will be re-broadcasting it on Saturday. It is well worth spending an hour listening to this report.

From VPR's website:

Ten years ago in December, the Vermont Supreme Court changed the landscape of legal rights for same-sex couples when it handed down its ruling in the case Baker v. State of Vermont. The plaintiffs had argued that they deserve the rights of marriage, just as heterosexual couples do. In the decade since, the country has seen dramatic debate over the legal status of gay and lesbian couples, and VPR gives context and meaning to that debate in this news documentary.

Join us for an examination of how the country has wrestled with the deeply personal and very public questions of what marriage means, how to legally recognize gay and lesbian couples, and how ideas of family and civil rights are challenged by these questions.

States of Marriage examines how several states have approached legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples. We examine the divisive civil unions precedent in Vermont, and how it set the stage for a marriage law in Massachusetts. Listen as political leaders and key strategists on both sides of the question reflect on their efforts to convince voters and courts of their cause, and hear the results of that debate in California, Iowa and Maine. And learn where the debate may go next, at the state and national levels.

J'en ai marre

In French for, 'I am fed up with this'....

Not that anyone is holding onto my words, but I am so weary, to the point of ennui, of the following:

--- People against full inclusion of LGBT in all orders of the church whining about the Windsor Report moratoria as though all of them were equally applied. When the ACNA bishops and their clergy stop poaching on TEC congregations, building up parallel universes within the boundaries of TEC, then maybe I will give an ounce of credence to this all-hallowed WR....

--- the same lot persisting in equating sexual orientation with a lifestyle and choice. When they provide for equal rites of marriage (of which some of the heterosexual crowd have done a masterful job of maintaining its 'sanctity') so that faithful, monogamous same-gender couples can live within the legal bounds of marriage so that they are not living in non-sanctioned relationships, a Catch-22, then we will talk about the awful word, 'lifestyle' and choice.

--- the same trotting out their claim to hold the one and only Truth as the 'faith once passed down by the apostles' or however their ditty goes. When they stop eating shellfish, and stone all those people who be stoned, etc., then we can talk about the 'faith once held....'

I am sick and tired of this all. And who cares? Since I have no aspirations of ever becoming a bishop, I won't worry about these words coming back to haunt me.

Thus endeth the rant. I shall go back into my corner.