Why we need gay marriage

I, in my capacity as a Vestry member at our church, received a long, heart-felt letter from a parishioner over the weekend, regarding the actions at the latest Episcopal General Convention. After giving his reasons as to why the GC’s actions regarding gays had stuck in his craw, he said that he had to withdraw his participation in and support of the parish.

The guy’s not a raving reactionary, either. But there was something very clear from his letter.

First off, there was the objection to homosexual behavior, in the context of Biblical teaching, in general. Not much that can be done there, aside from patience. But the other half of his objection was that ECUSA was essentially creating a double-standard — approving of (or at least not condemning) non-marital sexual activity for gays.

And, ultmately it’s that simple.

I believe it’s better to teach that homosexuality is okay, and so homosexuals are expected to follow the same formal rules as heterosexuals, than to teach that homosexuality is okay, and it’s okay for them, but not straights, to shack up with each other.

I mean, it can be taught that the sort of relationships that gays ought to be in are what we expect from straights as well — faithful and committed and loving reflections of God’s love for us, etc., etc., but those can too easily be weasel words. Lots of straight people profess such relationships, too — is the church now going to say that it’s okay for them to live together without benefit (and blessing and commitment) of marriage? Probably not.

I actually do believe that this effective double-standard is going to have a more negative effect, in the short and long run, than simply marrying gays. People are often less upset about right or wrong than they are about fair and unfair.

This was reflected in the parish meeting we had a few weeks ago, too. A lot of the folks who stood up, wondering what we were teaching our children, were not just concerned about the homosexuality issue, but the “shacking up” issue, too. How do you teach Susie that the church doesn’t approve of her moving in with Bob, but wouldn’t object per se to her moving in with Lori? Broad, profound, true but fuzzy outlines like loving/caring/committed/faithful are open to interpretation. Having that marriage certificate isn’t.

And, yes, there are plenty of non-marital relationships that are as strong as, or more nurturing than, plenty of marital relationships out there. But it seems to me the church should be working on converting those non-marital relationships into marital ones, not effectively encouraging them for a new set of people.

So, if the Episcopal Church is going to accept gay relationships (which I think it should), then it should, as quickly as possible, move to coming up with a way to formalize and bless those relationships as marriages. Not simply condone them but not let them go any further. Not devise a “Marriage Lite” in the form of civil unions and specialized blessing ceremonies. But open the doors and let ’em in as first class married couples. It will drive some folks away, to be sure, but taking half-way measures is, I think, driving even more away.