•
When I think about the ramifications of Bishop-elect Glasspool receiving a majority of consents from diocesan bishops and standing committees throughout the church I get all weepy. I could hardly get any work done yesterday. And still today it hasn’t left me. This is a huge, game changing, tipping point. Gene Robinson’s consecration could have been seen as an anomaly. It caused such a stir we were’t sure if we wanted to do it again. Now we have decided to do it again. We are stating clearly, for all the world to hear, that we fully welcome people who are gay or lesbian into all facets of the church’s life. Being clear about our identity is a necessary thing if we are going to proclaim the gospel as we see it to a hungry world.
We are a church that fully welcomes people who are gay or lesbian. Now of course that isn’t true for every congregation or diocese, because we are also a church that fully welcomes people who don’t want to fully welcome people who are gay or lesbian. But being clear that we, as a denomination, or province, fully welcome people who are gay or lesbian, is very important. We are done saying, “we are still trying to figure it out.” ”Still trying to figure it out” is not helpful for evangelism.
I think the Episcopal Church has a particular ministry in serving folks who want to belong to a church that welcomes people who are gay or lesbian. Now that job becomes easier.
•
The
Chicago Consultation is joining other organizations such as
Integrity in celebrating Glasspool’s upcoming consecration.
CHICAGO CONSULTATION APPLAUDS BISHOPS; ANTICIPATES GLASSPOOL CONSECRATION WITH JOY
CHICAGO, IL, March 17, 2010—The Chicago Consultation applauds the bishops of the Episcopal Church who today confirmed the election of the Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool as suffragan bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles, and looks forward with joy to her consecration in May.
“Mary’s qualifications were never at issue,” said the Very Rev. Brian Baker, dean of Trinity Cathedral in Sacramento and co-convener of the Chicago Consultation. “This has always been a question of whether our Church had the courage of its convictions. We are delighted to find out that it has.”
Glasspool and the Rev. Diane Jardine Bruce will be consecrated as suffragan bishops on May 15. Both were elected in early December and had previously received the necessary consents from diocesan Standing Committees. Glasspool, who lives with her partner, will become the first openly lesbian bishop in the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion.
“We salute the people of the Diocese of Los Angeles who were wise enough to elect Mary, the leadership of Bishop J. Jon Bruno, who worked hard to get her confirmed, and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, which passed the legislation that made this great day possible,” Baker said. “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that the arc of history is long, but that it bends toward justice. Today, more than most days, we can see that he was right.”
•
Maine will be voting on a ballot initiative intended to remove the ability for same-sex couples to be legally married. The fight over same-sex marriage is full of crazy rhetoric. In my mind, the only reasonable argument that can be made against same-sex marriage is a religious one. It is possible to make a case that, from a particular religious perspective, “marriage” was instituted by God specifically to unite a woman and a man. People who hold this particular religious perspective would be justified in voting against same-sex marriage based on their religious convictions.
The religious argument doesn’t bother me. Particularly if we are honest that we are having a religious argument. I’m happy to discuss the Bible and religious traditions.
It is the non-religious arguments that bother me. One popular reason I repeatedly hear for opposing marriage as a civil institution is that it will destroy marriage and destroy the family. This makes no sense to me. My marriage is not diminished by loyal, faithful same-sex couples being wed. It seems like our pop culture is doing a fine job of diminishing the sanctity of marriage and perhaps we can learn a thing or two from couples who have stayed together for decades despite social prejudice. While I don’t think “same-sex marriage will destroy marriage” is a strong argument, what really bothers me is the fear mongering in this and other arguments. It seems like much of our civic discourse tries to get us to act out of our basest anxieties. Fear does not lead to good choices. Particularly when the fear is manufactured by spin rather than based on a real threat.
The Kennebec Journal has an excellent op-ed piece that addresses many of these arguments head on. I think we need to tone down the fear-mongering rhetoric and this column provides good counter-arguments. I commend the entire column. Here’s an excerpt:
Leaders of the people’s veto campaign argue that extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to families headed by same-sex couples would have broad effects throughout society. We have listened to their arguments, but we just don’t buy them.
While it’s technically true that the law would change the wording of the definition of marriage in state statute, it would not change the institution as it exists in Maine for thousands of traditional couples.
Those vows would not be any weaker if same-sex couples were allowed to take them. Marriage would remain the key foundation for creating families, with the rights and responsibilities that come with it spelled out in the law, whether those families are headed by same- or opposite-sex couples.
Limiting marriage to a man and a woman would not make families led by same-sex couples go away. It would just keep them in a legally inferior position that is inconsistent with Maine’s tradition of equal protection under the law.
Gay men and women already live together, own property and have children, both biological and adopted. They hold responsible jobs, they volunteer in churches and schools — they are full members of our communities. The only thing they cannot do is form the legal partnership that gives them the advantages and duties that other couples have when they start families. The same-sex couples are not the only losers. This also puts their children at a disadvantage.
•
John McHugh, Secretary of the Army, formerly a Republican Congressman for 17 years from the conservative 23rd district of New York, does not see any significant challenges to lifting the ban on gay or lesbian soldiers serving in the Army.
A short article in the Army Times ends with this:
When asked, specifically, if lifting the gay ban would be the serious disruption to the military predicted by those who oppose the president, McHugh said there is reason to think there would not be turmoil.
“Anytime you have a broad-based policy change, there are challenges to that. In the Army’s case, the Army has a big history of taking on similar issues and having predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out,” he said.
McHugh’s views are supported in a report just published in the Pentagon’s Joint Forces Quarterly. I commend the entire report. In it, the author Col. Om Prakash states, “there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.”
•
From
The Associated Press:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but offered no timetable or specifics for acting on that promise.
He acknowledged to a cheering crowd that some policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.
“I will end ‘don’t ask-don’t tell,’” Obama said to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.
The law was passed by Congress in 1993 and signed by President Bill Clinton, who also promised to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military but was blunted by opposition in the military and Congress. Obama said he’s working with Pentagon and congressional leaders on ending the policy.
“We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country,” Obama said. “We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage … especially when we are fighting two wars.”
Read the rest HERE.
•
This is taken from Episcopal Cafe:
You know that society is moving toward the acceptance of gay relationships when Joint Force Quarterly , a prestigious journal published by the National Defense University Press for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff gives the top prize in its 2009 essay contest to a systematic dissection of the U. S. Military’s policy of Don’t Ask. Don’t tell.
Col. Om Prakash of the U. S. Air Force wrote “The Efficacy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while a student at the National War College.
He concludes:
The 1993 “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law was a political compromise reached after much emotional debate based on religion, morality, ethics, psychological rationale, and military necessity. What resulted was a law that has been costly both in personnel and treasure. In an attempt to allow homosexual Servicemembers to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of “equality for all,” places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve. Furthermore, after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly. In fact, the necessarily speculative psychological predictions are that it will not impact combat effectiveness. Additionally, there is sufficient empirical evidence from foreign militaries to anticipate that incorporating homosexuals will introduce leadership challenges, but the challenges will not be insurmountable or affect unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. Though, as Congress clearly stated in 1993, serving in the military is not a constitutional right, lifting the ban on open service by homosexuals would more clearly represent the social mores of America in 2009 and more clearly represent the free and open society that serves as a model for the world. Ultimately, Servicemembers serving under values they believe in are the most effective force multipliers.
•
In a nutshell, the Bishop will allow clergy to offer “generous pastoral response” to same-sex couples in the form of services of blessing starting March of next year. Between now and then, a group of clergy, myself included, are working with him to create the guidelines. Here’s what Bishop Beisner wrote in his latest e-newsletter.
Dear Friends in Christ:
Grace and peace to you. I trust that by now we’ve all spent some time with Sunday’s lections, including the challenging reading from Markregarding marriage and divorce. I think that it is helpful to our understanding of this Marcan text (which seems so very clear cut) to set it alongside the comparable passage in Matthew (where an exception is added for cases involving adultery), and Paul’s discussion of such matters in I Corinthians 7 (where the apostle considers still other situations which call for a variety of pastoral responses). The early Church was struggling to bring the clear light of the Gospel to bear on matters which were often murky and complex, and so it should be no surprise to find such varied responses. At a very early date, the Church arrived at the position on marriage and divorce which has been its primary standard for most of its history (except for the later development of the concept of annulment).
In the modern era, the Church has been confronted with a widening range of marriage and relationship issues even more varied and complex than those faced by early Christians. For the last half century or so, the Church-without changing its essential teaching on the nature of marriage–has been making careful changes to its repertoire of acceptable possible pastoral responses and provisions. Not a few of us clergy, and many members of our congregations, have benefited personally from the Church’s emerging openness in this regard; we can testify to a profound experience of the Church as a means of God’s grace.
Read more »
Tags:
lgbt,
same-sex blessings
•
I’m starting to collect resources from other dioceses that allow same-sex blessings.
Here’s what I found from the Diocese of LA:
Policy: http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/120/Sacramental_Blessing_Policy.pdf
Q&A: http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/122/Sacramental_Blesssings_Q_and_A.pdf
Rite: http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/119/Blessing_of_a_Lifelong_Covenant.pdf
And from Vermont:
http://www.dioceseofvermont.org/Resources/TFonBlessings/VT%20Blessings%20Report.pdf
•
Getting caught up on posting. Barbara Harris was a pioneer, ordained as the first woman bishop when I was in seminary. She is a remarkable straight talker. She preached a provocative sermon at the Integrity Eucharist at General Convention.
You can see a video of it at Ann Fontaine’s site HERE.
A transcripton of the sermon is HERE.
