Before assessing the current church positions, consider the view of St Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, early in the 12th century:
Council of London in 1102 wanted to enact ecclesiastical legislation which declared – for the first time in English history – that homosexual behaviour was a sin, and they recommended that offending laymen be imprisoned and clergymen be anathematized.
But Anselm as Archbishop of Canterbury prohibited the publication of their decree, advising the Council that homosexuality was widespread and few men were embarrassed by it or had even been aware it was a serious matter; he felt that although sodomites should not be admitted to the priesthood, confessors should take into account mitigating factors such as age and marital status before prescribing penance, and he advised counselling rather than punishment.
-Gay History and Culture, Rick Norton
Now consider the reaction from religious leaders this week:
Religious leaders around Maine had mixed reactions Wednesday to the voters’ repeal of same-sex marriage on Election Day.
(Bangor Daily News)
I am convinced that in the longer term, the lasting value of the struggles for equality in California and in Maine will be the public airing of dissenting views within the Christian churches on the subject of homoerotic relationships. For far too long, there has been an automatic assumption that the mainstream churches are unanimously opposed, and that the usual interpretations of Scriptural proscription are sound. That made it easy to depict the legal restrictions as based in “morality”, and “traditional beliefs” , and to paint the struggle simply as one of “Christian values” against “sinful lifestyles”. The emerging recognition that there is not a single religious view, that sincere and knowledgeable people of faith could differ, and that traditional assessments of scripture may be unsound, will become as damaging to the traditional opposition as the secular, scientific recognition that we are not talking about a chosen “lifestyle", but about a fully natural, internal orientation.
Of course, the result itself was grievously disappointing – but pause, and take encouragement from some supportive local church leaders. First up is the Episcopal bishop of Maine
The Rt. Rev. Stephen Lane, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine, expressed disappointment Wednesday over the election results. He spoke in favor of same-sex marriage at the hearing before the Judiciary Committee in April.
“Many faithful Episcopalians are deeply grieved at this decision,” Lane said in a written statement. “They had hoped that they and their families might enjoy the recognition and protections afforded heterosexual couples. The rejection of the law also feels like rejection of them as persons. I join in their grief that the right of same-gender couples to enter into a lifelong, monogamous marriage has been denied.
and the Unitarians:
Rev. Mark Worth, pastor of the Unitarian Universalist congregation in Castine and a member of the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine, reminded members of his flock in an e-mail that the struggle for justice can be long.
“It was not until 100 years after the Civil War that we ended legal racial segregation,” he said. “Only in 1968 did all states allow interracial marriage. I am confident that history is moving toward justice, and that the right to marry will continue to spread throughout the land. It may take time, but justice will not always be denied.”
-Religious Leaders React (Bangor Daily News)
This change of heart by some church people should not be surprising. Modern scholars are showing that the position in Scripture is at least less obviously opposed than was previously thought, and may even be morally neutral. It is also becoming better known that church history includes the provision of liturgical rituals for blessing some form of same-sex unions. The evidence from the summer is that as church assemblies de bate the issues after proper prayerful reflection and study, they start to withdraw their opposition. This process will continue.
In Maine, even the Catholic Bishop Malone of Portland, who was one of the most prominent and controversial religious figures fighting against civil marriage rights, had some oddly comforting words in a tortured egg dance of an attempt at reconciliation.
“Respect and acceptance of all people regardless of sexual orientation is not a point of controversy — indeed, it is a teaching of the church,” he concluded. “While the Catholic Church will continue its commitment to work for the basic human rights to which all people are entitled, it remains devoted to preserving and strengthening the precious gift of marriage.”
-Religious Leaders React (Bangor Daily News)
Of course, these basic human rights do not seem to extend to the right of legal protection for our loving relationships in civil contracts on the same terms as heterosexual couples who choose civil marriage contracts over those of the church, nor does the commitment to basic human rights extend to signing a UN declaration seeking decriminalization (far short of seeking the entrenchment of our human rights). But, I let this pass on this occasion. Instead, let us take comfort in the statement of good will and good intentions towards human rights. This will make it easier for us to advance the cause for arrangements like those in Washington, which provide for marriage like benefits without the name, and for more general anti-discrimination measures, like those in Kalamazoo, which if widely accepted would benefit many more people. (not everybody is or wants to be married, or even partnered – but we all want to be protected from discrimination.)
The bishop’s endorsement of human rights also leaves us free to continue to show that the argument over marriage equality is indeed about civil rights, and not about the sanctity of marriage. This brings me back to St Anselm, with whom I began this post.
Take careful note of Anselm’s position, and the context. This council of London, as late as 1102, is described as the first time the church wished to make a formal declaration that homosexuality was a sin. (John Boswell showed clearly that some early church fathers saw it as sinful, but that the view was neither universally shared, nor was it regarded as particularly serious, until much later.) Anselm accepted the view that it was sinful – but not especially abhorrent compared with the many other sins of the world, and refused to single it out for special attention.
This is the question we need to be putting to Catholic and other church leaders who, like Bishop Malone, argue simultaneously that Christians should support human rights, yet oppose same-sex civil marriage: if the homosexual condition is an “intrinsically disordered” but entirely natural condition, for which there is no church sanctioned possibility of marriage, why is natural sexual for us to be judged any more harshly than “intrinsically evil” heterosexual cohabitation, which could be avoided by the simple expedient of a church marriage?
Conversely, if there is no suggestion of a moral double standard, why is one form of civil marriage vigorously opposed, while the other is morally deplored but left as a civil matter?
Meanwhile, the backlash continues against the Mormon heavy involvement in the Californian ballot last year. In Salt Lake City, a group of gay supportive Mormon’s have adopted a high visibility tactic to register their objections, using a traditional Mormon approach. From the Salt Lake Tribune:
Like Mormon pioneers in the 1850s, gay-rights supporters pulled a handcart through Salt Lake City on Wednesday in what they dubbed a "rescue" mission.
The Foundation for Reconciliation carted more than 2,000 petition signatures to LDS Church headquarters, calling on the church to salvage relations with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and their families.
"It's way past time to send out the rescue committee," said Gary Watts, a former Mormon who has two gay children among his brood of six, "and bring these gay brothers and sisters back into the fold."
We have already seen the start of a Catholic backlash in Maine. I expect that this will continue in the years to come, just as it has done in the case of the LDS. The battle in Maine will resume (we just don’t yet know when, although it could be in 2011). Both a legal panel and Maine activists themselves have predicted that the battle will resume, and will ultimately be won. The electorate is getting younger, while the religious arguments get weaker year by year. The electoral statistician Nate Silver has calculated that support for equality grows by two percentage points each year. In Maine, that would be enough to eliminate Tuesday’s margin within two years.
Bishop Malone and NOM should prepare for an even tougher fight next time.
Further Reading:
Marriage equality is a Religious Issue
Gay Bishops, Gay Marriage in Catholic Church History
Countering the Clobber Texts
The Gospel's Queer Values
The Queer Bible: Beyond Family Values
Books
Same Sex Unions in Church History:
John Boswell:Christianity,Social Tolerance and Homosexuality
John Boswell: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe
Alan Bray:The Friend
Mark D Jordan: Blessing Same sex Unions
Scripture and Homosoexuality:
William Countryman: Dirt, Greed and Sex
Daniel Helminiak: What the Bible Really says About Homosexuality
Jack Rogers: Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality