Religous support for marriage equality
On February 11, 2012, may wife and I participated in a leg of the Marriage Equaliy Walk from Vancouver to Olympia. Organizers initially intended it to be a demonstration of support for marriage quality legislation; but the legislature beat them to the punch, and the walk became a celebration. Lower Columbia PFLAG and the Longview United Methodist Church, an open and affirming church, hosted a panel discussion of what marriage equality means. I used that discussion as a basis for an opinion piece published in The Wahkiakum County Eagle on February 16. It is reprinted below:
Marriage equality deserves support
From the Revised Code of Washington, RCW 26.04.010:
(1) Marriage is a civil contract between ((a male and a female)) two persons who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.
by Rick Nelson
On Monday, Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law a bill that gave same gender couples the right to marry.
The language in the bill changed "one man and one woman" to "two persons" and spent a lot of time outlining protections for churches and religious organizations to refuse to conduct marriages for same gender couples.
People supporting the marriage equality bill rejoiced, and people opposed to marriage equality began planning initiative efforts to overthrow the bill.
Opponents often base their opposition in religious terms and cite conservative interpretations of the Bible. However, not all believers agree with those interpretations. Last Thursday, a group of people began a walk to Olympia in support of marriage equality legislation. Their sponsors were the Vancouver United Church of Christ and the Portland/Vancouver Community of Welcoming Congregations, a group of churches from several different denominations who have chosen to support gay rights and full inclusion of gays in religious life.
When they arrived in Longview, they were treated to a lasagna dinner at the Longview United Methodist Church, and after dinner, a panel of gay and straight people commented on what marriage equality means for them.
One gay man, sitting with his partner, recalled the fear and terror he had lived with as a teenager unsure of what life would offer him as a gay man. "This bill tells me that I can have a normal life," he said.
"Anything less than marriage is a second class relationship," said a gay woman, who has been in a partnership for 17 years.
While supporters of marriage equality point out that the issue is one of civil law, not religious law, there are religious leaders who do support it.
At the rally in Longview, pastors from Methodist and Presbyterian churches said that while their supervisors say to have nothing to do with same gender weddings, they support marriage equality. Pastors from United Church of Christ and Unitarian/Universalists said their denominations do allow marriages of same gender couples.
One of the people testifying before the state Senate last week was Bishop Chris Boerger, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Northwest Washington Synod. He said he was in favor of gay couples being able to have legally-recognized marriages that are equal in the state.
"The reality is, the Lutheran church has always held that it is the state that defines what marriage is; it's the church that then blesses people who enter into that relationship," he said. "We have now stated our desire to bless those who are publicly accountable in lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships. We can't call it marriage--you can. That's why I am here today to say there will be those in my church who will not participate; we understand that freedom. There are those who want to, and we ask for that freedom."
When the House had its hearings later in the week, Republican Rep. Maureen Walsh of Walla Walla broke ranks with her party.
"Well, yes, it is about equality," she said. "And why in the world would we not allow those equal rights for individuals who are truly committed to one another in life to be able to show that in the way of a marriage.
"My daughter came out of the closet a couple of years ago, and you know what, I thought I was going to agonize about that.
"Nothing’s different. She’s still a fabulous human being and she met someone she loves very much. And some day, by God, I want to throw a wedding for that kid. And someday I hope that’s what I can do. I hope she will not feel like a second-class citizen involved in something called a 'domestic partnership' which frankly sounds like a Mary Maids franchise to me."
It seems very clear to me that marriage is about two people coming together for a variety of reasons and benefits that range from emotional to economical. It provides for the security of their families.
Why would we want to exclude people from this? I can't think of a good reason.
In the coming months, I hope everyone will join in celebrating the arrival of marriage equality and the end of another form of discrimination and unequal treatment of fellow citizens.
Upcoming group events
There are no upcoming events.
Poll
- Login or register to post comments
- Older polls
Recent members
 |
1x24x1 | |
 |
Chris Boerger | |
 |
Gary Schulstad | |
 |
Cattaz | |
 |
Karen Jolly |
- 1 of 2
- ››
An Attack on the Institution of Marriage?
How does allowing LBGT's to marry attack the institution of marriage?
I don't ask the question flippantly nor disrespectfully. I, personally don't think allowing such does attack or destroy the institution. But I hear opponents saying it does. I'm wondering if anyone having that point of view (not someone speaking for someone of that ilk) would respond with some sort of a reasoned explanation.
Can we, for God's sake, have a conversation about the opposing sides with out trying to rip out each other's eyeballs?
Ripping eyeballs and Senator Hatfield
About "trying to rip out each other's eyeballs": I was so pleased with Senator Brian Hatfield's decision to support marriage equality. I've reprinted his statement below. In a sense, it shows how "ripping someone's eyeballs out" can come back to haunt in the future. I'm referring to the Betty Sue Morris story in his statement. To me, this personifies the church's relationship with its gay children.
Sen. Hatfield announces stance on Marriage Equality Act
Wednesday, February 01 2012 - Brian Hatfield | Permalink
OLYMPIA – Sen. Brian Hatfield issued the following statement today on Senate Bill 6239 to allow same-sex marriage:
“The debate over marriage equality has occupied the time and thoughts of the 2012 legislative session like no other issue. These are serious and difficult times in which we find ourselves, and members of the Legislature have devoted hundreds of hours to this and other issues before us. Legacy biomass, a balanced budget, job creation for the 19th Legislative District and all of our state were all areas I arrived in Olympia ready to discuss and to tackle, yet the question of marriage equality has overshadowed them all. While I wish that other issues of equal importance were capable of capturing the attention that this matter has, I realize that we as legislators are being asked to rule on an area that strikes at the very core of people’s lives, faiths and beliefs.
“Time and again I have been asked for my thoughts on this question and how I will vote when the question is asked on the Floor of the Washington State Senate. This is a measure that has emotionally torn at me as I have wrestled with my choice. In the past, I have supported the rights of gays and lesbians, voting against the Defense of Marriage Act when I was a member of the Washington State House of Representatives and yet voted against the domestic partnerships as a member of the Senate. That fact is not meant to garner sympathy or support, but to illustrate just how conflicted I have been about this question.
“This has been one of the most difficult votes I have ever been associated with. Regardless of how I choose to vote on the issue of marriage equality, I will alienate myself from friends and neighbors that I have known for years. A vote in favor of marriage equality will enrage those who see it as a stone cast against God and the beliefs that I, and thousands like me have been raised with. A vote against will label me as a bigot who is against extending the basic rights that I enjoy to all residents of our state.
“I believe that ultimately this question should be decided by the voters of Washington. Odds are that a public vote will be taken on this issue. Considering that fact, I would hope to see support for a referendum amendment being added to the bill on the Senate Floor. It is all but certain that the voters will decide; why not include that choice in our final vote on the matter?
“I also recognize that times have changed for the world, the country and the state. Measures granting equal rights to gay and lesbian couples have been approved by legislative bodies and state residents for several years. This year, the federal government overturned the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. What kind of message are we sending to our men and women in uniform when we will finally allow them to serve and to defend our freedoms, but will not extend all such freedoms to them?
“As I consider my upcoming vote, first allow me to say that I have devoted a monumental amount of time soul searching and praying about this issue. As a Christian, I look to my faith in times of great stress and doubt. The question of whether or not to redefine the institution of marriage is a question that goes far beyond a simple “yea” or “nay” vote in the State Legislature. As I prayed for guidance, I went as far as to ask God for a sign that would help light the path for me toward reaching my decision. That sign, as I interpret it, has come in multiple forms, including an email from former Representative Betty Sue Morris, who shared with me that in a 20-plus year legislative career, her greatest regret was voting in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. Two years after voting in favor of the act, she learned her daughter was a lesbian. While her daughter has forgiven her, she has never forgiven herself for what she feels was a betrayal of her own family, something she has never been able to get over. Also, a similar message was conveyed to me from former legislator Dave Quall, who also singled out the DOMA vote as the greatest regret of his legislative career. As Christians, he said, we should be open to all people who are seeking God’s grace. Rejecting a measure recognizing their right to wed is like putting out a “Need Not Apply” sign. These are former colleagues whom I love and respect and I take their struggles and their revelations on this issue very seriously. Additionally, I spoke to my former pastor who said that while his beliefs were based on the Bible and therefore against a redefinition of marriage, he would not love anyone less or treat anyone differently based on their sexual orientation or choice of spouse. As private citizens, we are able to have that opinion, but as legislators, our “no” vote on this issue will be seen as loving my fellow man or woman less, based on their sexual orientation and an act of discrimination. That is something I cannot do.
“Therefore, after months of thought and prayer, I have decided that I will offer my vote in support of Senate Bill 6239. I believe this will not be the final word on this issue, as it is almost certain the voters of this state will have a chance to weigh in with our collective, “yea” or “nay”. I now hope that the Legislature can return to the business of the state, including balancing the budget, creating jobs and moving toward a full economic recovery.”