This invitation for action has come to us from the Rev. Cedric A. Harmon, Associate Field Director for Religious Outreach, Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

I am sharing with you an opportunity to express your support for Marriage Equality at this highly politicized moment. As each of you know there are several ballot initiatives under consideration that would invalidate existing and/or prohibit future marriages between persons of the same gender. The Religious Institute for Sexual Morality Justice and Healing (on whose Board I serve) is seeking to demonstrate that there is significant support for Marriage Equality among ordained clergy. If you are so inclined; please add your name to the attached endorsement statement and share this with your peers.

The goal is to collect a substantial list of signers by August 15, 2008. The Religious Institute will publicize the level of religious support through media outlets and print media in advance of this fall’s election. I appreciate any assistance you can offer in this effort to present an honest assessment of communities of faith on this issue.

Some public officials and courts are far ahead of the churches and public opinion in dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage. These marriages have been performed in San Francisco, in several cities in New York, and in Portland. They are reminding us that what's "legal" does not always define what's "right."

Some of the state attorneys general have noted the difference between (a) their personal convictions, which may be for or against gay marriage, (b) what is "legal" (in other words, what is written in the statute books), and (c) what is constitutional, which in several states (Hawaii, Vermont, and most recently Massachusetts) has led to a reversal of what has been "legal."

(As Christians we are always conscious that "legal" does not necessarily mean "right." There was a time when segregation was "legal" although it was opposed as immoral and was eventually declared unconstitutional.)

Kent Winters-Hazelton reports from San Francisco that there is a "lack of Angst" about the ceremonies that are being performed. There are no organized marches in the streets claiming that this is a horrible assault on traditional marriages. "It's kinda 'business as usual' here in San Francisco," he says.

Kent knows that some will say that San Francisco is a bit different from the rest of the country. But he points out that the mayor, who was elected as the right-wing liberal (compared to his opponent, the lefter leftist) has seen his approval ratings going up by 15% because of his action. The mayor says he made the decision while sitting in the U.S. Capitol, hearing George Bush's "state of the union" comments about "gay marriage." He has also made the point on national media ("his star is rising," Kent comments) that he is a straight, married, practicing Catholic.

The Bush administration, although it is trying to use the controversy to its own advantage, is having trouble staking out a position. The conservatives on "social issues," who would like a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, are counterbalanced by libertarians who do not want such an amendment and states-righters who prefer to leave the matter to the states.

Even language comes back to haunt them. Education Secretary Rod Paige--the one who called the NEA a "terrorist" organization--has been trying to get federal law changed to permit same-sex public schools at the same time the administration is using same-sex unions as a wedge issue.

Looked at from a larger historical perspective, the proposed amendment is at odds with the general trend of constitutional amendments. There have been twenty-six of them. A few have been procedural in character (direct election of senators, date of presidential inaugurations, etc.). Twenty of them have involved a broadening of rights. And then there's Prohibition, the only one that was confining in its import. It turned out to be a mistake and was repealed after a decade's experience. As many constitutional experts have pointed out, the "marriage amendment" belongs in this undistinguished company.

While the amendment may fail even in a Republican-dominated Congress, political realists in the meantime are favoring the term "civil union" rather than the more loaded term "marriage" for a same-sex relationship. Use of this language would make legalization much more feasible politically, since the emotional baggage surrounding marriage would not be involved. Those who favor state recognition of same-sex relationships feel that it would be easier to round up votes for civil unions. And many conservative strategists seem to have arrived at the same tactical judgment, concentrating their fire on "same-sex marriage" and hoping that the electorate will not pay close attention to the alternative language of civil union, especially when it can be left to the states.

There has been very little public involvement of the churches on this issue; clergy have not been "volunteering" to perform the services. The reason, we should note, is not necessarily cowardice or timidity. These ceremonies have been performed by elected public officials, those who not only have legal power to perform marriages but are directly linked with the issuing of marriage licenses. Newsweek, in a recent story on the question, noting that the demand on officials has been so great that they have "deputized" recently married gay couples to perform marriage for those who are still waiting in line.

Where does our church stand?

The Directory for Worship declares,

Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship (W- 4.9001).

This is in keeping with the Reformation view that marriage is a civil institution, not a sacrament. The Directory for Worship even provides for "a service of worship recognizing a civil marriage and confirming it in the community of faith" (W-4.9006). If more states than Vermont and Massachusetts should enact provisions for civil unions or same-sex marriages, the language of these sections of the Directory for Worship would have to be amended.

A decision in 2000 by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly permitted the blessing of same-sex unions as long as they are not confused with wedding ceremonies.

In 2002 the General Assembly disapproved a Commissioner Resolution that called for support of the federal "marriage amendment."

Given this background, we can be sure that this rapidly changing issue will come before the 216th General Assembly in June.

This issue is still emerging, and there are many questions.
We welcome your comments, to be shared here.
Just send a note!