Episcopal Church delegates veto rite for homosexual unions
Episcopal News Service, July 13, 2000
DENVER — The Episcopal Church has become the third mainline U.S. denomination to refrain from sanctioning homosexual unions. In close votes on July 11 among both its lay and clerical orders, the call for a liturgical rite to support committed unions other than marriage was defeated.
If the bishops concur with the deputies, the decision to express support for non-marital committed relationships without establishing a liturgical rite could be seen as leaving the Episcopal Church somewhere between such denominations as the United Church of Christ on the one hand, and the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) on the other.
The United Church of Christ has approved explicit measures for ordaining gay and lesbian ministers and blessing same-sex unions, while the Methodist and Presbyterian denominations recently reaffirmed prohibitions against both.
The call for a rite made no specific reference to either homosexual or heterosexual unions, but debate before the vote focused almost entirely on the rite’s application to same-sex couples.
According to the initial results of the vote by orders, the deputies turned down the recommendation for a rite “to support relationships of mutuality and fidelity other than marriage” by just three votes in the lay order and a single vote in the clerical order. The proposal was the last of eight resolves in a resolution painstakingly crafted by a legislative committee.
Strong support for first seven resolves
Fewer than 50 deputies opposed the first seven resolves. The resolves set out the church’s standards for both marriage and “other life-long committed relationships,” acknowledging the church’s traditional teaching on the sanctity of marriage and reaffirming the imperative to promote conversation between people of different perspectives on these issues.
Instead, nearly all the testimony offered in the half-hour of discussion before the vote focused on the final resolve, which would have directed the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) to prepare rites that support persons living in non-marital committed relationships.
The near passage, a virtual replay of the deputies’ last foray into this issue in 1997, was marked by passionate pleas from those opposed to same-sex unions. Including the last resolve, they said, would destroy the unity of the church. Supporters of the final resolve argued just as fervently that gay and lesbian Episcopalians in committed relationships should have access to the “public liturgical support” of the church.
Bishops witness debate
The drama played out against a crowded hall packed with visitors and members of the press. In an unusual step, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold allowed a recess of the House of Bishops afternoon session, so that bishops could observe the deputies’ deliberations. Over 100 bishops, many joined by their spouses, watched the debate from the visitors’ gallery.
The differences voiced in the debate stretch back nearly 25 years to the 65th General Convention, which passed the first resolution supporting gays and lesbians “as children of God.” In nearly every convention since then, the church has made some affirmation on matters relating to homosexuality and same-sex unions. These statements include a 1985 resolution adding sexual orientation to the list of criteria by which persons cannot be denied access to ordination, and a 1994 resolution directing the House of Bishops Theology Committee to study “theological considerations” in developing rites honoring same-sex relationships.
For the Rev. Barnum McCarty (Florida), one of two deputies on Committee 25 to speak during the debate, the church is not yet and may never be at the point of approving an official blessing of same-sex relationships. McCarty, the only deputy on the committee who voted against the eighth resolve during the committee’s deliberation, observed that same-sex rites are already being performed at the discretion of bishops and dioceses. Regardless of how the convention votes, he said, those rites will continue. Having the SCLM develop an official rite for the whole church “would be an unnecessary if not an untimely action to those who are not ready for this.”
The Rev. Peter Cook (Western Louisiana) said that no matter where one stood on the issue, an affirmative vote would be destructive not only of the church’s unity, “but of the effectiveness of our mission.” In his Southwest Louisiana parish, he said, approval of rites for same-sex unions “would lead to the alienation of many parishioners for whom the blessing of same-sex unions represents the crossing of a watershed.”
The possible loss of members was also a concern for the Rev. David Ottsen (Northern Indiana). A rite for non-married couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is not an act of inclusion, said Ottsen, but of exclusion against “those who affirm the biblical basis of marriage between a man and a woman.” While providing rites might increase attendance at parishes that serve communities with gay and lesbian members, that would not be true for his congregation, he added. “I can tell you that in my own congregation we will lose many families.”