Same-Gender Marriage--a Heterosexual Invention?

It is now not quite two months since Jim and I were legally wed at the City Hall in Toronto. I've already posted on this blog the homily which I composed for that wedding service. Although the City Hall ceremony is a "civil ceremony" there was a tremendous amount of freedom to craft the service to suit the couple. We chose to use the wedding rite found in the United Methodist Book of Worship. It's a very Episcopalian-like service containing lots of well-crafted prayers. I did some very light editing, but was pleasantly surprised to discover that very little editing was required to remove either sexism or heterosexism.

The familiar introduction of the service refers to the Bible story of Jesus' attendance at the wedding feast at Cana--a story in which "bride and groom" play no part except as the excuse to party! There is also a reference to the biblical analogy that compares the relationship of Christ and the Church to the relationship of husband and wife, but in the modernized United Methodist rite there is absolutely no reference to gender differences between husband and wife, for example nowhere in the rite is there a statement that the husband is "head" of the wife as Christ is the "head of the church."

Someone has already pointed out that modern marriage has already been changed by modern heterosexuals who have removed the gender differences between husband and wife. With these gender differences removed there is no longer any reason to deny marriage to same-gender couples. Heterosexuals, in effect, created "gay marriage," long before gay people began to take advantage of it.

Here is the "Greeting" from the beginning of our wedding service:

Friends, we are gathered together in the presence of the God to witness and bless the joining together of James and Steven in Christian marriage. The covenant of marriage was established by the Creator, who made humanity for companionship. With his presence and power Jesus graced a wedding at Cana of Galiliee and in his sacrificial love gave us the example for the love of one spouse for another. James and Steven come to give themselves to one another in this holy covenant.

And here is the "Prayer of Thanksgiving" from the conclusion of the service--a prayer which I especially liked:

Most gracious God, we give you thanks for your tender love
in making us a covenant people through our Savior Jesus Christ and for consecrating in his name the marriage covenant of James and Steven. Grant that their love for each other may reflect the love of Christ for us and grow from strength to strength as they faithfully serve you in the world.
Defend them from every enemy.
Lead them into all peace.
Let their love for each other
be a seal upon their hearts,
a mantle about their shoulders,
and a crown upon their heads.
Bless them in their work and in their companionship;
in their sleeping and in their waking,
in their joys and in their sorrows;
in their lives and in their deaths.
Finally, by your grace, bring them and all of us to that table where your saints feast for ever in your heavenly home;
through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit
lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Amen and Amen!

General Conference Delegates

Here's an interesting commentary on the election of General Conference delegates and the way the United Methodist Church is governed. Does this suggest some reforms? For instance, should we forbid "giving anything of value" to General Conference delegates by groups seeking to "lobby" and "buy votes" from delegates? Can we provide delegates from poor countries with adequate support through "nonpartisan" General Conference sources and forbid the use of money to influence votes? African delegates do not have to live under the same Discipline as U.S. United Methodists--non-U.S. conferences have the freedom to modify their own Disciplines, why can't U.S. Jurisdictions have the same freedom?

How about the direct election of lay delegates to General Conference? This would be like the reform that occurred in the U.S. government in the early 20th century (during the Progressive Movement) when we changed the U.S. Constitution to allow the direct election of U.S. Senators, taking those elections out of the hands of State Legislatures. Somehow we could put the names of candidates for lay delegations before all local church members and not just the Lay Members of Annual Conferences.

Republicans aren't gay bashers?

Yesterday on FOX news Newt Gingrich excused House Republicans for their failure to discipline or investigate Florida Congressman Mark Foley when it first became apparent that he was having inappropriate contacts with pages. Gingrich said the GOP doesn't want to be accused of "gay-bashing."

This remark should take the prize for the most ironic and absurd statement of the year. The GOP has actively worked for years to achieve its reputation for "gay bashing." "Gay bashing" is one of their top policy objectives. Just look at GOP efforts around the country to pass legislation barring same-gender marriage.

Newt Gingrich's remark itself is another example of "gay bashing" in that he wants to turn an issue of criminal exploitation of minors into a "gay issue"--the same game the Vatican is playing in their pedophile priest scandals.

Look, the issue was never one of sexual orientation. The issue is one of sexual exploitation of minors. Foley should have been investigated and disciplined. He should have been investigated in a bipartisan manner. Instead the GOP, not wanting to endanger an otherwise safe GOP seat, engaged in cover-up. Now the truth begins to come out at the worst possible time--when will they ever learn?