05/05/2008
Lesbian Methodists Hold Union Ceremony in Defiance of Church
Last week I posted about the anti-gay vote and subsequent 300-strong protest that went down at the United Methodist Church's convention in Fort Worth, Texas.
Methodist delegates voted to keep the statement that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, reject a measure that would have changed the church's definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, and approve a resolution opposing homophobia and discrimination against lesbians or gays.
As another act of defiance, 200 people attend the commitment ceremony of Julie Bruno, right, and her partner Sue Laurie, at a park across from the convention center where the vote was held.
The AP reports: "At the ceremony, some said that acceptance of gays in some churches encouraged them but that the denomination as a whole had a long way to go. No clergy member presided over the commitment ceremony of Julie Bruno and Sue Laurie of Chicago, a couple for 25 years, although about three dozen ministers attended...'The United Methodist Church has been and continues to be both blessing and burden to us,' said Julie Bruno, one of the women getting married. 'When the church turns her back on us, withholds blessing from us, does God withhold blessing? Does God stop loving us? We continue to be the church to and for each other. We continue to be the instruments of God's light and love.'"
Previously
300 Protestors Disrupt Methodist Convention Over Anti-gay Vote [tr]
Posted 11:15 AM EST by Andy in Gay Marriage, News, Religion, Texas | Permalink
Comments
I am as pissed off as anyone about the fact that gay people in the United States are unable to obtain a civil marriage. But when members of our community symbolically tie the idea of marriage to churches and religion we add fuel to the fire of so called 'Christians' who are working to keep us from enjoying the legal benefits of a marriage recognized at the state and federal level. Who gives a rat's ass whether or not any particular religion accepts us?! We should let them all pray to their sky fairy and continue the bigotry within their churches. At the same time, we need to work harder and smarter at educating the general public that what we seek are the legal benefits of marriage--not the religious blessing of marriage which is not what the vast majority of us care about anyway. These two women muddied the water when they held a commitment ceremony to protest the vote by the United Methodist Convention to disallow gay marriages in the church.
Posted by: peterparker | May 5, 2008 12:02:00 PM
Am I the only one who thought that was Clay Aiken in the pic for a sec? lol
Posted by: Sam | May 5, 2008 1:02:05 PM
I understand that not everyone participates/ cares about any religion at all. However, who are any of us to say, or know, what a "vast majority" of us want? I also am one of the growing population of gay Christians, and I think that this was more of a step than any 'non-believer' could comprehend. Their desire to be recognized in the Christian church is just as valid and important as the "vast majority's" desire to to be recognized at all- and thus be gratnted the same legal rights as any hetero couple. As Christians, homosexual or not, many desire to have the blessing of the church simply because marriage is seen as a sacred union that ultimately began in the church anyways. So who is anyone to say that these 2 women "muddied the water" for us, they simply fought a little piece of the fight.
Posted by: Ashley Arun | May 5, 2008 2:03:05 PM
PETERPARKER, the fact that members of any particular denomination or congregation are fighting for recognition of the RITE of marriage within their church may in fact cause some unintended problems by causing a backlash against the pursuit of civil marriage but I think it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable that church MEMBERS challenge THEIR OWN CHURCH'S in any way they see fit on ANY issue of church doctrine or polity. It isn't their fault that the public is ignorant of the fact that there is a difference between civil and religious marriage. It's OUR job to educate.
I'm just glad to be a member of the UCC where none of this anti-gay crap is an issue.
This weekend the Florida Conference of the United Church of Christ SLAMMED the upcoming Florida marriage amendment and OVERWHELMINGLY passed a VERY STRONG resolution calling on our Florida congregations and members to work to defeat it through education and support for the Fairness for All Families and Florida Red and Blue campaigns.
For the life of me I can't imagine why any gay person would stay in a denomination or congregation that didn't welcome, AFFIRM and CELEBRATE them COMPLETELY, as children of God, just as they are.
Posted by: Zeke | May 5, 2008 2:32:19 PM
ASHLEY ARUN,
As usual, ZEKE expressed better than I did my befuddlement over why any gay person (or any other type of person for that matter) would stay in a denomination/congregation that didn't accept them totally.
My problem with protesting a church/denomination over their policy of refusing marriage rites to homosexual couples is that homosexual couples can find churches/denominations that do affirm their relationships through church sanctioned ceremonies. Why worship at a church that tells you that you are less than everyone else when there are churches that accept you and treat you equal to all the other worshippers? Relative to trying to obtain a civil marriage and all the rights that accompany it, it is easy to simply find another denomination that will affirm you and your relationship. Meanwhile, NONE of us...not even the folks in Massachusetts...can secure a full set of legal rights currently enjoyed by every heterosexual couple in the U.S..
I think it comes down to this question: is it more important to have your church tell you that your relationship is blessed and seen as sacred by worshippers and the deity? Or is it more important to enjoy all the legal protections provided by civil marriage including, but not limited to, the ability to visit your partner in the hospital without being stopped by homophobic hospital staff, to make medical decisions for your partner without threat of being frozen out because the state doesn't recognize your relationship, to transfer property to your partner upon your death without the IRS taxing the estate, to secure your partner's social security benefits after his/her death, etc...? I vote for the latter.
Posted by: peterparker | May 5, 2008 3:49:02 PM
I do understand completely what your saying, Peter. I agree those rights you have mentioned are exteremely important and as a citizen of the U.S., gay or not, we each should be entitled to. As I said before, coming from a strong United Methodist background, I have never experienced any unfair treatment within my church. However, looking at the situation on a grander scale, I can see why you or anyone would wonder why we would want to be part of a denomination that did not accept us completely. I guess all I have to answer that one is this, I really have never felt any different within my church. I am not treated any differently and I have even discussed the issue with 2 of my pastors, whom I respect very much. Both have shown acceptance, love, and understanding to me as well as many other homosexual couples in our congregation. You make a good point, I assume I am part of a not-so-typical liberal congregation.
Posted by: Ashley Arun | May 6, 2008 1:56:06 PM
Recent Comments