A Wedding In New Haven

Paul Woodrum's account of the marriage of his friends that took place in New Haven. Shared with permission.

Peace,
Jeff

Tuesday: This morning Victor and I accompanied fellow Brooklynites and friends Fr. Howard Blunt (D of NY) and Donald Beckman to New Haven, CT, to formalize with civil marriage their union of over twenty years. The drive was about two hours under a gray sky.

We arrived at the Department of Public Health, Vital Records Section, at 11:10 a.m. and they completed the paper work, ceremony, and issuance of two certified copes of the marriage certificate by noon. It helped that before arrival Don and Howard had filled in information forms downloaded from the internet.

After the application process, a justice of the peace was called and we went to a large, second floor stair hall in the beautifully restored Victorian portion of New Haven's City Hall. Our justice of the peace, a lovely West Indian woman, offered use of a white, metal arbor covered with artificial greens and flowers as a prop to frame the ceremony and kindly granted me permission to bless the rings and the marriage at which she officiated and witnessed.

For the blessing of the rings, titanium and enamel bands, I used the BCP form on p. 427 changing only the words "this man and this woman," to "these two men." No changes were required in the gender-neutral blessing of a marriage, BCP, p. 431.

(How simple it can be! In the interest of full disclosure and as evidence for my deposition that will no doubt follow this wild disregard for church order, I am resident in the Diocese of Newark, live and am licensed in the Diocese of Long Island, and did not ask permission of the Bishop of Connecticut to say a couple prayers in that diocese.)

We all noticed the JP cross herself as I blessed Howard and Donald in the name of the Trinity. As we chatted, she mentioned being an acolyte and involved in the Girls Friendly Society. When I asked what church, she replied, "St. Luke's Episcopal." Kisses all around. Then the JP who had officiated for Victor and I came through and more greetings.

As we were leaving City Hall under a now bright sky, a woman carrying rolls of architectural drawings asked if we were heading across the green to be married at the UCC church that stands in the center flanked by Trinity Episcopal to the its right and another UCC church to its left, saying many gay marriages were performed there. (Trinity Church, take note.) I guess our suits and ties gave us away. We confessed to being Episcopalians who had just done the deed. Profuse congratulations and good wishes.

New Haven is centered on an 18th century town green. City Hall on Church St. is to the south, Yale University to the north and the three aforementioned churches in the center of the green. We cut diagonally across the green and proceeded up Chapel Street to Scoozi's, next to the Yale Repertory Theater, the restaurant where Victor and I had our wedding breakfast back in June.

Scoozi's is a chic, modern restaurant/wine bar with white tablecloths, heavy hotel plate silver, fresh flowers on every table and discretely attentive, very friendly, eye-candy wait-staff. The Italian menu embraces local produce. This being October, pumpkin and squash from the Brown farm were highlighted. It being Tuesday, all bottles of wine were half price. It being a wedding celebration, desert -- moist pumpkin cake topped with pumpkin puree and a side scoop of whipped cream -- was on the house.

Afterwards we sauntered through a collegiate-Gothic corner of Yale and back across the green to the modern parking garage next to the brick and stone striated, high Victorian Gothic City Hall. Victor and I caught the Metro-North commuter train back to Grand Central Terminal and Donald and Howard began their week-long honeymoon touring central Connecticut.

I highly recommend New Haven as a place for gay couples getting married. The folks are friendly, the process simple, the setting beautiful and the price (not counting Scoozi's) under $100.00 including the JP's fee and the documents.

B033 Is Falling Down, Falling Down, Falling Down

This weekend my email lists went into overdrive. On Saturday, the search committee for the next bishop of the Diocese of Minnesota announced its slate of three candidates. On Sunday, the search committee for the next bishops suffragan of the Diocese of Los Angeles announced its slate of six. The Minnesota election will be held October 31, and the Los Angeles elections on December 4 and 5. Usually, the members of my mail lists respond by asking where the various candidates stand on lbgt issues. These two announcements elicited excitement because one of the Minnesota candidates and one of the Los Angeles candidates are out lesbians, and another of the Los Angeles candidates is an out gay man. All three of them are partnered.

Take a look at Episcopal Cafe's The Lead for more in-depth coverage of the news.

These nominations follow logically from General Convention 2009 Resolution D025, which, although titled "Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion," was a compromise resolution merging the dozen or so submitted to General Convention in an attempt to repeal GC2006 B033, the infamous "manner of life" resolution. In spite of the fact that the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies insistence that D025 does not repeal B033 (see the Episcopal News Service story here), many people on both sides of the issue see it as a first step, if not as an actual repeal.

Even though the Minnesota and Los Angeles search committees did not make their final decisions until after General Convention, clearly they were already considering the lesbian and gay candidates that made their final lists. We will probably never know if either search committee intended to place those candidates on their final lists even if D025 had not passed in Anaheim.

Will any of the candidates be elected? There is a good chance, especially in the Diocese of Los Angeles. Once one, or more, of them is elected, there is the consent process. The Bishops will have the final word, this time. I am guessing that if any of the lesbian or gay candidates is elected, they will not receive the required consents. This time.

If dioceses in the Episcopal Church continue to raise up and elect openly lbgt candidates for bishop, and if the bishops with authority continue to refuse consents, there will be a backlash much stronger than any backlash the remaining conservatives inside the Episcopal Church will raise when lbgt candidates are elected and, finally, ordained.

It may take us another three years, until GG2012 in Indianapolis, or even another six, until GC2015, but we will have more openly lbgt elected and ordained bishops. B033 cannot stand in the face of the Church moving forward, even if it moves at glacier speed.

Peace,
Jeff

Convention - Day 3

I keep a daily schedule that fits in my name badge holder. It starts out as one sheet of paper:

And is still one sheet of paper when I'm finished with it:

Go to http://www.pocketmod.com/ if you want to see how this works.

Two more views of the Discovery Center, so you can see what it looks like up and running:



This morning's legislative committee meetings began at 7:00 a.m. The Education Committee held hearings on D014, B013, C014, and A068. The resolution we thought might bring in a crowd was C014, which asks for a committee to develop a theology of Christian marriage. Only one persons testified, the deputy from the Diocese of El Camino Real who wrote the resolution. I think the committee may "kill" it. The rest of the meeting was spent deliberating on D014, a resolution on Environmental Justice.

During today's Eucharist, the Archbishop of Canterbury offered a meditation. I literally almost fell off my chair because I dozed off during the meditation. I was not the only one. Most of the people I spoke with were not impressed by the Archbishop.

This afternoon, since I was not needed in the Education Committee, I attended the Prayer Book and Liturgy Committee meeting where they were holding hearings on C019, C025, C041, C042, C004, C009, Co17, C028, C031, Co56, and D043, all of which dealt with same sex marriage or blessings. Testimony was less rancorous than in the past, fewer people than in the past signed up to testify, and everyone who signed up was able to testify. What really surprised me was that there were fewer con witnesses than pro. Most likely, these 11 resolutions will be merged into two--one addressing the Canons and one the issue of marriage.

Ruth-Ann attended the Education hearing where they deliberated on the Charter for Lifelong Formation. In the end, the committee changed four words before passing it and sending it on to the House of Deputies.

The final hearing of the day was this evening's Program, Budget, and Finance committee hearing on spending. I was disappointed in the way the chair handled the people who signed up to testify. To begin with, witnesses were not called in the order in which they signed up. She claimed she was trying to get a variety of issues in each group of 10 called. That was clearly not the case, as speakers for the Four Supported Dioceses (Native dioceses) outnumbered those on any other topic. Only two deputies who signed up to speak on formation issues were called. No visitors or guests were called.

My major disappointment so far is that children were dropped for the priorities. The priority where they should have been included states "youth and young adults." People you talk to say that "youth" includes all age groups under adults in their thinking. However, the way the Church Center offices are structured, "youth" does not include people under the age of 12.

Here are today's buttons. There are two batches. The second group is a set of buttons with faces of LBGTQ folks from around the world. Each button comes attached to a card with the person's story on it.



Peace,
Jeff

Odds And Ends

A few bits and pieces of stuff that struck me as I read through some of the blogs I regularly peruse.

They Also Serve Who Are Knuckleheads, by Heidi Shott in the Daily Epsicopalian section of Episcopal Cafe:

Can ministry be as simple as a couple of knuckleheads saying “yes” when asked serve and then letting the Holy Spirit do its mysterious thing? I’ve been mulling it over, and it seems the answer to that question is “yes.”

Failure of Formation by my friend and former colleague Jan Nunley on her Jawbones:

What astounds me about this is that anyone who has been ordained in a mainline denomination, with the preparation and education that entails...heck, that anyone born or naturalized as a citizen of this country...would not understand that--in these United States, at least--there is no obligation on clergy to perform any marriage ceremony. Period. Full stop. It's called The First Amendment.

Mark Harris is Rummaging Through The Blue Book (two posted so far) on Preludium:

In the run up to General Convention I am reviewing various resolutions coming up and would appreciate any thoughts from readers.

Grandmere Mimi, an online acquaintance I would like to get to know better, writes about a recent visit to WalMart on her Wounded Bird:

Oh yeah! I went to Walmart yesterday. You folks get to read about my every visit, because I seldom venture to the big box, and every trip is memorable. I'm close to phobic about going there. By his request, my grandson and I went to buy his birthday presents yesterday.

For those of you who don't read my mother's blog, go read The Peace of Grief:

It has been almost ten years since my mother's death. I think I am finally at peace with it and with her. Thanks be to God!

Dan Roam's new book Unfolding the Napkin is due out in January:

I structured the book as a complete four-day visual-thinking seminar, taking readers step-by-step from "I can't draw" to "Here is the picture I drew that I think will save the world."

And finally, a piece that is on all four of the blogs associated with my parish, which you can find on the parish web site:

Grace Episcopal Church is not closing anytime soon. If indeed Grace does close, it will leave a hole in the city of Norwalk, and it will do so not with a whimper but with a bang, preaching, learning and living the gospel for all to see, here at the corner of Union Park and Mott Avenue, one way or another, every day of the week.

Peace,
Jeff

Ding Dong The Bells Are Gonna Chime!

While I won't be getting married in the morning, nor any time in the near future, same-sex couples will be able to legally marry in Connecticut soon, probably as early as next month. In a case resulting from a suit filed by 8 couples against the state Commissioner for Public Health after being denied marriage licences by Madison town clerk, the state supreme court ruled today "In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry."

Many headlines in newspapers around the country and throughout the blogosphere read much like this one from The Boston Globe: "Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage." As a friend of mine pointed out,

The Connecticut Supreme Court did not legalize same-sex marriage but rather said that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry because marriage is a fundamental right. Gays and lesbians are a group who have a history of being discriminated against and therefore heightened scrutiny (California went one step further and said strict scrutiny) must be applied to any law which negatively impacts them. The Connecticut Supreme Court based their ruling on equal protection in the Connecticut constitution. Everybody deserves the equal protection of state law.

Essentially the court found that Civil Unions, which Connecticut has had for a couple of years, create a separate and unequal category of citizens.

If you are interested, here are the Supreme Court's decision and the three dissenting opinions:

• SC17716 - Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
• SC17716 Dissent - Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
• SC17716 Dissent - Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
• SC17716 Dissent - Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health

How far we have come in the last 25 years since I returned to Connecticut after college and graduate school in the Midwest. Marriage was the last thing on our minds when the Connecticut Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights worked toward passage of civil rights legislation. In fact, it was the issue of marriage that essentially fractured the organization after the passage of the so-called "gay rights bill." A number of members felt that marriage was the next logical step, while others saw marriage as an institution that had long outlived its purpose. While the Coalition fell apart, with a small remainder limping along, other organizations grew out of the fight for full marriage rights for same-sex couples. It became THE issue for a large number of lbgt activists, and for many conservatives, who used it in attempts to solidify their hold over our society.

This decision is a great stride forward for lbtq folks, but the struggle is not over. There is a question on the ballot this year in Connecticut, one required by the state constitution to be put before the people of the state every 20 years:

Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?

There is also the issue of clergy acting as agents of the state for conducting civil marriage. Not to mention the ongoing struggle in our religious institutions regarding the blessing of those marriages.

A lot of education, advocacy, and hard work remains, but for today, let us celebrate a tremendous step forward.

Peace,
Jeffri

Of Polygamists, Gay Marriage, And Twisted Logic

Thursday a Texas appeals court ruled that the State Department of Family and Protective Services illegally removed the children from their homes at the ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Shortly after the news hit the wires, Kendall Harmon posted the story on his blog. Given the way conversations about Christian marriage happen on Kendall's blog and Stand Firm (and many of the same folks comment on both blogs), I was interested in seeing what the comments were. Take a moment and go read them for yourself. Also read this post, this post, and their comments.

Now look at the comments on posts dealing with same-sex marriage on Kendall's blog here, here, and here.



Next, look at this post on Stand Firm. As with the first story on TitusOneNine, note the concern about children being taken away from their parents and the issue of home schooling. Now go look at the comments on this post (be warned, not only may contain poison, but there are over 370 Comments).


Whenever the subject of "gay marriage" comes up, inevitably the conservatives will bring in the "slippery slope" argument that approving gay marriage will lead to the approval of polygamy and worse. Nor is a gay household formed by marriage a healthy place for children, in their opinion. BUT, when it comes to the children being taken from their parents by the state, all of a sudden polygamy is not so bad. Especially since child welfare concerns often touch on the issues surrounding home schooling--something dear to the hearts of many conservatives.

What I often observe when reading many conservative and rejectionist bloggers and commentors is that their view of the "black and white" sides of an issue change with the issue under discussion. When talking about gay marriage, polygamy is evil. When talking about the rights of parents and children, polygamy is neutral.

Can you say "gray?"

Peace,
Jeffri

The Tide Has Turned

Within minutes the news hit the online news sites and the blogosphere. The California Supreme Court, in a 4-3, 172-page decision, overturned the state's ban on what is commonly termed gay marriage. Reactions from groups on all sides of the issue were both swift and predictable. For a summary of news stories, take a look at Susan Russell's An Inch At A Time. For comments from the liberal/progressive wing of the church, go to Father Jake's.







And from the conservative/regressive wing Stand Firm.






Since the ruling concerns the state constitution, it cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Conservative forces in California already had a petition for a November ballot initiative underway. The initiative would amend the California constitution to include the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Governor Schwarzenegger has said in the past, and said again today, that he would oppose any effort to overturn the court's decision. That from a fairly conservative Republican. Not to mention that six of the seven justices are Republicans as well.

Even if the ballot initiative succeeds, it is clear that the tide has turned. Courts across the country look closely at rulings by the California Supreme Court and quite frequently follow them in their own rulings. More than that, our society is changing. It is always changing. The push for marriage rights by a segment of the lbgt communities has caused us to look more closely at marriage and what it is. Churches will have to accept the fact that the trend is to look at marriage more in line with it's original form as a civil contract rather than the religious meaning it acquired after the twelfth century.

Churches need to get out of the civil aspect of marriage. Clergy should NOT be agents of the state and should not perform the civil, legal, contractual piece. Churches should bless the marriage (heaven knows they bless everything else on earth!), not enact it. In some ways, that would make it much easier for those congregations and denominations that do not want to deal with gay marriages in their churches.

The tide has turned. You'd better learn to swim, or you'll be swept away.

Peace,
Jeffri