Views on Same-Sex Marriage - A Typology
A - Just no.
B - Yes for state / No for church.
C - Yes for state / No for church (But yes for churches
blessing relationships somehow, just not marriage.)
D - Yes for state / Yes for some denominations / No for my
denomination.
E - Yes for state / Yes for some congregations, even in my
denomination / No for my particular congregation.
F - Yes for state / Yes for all churches, even my particular
congregation / No for me.
G - Just yes.
And so one can clearly see that this is not a simple
either/or proposition. (And this is really a sketch; I’m sure there are several
variations to my A-G list above.)
For any helpful conversation to happen about marriage
equality, the parties must first understand one another’s perspective clearly.
Reality is much more nuanced than we are often led to believe; it is not as
simple as being either “for” it or “against” it.
And adding to the complexity of the situation is the
undeniable fact that some people are not very nice when they are discussing
their position. And some people think that their position is the only valid
position. And as it turns out many people who think their position is the only
valid position also happen to be the same people who are not very nice when
they are discussing their position.
But the point I really want to make here is this: Not
everyone who is “against” same-sex marriage is a hateful homophobic bigot … AND
… not everyone who is “for” same-sex marriage is a morally bankrupt atheist
hippie. (I’m using hyperbole to emphasize the point.) Certainly such people
exist, but they are a tiny (albeit loud) minority.
The truth is, life is complex. People are vibrantly diverse,
and it is risky make simplistic either/or assumptions about what an individual
thinks about same-sex marriage.
Specific UMC Thoughts:
As my own denomination, the United Methodist Church, seeks away forward when it comes to our official stance on marriage, I hope we can
remember this. When a compromise is proposed to the General Conference in
February of 2019, it is far from certain whether it will pass. If we can
remember how vibrantly diverse we are, it may. If we dig in our heels with “our
way or the highway” thinking, it likely will not.
The General Conference deck is stacked for conflict. Our
General Conference is designed to force either/or, black-and-white, for or
against opposition. And it does what it is designed to do quite well. In 2016,
we tried to be different, more conversational and relational. But in order to
do so we had to pass a rule that would allow us to, “Rule 44.” And guess what?
To pass “Rule 44,” we used the oppositional, either/or system in which we are
stuck. So … it didn’t pass and we were right back at it.
The thing is, our congregations aren’t like that. Our
congregations are people who are scattered across the spectrum and kind of
clumped in the middle of it. And in general our congregations are much more
willing to compromise on same-sex marriage than our delegates to General
Conference are.
I pray no one will decide to leave our denomination as a
result of the upcoming 2019 General Conference meeting, though it is almost
certain that some will. (Indeed, some already have.) At the very least, I hope
we will be gracious toward those who decide to leave, and refrain from making
assumptions about their motivations for doing so.
I have heard my colleagues say, “If we allow same-sex
marriages in our congregations it will hurt the mission of the church in my
context.” To them I say, “Then don’t do any.”
Now I’m wondering, will those same colleagues hear me when I say, “If we continue to prohibit same-sex marriages in our congregations it will hurt the mission of the church in my context.” What will be their reply to me?
