wfn.org | Episcopal Church leaders urge restraint on marriage

["Episcopal News Service" <ens@epicom.org>]

amendment

March 2, 2004

Episcopal Church leaders urge restraint on marriage amendment

By Jan Nunley

[ENS] President George W. Bush's endorsement of a proposed 
Federal Marriage 
Amendment banning same-sex marriage has generated a call for 
restraint and 
continued conversation from the Presiding Bishop and other 
Episcopal 
bishops, while advocacy organizations within the Episcopal Church 
lined up 
for and against the legislation.

Bush called February 24 for a constitutional amendment "defining 
and 
protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and 
wife...while 
leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in 
defining 
legal arrangements other than marriage."

The proposed amendment reads as follows:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a 
man and 
a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, 
nor 
state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital 
status or 
the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or 
groups."

In a statement dated February 25, Presiding Bishop Frank T. 
Griswold 
responded:

"The Episcopal Church and other faith communities, as well as the 
larger 
society in which we find ourselves, are presently engaged in 
conversations 
and debates about issues of human sexuality, and more 
particularly 
homosexuality and the public recognition of committed 
relationships between 
members of the same sex. The Episcopal Church is on record as 
being 
committed to continuing discussion and discernment around these 
questions, 
about which we do not have a common mind, and to equal 
protection under the 
law and full civil rights for homosexual persons.

"I am concerned about the advisability of a constitutional 
amendment being 
put forth for discussion at this time. Questions of sexuality are far 
from 
settled, and a constitutional amendment which was perceived as 
settling this 
matter might make it more difficult to engage in civil discourse 
around this 
topic.

"Further, sexuality is personal, and therefore engages us at an 
emotional 
level where the language used can inflame rather than inform. For 
example, 
some who do support the legal and civil rights of same-sex 
couples are 
disturbed at the use of the term marriage to describe such unions, 
believing 
that this term should be used only in reference to the commitment 
between a 
man and a woman. Others believe that a term less than marriage is 
a 
diminishment of such relationships.

"As I support the honoring of differing perspectives within the 
Episcopal 
Church, equally, it is my strong hope that our national discourse 
during 
this political season will promote thoughtful and respectful 
conversation. 
The fullness of truth seldom resides in one point of view and 
therefore we 
need to hold ourselves open to the possibility that our own 
perspectives 
will be enlarged by those of others with whom we may disagree. It 
is my 
prayer that we will find the way forward that respects the best of 
our civil 
and religious traditions.

"During these debates, both within the church and civil society, I 
would 
urge us to remember that we are conversing about an issue that 
affects the 
lives of honorable men and women who should be recognized in 
the dignity of 
their personhood and not simply discussed as abstractions.

Also commenting on the amendment proposal was Bishop David C. 
Bane, Jr., of 
the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia, who issued this 
statement to his 
diocese February 27:

"The complex issues surrounding the blessing of same- sex 
relationships by 
religious communities or the recognition of same- sex marriages 
by legal 
institutions are still the topic of much debate. In these discussions 
it is 
important to maintain a clear separation between the roles of 
church and 
state. And it is imperative that we not try through the legislative or 
legal 
process to short-circuit or pre-judge ongoing conversations about 
the moral 
and religious issues involved."

Advocacy groups respond

The Claiming the Blessing steering committee, which includes 
representatives 
of Integrity, Oasis, Beyond Inclusion and the Episcopal Women's 
Caucus, on 
February 25 called the Bush endorsement "clear and unabashed 
discrimination 
against gays and lesbians and their families. It will do nothing to 
defend 
the institution of marriage and everything to deny equal rights 
under the 
law to a segment of the population."

"Equal protection is guaranteed by the Constitution as a civil right 
for all 
Americans--not just a chosen percentage," the steering committee 
added. "We 
believe that this effort to write bias into the Constitution is 
inherently 
unconstitutional. As Episcopal clergy stood in solidarity with the 
Freedom 
Riders who challenged segregation in the 1960's, we stand in 
solidarity with 
those in San Francisco who today challenge discrimination against 
gay and 
lesbian families. We follow in the footsteps of those who spoke in 
opposition to segregationist leaders when they railed against the 
courts 
implementing integration in public schools as we speak in 
opposition to 
George Bush and his expressed intention to amend the 
Constitution to 
institutionalize the marginalization of gay and lesbian Americans."

On the opposite side of the issue, the American Anglican Council 
(AAC) 
declared its support for the marriage amendment two and a half 
years ago 
when it joined the Alliance for Marriage coalition. Three current 
and former 
AAC board members sit on the Alliance's Board of Advisors, 
including the 
AAC's president and CEO, the Rev. David Anderson; Bishop Peter 
Beckwith of 
the Diocese of Springfield; and Bishop Stephen Jecko, a former AAC 
board 
member and retired bishop of Florida. Another Episcopalian listed 
on the AFM 
board is Diane Knippers of the Institute for Religion and 
Democracy.

In a statement issued July 11, 2001, the AAC said the amendment 
is "designed 
to protect both marriage and democracy in the United States by 
preserving 
the legal status of marriage from court redefinition."

"The Federal Marriage Amendment is an important step to help 
preserve the 
institution of marriage in our society," said Beckwith in a news 
release. 
"The AAC strongly encourages the leadership of the Episcopal 
Church to join 
with us in supporting this vital amendment."

Requirements for ratification

A constitutional ban on same-sex marriage requires a two-thirds 
vote in both 
houses of Congress and ratification by 38 state legislatures. So far, 
legislators in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Arkansas, Georgia, 
Illinois, 
Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, 
Tennessee and 
Virginia have introduced resolutions urging Congress to pass the 
Federal 
Marriage Amendment.

According to the non-partisan online news publication 
Stateline.org, 
twenty-one states are considering or planning to debate a ban on 
marriage of 
same-sex couples in the state constitution: Alabama, Georgia, 
Idaho, 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Minnesota, North Carolina, 
Oklahoma, 
Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. 
Legislative approval 
could place the issue before the voters as soon as November in 
some states. 
Proposed constitutional amendments have died in Arizona and 
Maine, while 
there is a petition drive in Oregon to place the issue on the 
November 
ballot.

At least 12 states are debating statutes that would either prohibit 
same-sex 
marriage or marriage-like benefits or strengthen previous bans. In 
January, 
Ohio enacted the nation's strictest ban on gay marriage, forbidding 
any 
public policy that extends marriage-like benefits to same-sex 
couples. 
Similar bills have been introduced in Iowa, Maryland, New 
Hampshire, New 
Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, 
Virginia 
and Washington, but bills introduced in South Dakota and Wyoming 
have 
already failed.

Limited access to marriage benefits is available for same-sex 
couples in 
states such as Vermont, where a civil unions law includes hospital 
visitation rights and the ability to make medical decisions for an 
incapacitated partner. Registered domestic partners in California 
will gain 
almost state-level marriage benefits on Jan. 1, 2005. New Jersey 
now has a 
statewide domestic partner registry; Hawaii's system is termed 
"reciprocal 
beneficiaries."

According to a 1997 U.S. General Accounting Office report, the 
1996 Federal 
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies same-sex couples 1,049 
marriage rights 
and responsibilities recognized by the federal government, ranging 
from 
adoption and child custody rights, survivor's rights to Social 
Security 
benefits, and tax-free inheritance of a spouse's estate, to smaller 
benefits 
such as family discounts at national parks.

--The Rev. Jan Nunley is deputy director of Episcopal News Service. 
Portions 
of this report were adapted from Stateline.org.