What does it mean for the life of the church and its ministry to offer, or withhold, the rite of marriage for same-gender couples? The session included consideration of what steps, if any, Rock Spring might take in response to the Synod Resolution.

On October 29, 44 Rock Springers gathered in the Carpenter Hall to participate in the final session of the four-part forum on the UCC Synod Resolution, “In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All.” The first speaker, Rock Spring’s Senior Pastor Chuck Wildman, addressed four issues: the ecclesiastical landscape, breaking the tie that binds, our responsibility for advocacy, and accepting differences.

The ecclesiastical landscape. Chuck said that we should correct the injustice we wrote into the ONA statement of June 2000. After careful study and reflection, he has come to conclude that there is no biblical justification, no acceptable ecclesiastical rationale, for Rock Spring to make a distinction between heterosexual and same-gender couples and perform “ceremonies of traditional marriage” for one and of “committed union” for the other. What was reasonable and rational then is now neither. Performing marriage ceremonies for all would be consistent with Rock Spring’s Constitution and By-Laws as amended in 2005 (“Jesus taught and lived an inclusive faith”), Articles of Faith (“be servants in the service of the whole human family”), Covenant (“ways of the Lord, made known or to be made known to us”), Just Peace Resolution, and ONA Statement.

Breaking the Tie That Binds. Chuck argued that there is no reason for the clergy to become agents of the state for any reason, but particularly in the current situation in Virginia which is at the forefront of the fight against gay rights. To represent the state in civil marriage in this state would present a crisis of conscience. Should Rock Spring’s pastors decide to sever ties with the Commonwealth of Virginia and no longer sign marriage licenses—in so doing, Rock Spring will join other churches that are breaking state-church ties—there would be virtually no inconvenience for heterosexual couples getting married. They would have to go to the country courthouse to collect the marriage license paper anyway, and, in Arlington, all they would have to do is to go to another room, answer two pro forma questions, and pay a fee of $25. Although there is no clarity on the legal implications of “marrying” same-gender couples in church, since Rock Spring is not proposing to sign any legal documents, chances are excellent that nothing will happen, unless the state wants to make an example of Rock Spring. But that, continued Chuck, should not be a deterrent.

Where the Gospel hits the streets. Pointing out that Rock Spring was founded on the belief that sincere faith is activist by definition, Chuck stressed the importance of advocacy for equal rights before the law and acceptance by society of same-gender couples. Advocacy could begin with Rock Spring’s pastors refusing to sign marriage licenses, our working to defeat regressive legislation, publishing articles and letters in the media, issuing press releases, and holding press conferences.

What about those who disagree? In the true congregational tradition, we do not require agreement, but rather respect for all people and honest dialogue. Chuck said, “We first love all people, and then accept our differences.”

After a lively discussion that included testimonies by gays, lesbians, and their parents, Peter Moll presented the Marriage Equality Study Committee’s recommendation for revising the 2000 ONA statement. The phrase “ceremonies of traditional marriage and committed union” would be replaced with “marriage ceremonies.” In the preamble which begins with “In light of our …”, a sixth bullet will be added, which reads, “Endorsement for the UCC 25 General Synod resolution entitled ‘In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All’.” Peter briefly described the reasons why the Committee believes that marriage equality follows from ONA. Rock Spring’s ONA statement already recognizes the right of all couples to a committed, life-long, relationship. This is equivalent to marriage in all but name. Permitting heterosexual couples either marriage or holy union, while permitting homosexual couples only holy union, would amount to discrimination. Lastly, none of the literature consulted distinguished between ONA and marriage equality. All arguments against marriage equality were based on pre-ONA assumptions, and the available literature on this topic has not been helpful in this regard.

Peter also gave potential counter-arguments, and a brief response. One commonly cited argument against is that marriage is primarily for procreation. But same-gender couples do “procreate,” in what is arguably the most generous act through adoption of children. And stressing procreation invites such questions as what about those heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, or those who are not able. Another argument is that marriage has always been between one man and one woman in the church almost all the time. But if we go on the basis of tradition, then the church also condoned slavery for 1600 years and sanctioned homophobia throughout its history until about 30 years ago. What has been is not necessarily what should be. A third argument is that marrying same-gender couples would be pointless because it carries no legal recognition in Virginia or in most U.S. states. But we heard in the third forum that marriage is much more than just a legal institution. Social acceptance, which can be facilitated by the church’s marrying same-gender couples, is just as important, if not more. Children with same-gender parents want to know, as all children do, how their parents got married, and especially if their friends raise doubts in their minds, they ask, “Are you married?” The church’s action can enable these parents to say, “Yes sweetheart, we got married in Rock Spring Church.” Finally, some argue against it because it is a bad strategy. Rushing to marry same-gender couples could arouse conservative opposition needlessly and put the cause back many years. But in many socio-political fights, a perfectly well-accepted strategy is to state your position clearly from the outset, rather than give concessions and then be forced to compromise even further down the line. As an example of a compromise solution that failed, Peter spoke of the tricameral system introduced by the apartheid government in South Africa, whereby Africans, who made up the majority, were excluded but “Indians” and the so-called “Coloreds” (mixed race) were given their own parliaments to give the appearance of equality. This system lasted just ten years.

There was general consensus among the participants that Rock Spring should marry same-gender couples and that, if our pastors so choose, Rock Spring should not longer be involved in civil marriage. Some expressed reservations about endorsing the Synod Resolution, including concerns about pursuing equal marriage rights in Virginia. Others pointed out that the Resolution does not require that equality before the law be pursued under the name of marriage, but that the Resolution “encourages” UCC congregations to engage in serious, respectful, and prayerful discussion on equal marriage rights, including wedding policies, and “consider and support” equal marriage rights and work against discriminatory legislation. The meeting concluded that there should be further discussion by the Marriage Equality Study Committee to examine the wording with respect to the Synod Resolution in the proposed ONA revisions before taking the statement to the Social Action Board for its action and submission to Church Council.

RELATED INFORMATION & DOCUMENTS:

Marriage Equality and Rock Spring