By the Rev. Ann Adkinson*
I voted to approve Referendum 74. There are lots of reasons to do so. This is one I like to call “I ♥ the 1st Amendment, or Let’s Have Religious Freedom.”
So, last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church has discerned that only celibate men are fit for ordained ministry as priests. The Southern Baptist Convention has discerned that only men are fit for ordained ministry as pastors. The United Methodist Church has discerned that men and women are equally fit for ordained ministry, provided we are faithful in marriage and celibate in singleness. Members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church USA, and the Presbyterian Church USA have discerned that men and women are equally fit for ordained ministry, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons, regardless of whether they are partnered and able to marry in their state of residence.
Q: Which interpretation of clergy ordination will the mostly non-church-going population of Washington State be voting to uphold this year?
A: If you guessed, “None – because it’s not the state’s business to establish one religious practice for all citizens,” you are correct! Blow a kiss to the Bill of Rights’ 1st Amendment as you go by.
So, if you can understand why the government does not try to reconcile the aforementioned differences on clergy standards, yet does prohibit job discrimination based on sex in civil jobs, you should also be puzzled why we are voting on Referendum 74, which grants equal rights to civil marriage for same-sex couples.
As far as I have been able to discern, the reasons folks give to deny equal access to civil marriage to all adult couples are religious reasons. I am all for religious folks speaking up about our religious convictions. I just want us to name a religious position when we’re claiming one.
We do not have an official state church in the U.S. We are not a theocracy, or an ecclesiocracy. I am really grateful for that. I am a fan of the “establishment” and the “free exercise” clauses in the first Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which offer some separation between church and state. (If you haven’t checked out the U.S. Constitution recently, it really is worth reading.)
Religious convictions can and do and should influence public policy. But religious convictions sometimes conflict with civil rights. When they do, it is the government’s job to prevent one group’s purely religious position from being the established law of the land – especially when it restricts the civil rights of some citizens. (That’s the establishment clause at work.)I value religious freedom because it gives me the right to explore my relationship with God without the interference of government. It enables me to connect with others and worship in community without worrying that the state police are going to come in and take my clergy credentials away if they don’t like what I preach or teach.
Some of my religious ideas differ from other people’s religious ideas, even (especially?) those of other Christians. Shocking? Not really. But because of beautiful Amendment 1, I am free to exercise my religious beliefs and others are free to exercise theirs. We can do this simultaneously, even when our ideas are opposite, and the U.S. government just leaves us alone to disagree, ignore each other, or, increasingly, to shout ugly names at one another in the street, in the press, and all over the internet. I could do without the ugly name-calling, but the government’s tolerance and protection of this is a wonderful and precious thing about living in the USA. (That’s the free exercise clause at work.)
Another example: The government has made the decision that divorce and remarriage after divorce are both legal. Some churches and faith communities recognize divorce and marry previously divorced people. Some churches and faith communities do not recognize divorce and do not marry previously divorced people. The government does not weigh in on this in the religious arena. Which seems prudent, if not downright wise.
I don’t expect or desire the government to get involved in matters of religious interpretation. To do so would mean that either all the traditions that do not [ordain women, recognize divorce, marry previously divorced people] would have to go against their beliefs, or all the traditions that do [ordain women, recognize divorce, marry previously divorced people] would have to go against our beliefs. I don’t see that going well.
Yet, this is the state of things right now around civil marriage rights.
Already, there are many churches and other faith communities that bless same-sex relationships (and same-sex marriages, in the states where those are legal). There are many churches and other faith communities that do not bless same-sex relationships, and are unlikely ever to do so. There are many churches and faith communities (such as my own) that are deeply divided and still discerning what God is calling us to do in the church. Religious communities have and can and will continue to figure out what to do in our respective religious arenas.
In the meantime, civil marriage in a civil society must be offered to all citizens equally, regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
So, whether you are for or against marriage for same sex-couples in your religious tradition, supporting Referendum 74 is the right thing to do. It protects your religious freedom, and the religious freedom of your neighbors.
If I want my religious freedom, then I have to allow others theirs, including the right to reject religion altogether. To impose my religious interpretation on all other citizens is unjust. I don’t always get my way. That’s the deal I get, living in a democracy. In exchange, I get the right to be an ordained minister in whatever religious community will ordain me, and I get to be married to a person who was previously married and divorced. That’s the deal. It is a good deal, and I would like to keep it. That is why I voted Yes on Referendum 74 and I hope you do, too.
* The Rev. Ann Adkinson is Pastor at Colby United Methodist Church in Port Orchard, Washington. She graduated from Union Theological Seminary in 2010.
Photograph of the Constitution of the United States taken in the National Archives. Photo Credit: Flickr User, Mr. T in DC, some rights reserved.
The United States Constitution got it right. Everyone should have the freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Thank you God for giving our fore fathers the brains and guts to write the Constitution. Amen.
The Social Principles in the UM Discipline have become the “battleground” over GLBT issues. One just has to read the 1908 Discipline to experience the bold stand of Methodism. There is no mincing words, no attempt to soften the stand of the church on the side of justice and righteousness. Then began the movement to turn the Social Creed into Church law and the subsequent departure from justice and righteousness.
The visit of 15 active and retired Bishops at the close of General Conference in Tampa to the Tabernacle across from the Convention Center was a much welcomed affirmation of the sacredness of GLBT folk and a rebuke of the mention of homosexuality in the Discipline. Pam’s assertion that “The United States Constitution got it right” needs to be taken seriously in the sacred spaces of the UMC.
When the author of this article writes, “Last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church has discerned that only celibate men are fit for ordained ministry as priests.”, she is wrong. The Roman Catholic Church “clarifies” but does not “discern” regarding matters of Sacrament, such as marriage. Discernment is a term used in Protestant Traditions by those who disagree with the teachings of their Church but who through political means and majority votes try to persuade and then break with their Traditions, essentially morphing into a new Church. This new Church then stands alone because it has broken its communion with those that went before. This sets a horrible precedent because the answer to “What is the Church?” becomes, “Anything you want it to be!” The author of this article makes this point by listing off the smorgesboard of Protestant Churches and their different views on gay marriage and ordination.
I too relish in the ideas of Freedom, but we have to watch what we wish for. The freedom to redefine marriage based on personal preference and not biology and the fact that we are even asked questions in civil society to define marriage is not a sign of freedom. It is more and more the sign of a Church that has outlived its relevance in a secular world and whose message is no longer needed and discarded. The evidence of this is the inability of the United (or should I say Dis-United) Methodist Church to attract new members except in Africa, where the Traditions are more in line with the Orthodoxy of John Wesley!