ne Kjast
Note: This
piece was prepared in response to reports that Proposition 8, California’s
anti-gay marriage law, had been overturned by the courts. Further research has indicated that the 9th
District Court has not in fact over-turned Prop-8 but that a ruling is likely
in the next few weeks. I plan to hold
this posting until a decision is reached.
Given the argument that a ruling’s impact is not likely to have an
immediate impact, only relatively minor changes would have to be made to retain
the piece’s viability if Prop 8 is in fact upheld.
Despite political rhetoric surrounding gay
marriage inside the United States, a decision to uphold an earlier court
decision overturning California’s controversial anti-gay marriage law, aka
Proposition 8, by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (federal,
not a state court) is unlikely to have an immediate impact on Mennonite and
Brethren congregations inside California.
On 07 Feb 2012, the
9th Circuit Court upheld U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker’s August
2010 decision to overturn California’s Proposition 8 anti-gay marriage law
based on a lack of justification by the state to exclude gay and lesbian
citizens from state definitions of marriage while offering “identical” rights
to marriage under the definition of “domestic partnerships.” (Warren Richey of MinnPost.com quotes Walker
as, “Plaintiffs do not seek recognition
of a new right. Rather, plaintiffs ask
California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.” (see below).)
As the U.S. heads further into its 2012
election cycle, recognition of gay marriage in California is sure to heat up
anti-gay Republican rhetoric with little regard to the irony that Iowa,
location of the nation’s first contest to determine official party candidates,
has recognized the validity of gay marriage since April 2009.
Similarly, pulpits are sure to ring out
next Sunday either lauding the Court’s decision or warning of its dire
consequences to the morality of the nation.
The Court’s decision should have little
immediate impact, however, on California’s local religious congregations one
way or the other. While the state and
its constituencies must adjust to the ruling, individual churches, pastors and
conferences will not be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
In July 2005, Canadian Mennonites faced
passage of the Civil Marriage Act removing gender from legal definitions of
marriage in Canada. Many Canadians
feared the worst for separation of church and state or held high hopes for greater
acceptance and ministry to the LGBT community.
Reality was a bit of a let-down in both cases. Liberal, tolerant, or welcoming,
congregations continued to attract those who felt comfortable in their
sanctuaries while more conservative churches were not exactly overwhelmed by
gay marriage requests.
As an ethnically aware prairie Mennonite,
there is no question that many gay and lesbian ethnic Canadian-Mennonites have
in fact married same-sex partners, the greater majority of them have just
chosen to be married outside of the Anabaptist context.
For Mennonites, Brethren and other
Anabaptists, the obvious confrontation between proponents of accepting gays and
lesbians and fully embracing them as fellow Christians and members of local
congregations and those who remain hesitant or uncomfortable with such notions
based on mid-20th Century social norms and American Fundamentalist
ideologies, has already more-or-less passed.
For California’s 150-or-so Anabaptist congregations, most will simply
note either a hardening of resolve to prevent the membership and marriage of
homosexual individuals or feel freed to expand already existing welcoming
ministries to the LGBT community.
According to Bloomburg.com, American census
data indicates that 125,416 same-sex households were registered in California
during the 2010 Census, or that 2% of all California couples are same-sex – a
number that is statistically rapidly increasing from year to year. To be statistically consistent, California
would be home to between 1,000 and 2,000 LGBTs of Mennonite Heritage and some
120 same-sex couples of Mennonite and a similar number of Brethren
heritage. (Accurate demographics are
difficult to determine based on conflicting practices, definitions and
self-affiliations within the larger Anabaptist community.)
Of greater concern to conservative
Mennonite congregations should be an even greater increase in the number of
non-married couples, both gay and straight, who have chosen to avoid marriage
altogether (approximately 450,000 couples – for four times the number of
confirmed same-sex couples).
Bloomberg.com also reported that almost half of women between the ages
of 25 to 29 were unmarried in 2009 – twice the number indicated in 1986. I am sure that the Mennonite and Amish
ethnicities are realizing similar trends – especially amongst the secular or
ethnic Mennonites who have left the churches.
Church attendance is spiraling down.
Marriage is spiraling down. There
seems to be a trend.
Contrary to expectations, since legalizing
same-sex marriage in 2005, Canada has seen only limited interest in formal
pro-Gay Anabaptist inter-conference alliances such as BMC or Pink Mennos. Iowa and Massachusetts, states where gay
marriage is already legal, are both home to numerous and influential Anabaptist
and Brethren congregations – yet there are no records of Mennonite or Brethren
same-sex marriage ceremonies having yet been performed (I am distinguishing
between so-called commitment ceremonies and legal marriages). In fact, according to BMC sources, only about
four or five legal marriage ceremonies have been performed within a Mennonite
context in the United States and Canada.
Interestingly, these marriages seem to have occurred between couples who
had already been together between 9 and 30 years – the ceremony merely
sanctifying an already extent fact.
A potential explanation for the lack of
Mennonite-led lesbian and gay marriages is that many gay Anabaptists marry
outside of their faith and cultural tradition.
The two gay marriages to which I have been invited in Canada involving
Mennonites were presided over by United Church of Christ (UCC) clergy – both
couples involving a Mennonite and a Roman Catholic – neither having grown up in
the UCC, nor either couple attending the UCC regularly afterwards, though both
identifying as such.
Of the few lesbian or gay couples married
in the United States, the slim majority seem to be from outside the
congregation but from within the greater Anabaptist heritage – so-called ethnic
Mennonites from the greater diaspora or grosse
gemeinde.
That is not to say that an increased demand
for same-sex marriage between Anabaptists will not happen. Speaking with affiliated Mennonite and
Brethren congregations with BMC, one gets the idea that most gay, lesbian and
straight ally members of their congregations have focused more on establishing
safe and welcoming places of worship where the LGBT community, and all other
minorities, are able to contribute fully and to fully belong. For most, whether in or out of monogamous
traditional relationships, the question of or need for official recognition of
their status as committed partners has yet to come up – or they have contented
themselves with congregationally blessed commitment ceremonies.
One pastor of a welcoming church in
California is however already preparing for same-sex marriage ceremonies. When the time comes, the congregation as a
whole will be involved in establishing, recognizing and affirming the ritual. What has changed, in that pastor’s opinion,
is the nature of the debate. Previous
battles over accepting gays and lesbians into full membership and unsuccessful
challenges to the ministerial credentials of the pastors of welcoming
congregations have already led to a very traditional Anabaptist sense of congregational
independence. According to many impacted
pastors, welcoming congregations are no longer looking for permission
from their faith to accept, recognize and minister to their gay and lesbian
members, they are looking for acceptance by their conferences of the of
the ministry to which they have been called and the mutual fellowship and support
of their pastoral peers as they strive to meet the challenges of welcoming and
celebrating diversity within their congregations.
Similar sentiments were recently echoed in
a December open letter by pastors of welcoming congregations with in the Church
of the Brethren to their more conservative fellow believers after an unusually
disruptive conference addressing matters of gender in church leadership and inclusiveness
of the LGBT Church of the Brethren community:
… The Church of the Brethren we have known and
loved is not the church that was on display this past summer at Annual
Conference. The Church of the Brethren we have known and loved seeks the mind of
Christ, respects expressions of conscience, extends hospitality, refuses to do
violence to those who are vulnerable, seeks peace among us.
All of these values lead us as well, to
extend a spirit of acceptance and inclusion toward all who would join company
with us as we follow Jesus. For our congregations, this "all" has and
will continue to include lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender persons. And
this, we have to tell you, has been a blessing for our congregations. What a
wealth of giftedness, commitment, faithfulness, and compassion is shared by our
LGBT sisters and brothers! We are grateful and we are clear that this sharing
is what it means to be the church; this is what it means to be Brethren.
Are you ready to join us? To identify with
the radical, inclusive love of Jesus? To practice the healing and transforming
power of hospitality? ...
The Mennonite Brethren (MB), a conservative
Anabaptist sect originating in Ukraine and Russia, has its national
headquarters and seminary in California at Fresno. Despite this residency, the overturn of Prop
8 is expected to have little immediate impact on the conference. United Mennonite Church in Calgary, Alberta,
has remained the sole MB congregation to welcome gays and lesbians into full
fellowship, and was immediately thrown out of the Canadian arm of the conference.
United Mennonite exists today as an
independent Anabaptist fellowship, and in accord with Canadian law, now
consists of the full membership of the only fully welcoming Mennonite
conference in either the USA or Canada.
As such, independent churches existing as their own church conference,
such as United Mennonite, stand a higher chance of performing and recognizing
lesbian and gay marriages in that they, as an independent conference,
credential their own pastoral staff.
Importantly, there are no non-welcoming or anti-same-sex marriage
congregations to challenge their right or ability to do so. Even in states such as Iowa, Massachusetts,
or now, California, should gay marriages be performed, such moves are likely to
be challenged by more conservative and Fundamentalist believers within the
local or regional conferences. Though
continued wrangling over old debates is, as was indicated, likely to increase
even further the sense of independence and alienation between welcoming and
non-welcoming church communities.
Nor is legal recognition by church
conferences of gay marriage a certainty even in states where it is legal. This December, despite decades of civil
rights movements and legislation against racial discrimination, the Gulnare
Freewill Baptist Church in Kentucky voted 9 to 6 to bar interracial couples from becoming members or being used
in worship services – the same hurdles faced by most gay and lesbian
Anabaptists attending non-welcoming churches.
After a week of bad press, the church did reverse itself, but the damage
was done.
Huffington Post writer Melanie Coffee sums
it up by asking, “So between you and me,
how do you really feel about interracial couples? Are you OK with it as long
as: A) It's not one of your children? B) It's not in your church C) They're not
gay or D) The couple's happy.”
Returning to the open letter to Church of
the Brethren believers, it really is not only the gay and lesbian individuals
or couples who need a safe, welcoming place to worship – even today.
 |
| Gay and Russian Mennonite Symbolism |
Nor is Gulnare Baptist unique. Heavily influential in Fundamentalist
circles, Bob Jones University did not allow interracial dating until March 2000, only dropping the rule
after an embarrassing barrage of media attention criticizing Republican presidential
candidate George W. Bush’s decision to visit the campus.
Not that many Anabaptist congregations are
much better. Grace University in Omaha,
an Evangelical Bible school with strong Anabaptist roots, has been criticized
for a perceived preponderance of Bob Jones graduates in its staffing. Appalachian Bible College, a Mennonite and
Brethren-friendly institution, is also similarly dominated by two names – Bob
Jones University and the equally conservative Dallas Theological Seminary,
which has also quietly dealt with questions about its teachings and tolerances
towards interracial relationships. Still
dealing with issues of race and racism after 40 years of socialization, such
institutions are hardly likely to provide leadership in addressing the needs
and spiritual well-being of the Christian LGBT community after only a few
months.
The greatest impact of no-Prop 8 is likely
to be towards the secular or ethnic Brethren, Mennonites and Amish communities
rather than on the religious congregations.
While the idea of gay Amish or lesbian Mennonites seem to conflict with
established stereotypes of bearded fellows and bonneted ladies, such
individuals comprise a growing and increasingly visible community. Gay and lesbian ex-Amish maintain chatrooms and
websites while gay Mennonites are increasingly reluctant to deny their cultural
and ethnic heritage – often bringing their Anabaptist identities with them into
churches and social organizations that are more accepting. Again, as many ethnic lesbian and gay
Mennonites are turning to Mennonite pastors to perform marriage ceremonies as
religious ones.
In as much as Anabaptism’s churches and
religious hierarchies no longer have any authority over secular or ethnic
Mennonites, Amish and Brethren, or their families, gay ethnic Anabaptists are
often in the best position to pursue, accept, and validate their own committed
relationships as they see fit and according to their own spiritual, political
and emotional comfort levels – without permission or negative conference
judgments.
Nor is this a new phenomenon. Direct historical evidence and more
circumstantial interpretations of Anabaptist history indicate that there has
been an historical gay and lesbian Anabaptist identity at least back to the
early 18th Century.
Esteemed Russian Mennonite historian P. M.
Friesen openly praised the reign of Frederick the Great in Prussia for its
profundity, its tolerance and its wisdom – seeing it as a golden age for the
Mennonites of Prussia. Whether or not
Frederick had sex with men, he clearly had what we would today call a gay
self-identity. Media coverage and
political interactions indicate that both his Mennonite subjects and later
scholars such as Friesen would have been clearly aware of his
proclivities. Interestingly, like the
pastors of welcoming Churches of the Brethren, Friesen notes the value and
inclusiveness of the gay community and its impact on the larger society.
Perhaps more common to the Dutch Mennonites
(from whom the Prussian and Russian Mennonites descend), has been the almost
persistent charges against them of sexual non-conformity – meaning that they
were often identified by their enemies of rival faiths as being sodomites
(practicing homosexuals) and even polygamists.
In fact, I have only just recently come across a recent blog maintained
by a bloke in Saskatchewan who is still repeating these age old rumours.
While most of these charges were untrue,
based in politics and economic rivalries rather than in reality, they do
indicate that a dialogue had to be engaged on the matter. At the same time, it is almost certain that
more credible charges were in fact investigated and dealt with – yet what is
not known is the extent to which such charges would be investigated or the
consequences they would have on the individuals within their congregations or
the gemeinde. In his book Sodomy and the Reformation, Poof indicates that many Medieval
homosexuals were accused of being Anabaptists as well as sodomites and burnt at
the stake. At least one of the gay
martyrs was burnt at the stake for having had homosexual relations with an
Anabaptist. Given the detail of such
trials, it is likely that there were indeed gay and lesbian Mennonites and
Amish from the earliest days of the Reformation.
The
published diaries of J. D. Epp, a mid-Nineteenth Century Bishop to the
Mennonites in Chortitza and Molotschna, Ukraine, records several instances
wherein Russian Mennonites (Russländer) confessed to and were disciplined for
having committed homosexual acts.
Interestingly, they, as homosexuals, were seemingly tolerated and
allowed to return to the congregation and participate in the community life of
the gemeinde – as long as they did
not confess or were not caught up in gay sex.
Heterosexual marriage requirements for land
ownership or professional standing ruled out the possibility for viable gay
lifestyles to be established in the so-called Russian Mennonite colonies – let
alone same-sex marriages. Even recently
widowed spouses with families were forced to rapidly remarry in order to
protect their ability to own land and thereby provide for their family.
At the same time, as the topic of Queer
Anabaptist studies finds its feet, more and more Mennonite families are
rediscovering traditions of unmarried spinster aunts or uncles who never did
find a mate, many remaining in the homes in which they grew up, thereby
diminishing their dependence on establishing a normal heterosexual identity for
economic and social survival. Similarly,
the strong attachments of certain personalities to same-sex assistants or
life-long friends statistically rules out the idea that homosexuality was not
quietly observed and thereby tolerated amongst these peaceful folk. At the same time, attempts to nail down such
stories and to clearly identify individuals from the past as “gay” must remain
purely speculative. Even today, most
Anabaptists, nor anyone else, do not agree as to what or whom a gay or lesbian
person is.
That being said, the greater consequence of
Prop 8’s being overturned will probably be social rather than spiritual, at
least in the immediacy. Changing social
norms lead to changing social expectations leading to changing pressures on
congregations, conferences and churches to conform, change or accept
difference.
Acceptance of dating between rival
Mennonite or Amish factions or between Christians of differing traditions or of
different races was often slow and organic, as was the acceptance by Mennonite
congregations of divorce and divorce and remarriage. The true import of no-Prop 8 will probably be
in the slow evolutionary social exposure to and individual acceptance of
same-sex marriages. Mennonites, Amish
and Brethren who work in the professions, attend university or interact with
the media will increasingly come into contact with those 125,000 same-sex
California couples and be forced to socially tolerate if not accept gay
marriage.
Even the Mennonite Brethren have entered
into narrow dialogue regarding gay rights.
In questioning the MB Conferences choice of Shane Claiborne as a 2010
youth conference speaker, Menno-Lite published the following quote from the
National Catholic Report revealing and in opposition to Claiborne’s views on
same-sex marriage:
… we said that what we could agree on was we want
to support monogamous, married couples and their children and celibate
singles”…
He said
the statement did not attach gender to the monogamous couples. “The different
communities would resolve that in different ways. I’m not a pastor so it
doesn’t come out that people would ask me to marry them in a same-gender
relationship. Personally, I would not be able to do that if I were a pastor,
but I also don’t have any shame in saying, ‘I’ve got a pastor friend who would
love to marry you.’ ”
He said he considered his view an example of the non-dualistic thinking that Rohr
speaks about. “This is how I feel and I’m unapologetic about that, but there
may be more than what I see.” Claiborne more than once makes the point that he
and other young monastics don’t claim to have all the answers and deeply
distrust those who make that claim.” – www. Ncronline.org.
In a response published in the Mennonite
Weekly Herald (18 Oct 2010), Sheldon Good reports of Wendell Loewen’s response
to the criticism (Loewen was co-director of the national convention) – “As Loewen talks with people, he [Loewen]
said, most concerns [regarding Claiborne] turn out to be political or social
rather than theological,” (reference below).
Most Mennonites tend to forget that in the
1940s, Mennonite Brethren and Evangelical Mennonite Brethren (EMB), by mutual
agreement, were still not allowed to date, let alone marry. Marrying outside the ethnic-faith community
(the gemeinde) did not become a
viable option until the late 60s, early 70s.
Most Russian Mennonite congregations did not even deal with divorce
until the late 80s but by the 90s, were allowing divorced members to be
remarried. Change does happen, and when
it does, it seems to happen fast and for the right reasons.
My grandmother used to tell me a story
about how the Brüderthaler (EMB) Mennonite church in Montana became
desegregated. For four hundred and fifty
years, Mennonite men went in one door of the church and worshipped on one side
of the sanctuary while Mennonite women went in a separate door (with the
children) and sat on the opposite side of the sanctuary. Blessed with a toddler and a set of infant twins
– my grandmother gave my grandfather an ultimatum – either he took the toddler
over to his side of the church and kept him quiet, or he would have to sit with
her on her side and help her control the kids.
Wisely, grandfather broke with hallowed ancestral traditions and sat
beside his wife in the women’s section.
Two weeks later, a few other young couples perceived that if Bert could
sit with Ethel in church, then there was no reason they could not do
likewise. So within three weeks and with
no votes being taken or debate being engaged, the Bert Walls, the Irvin Walls
and the Herb Rauch’s desegregated the Brüderthaler Church.
There is an important corollary to this
story. Not all members of the
congregation felt comfortable with the new arrangement. However, instead of stewing over it and
fighting it out at regional conferences, a few of the men elected to remain
together on the former men’s side of the sanctuary, a few women chose to
continue sitting together on the old women’s side of the church and everyone
else was allowed to disperse themselves elsewhere or amongst as they saw
fit. Opinions were held and respected, but
not allowed to interfere with the fellowship and community of the believers.
The state has the right to force such
confrontations by nature of its existence and its responsibility to preserve
the rights and equality of all citizens.
Individuals and individual congregations can seek to separate themselves
further and further from such contacts but such separation is becoming
increasingly hard to achieve. Even
today, separatist Mennonites in Belize and Mexico are increasingly doing
business with American tourists – including gay couples from California. Hutterite Anabaptists from Montana are
selling chickens and produce to gay couples from California moving to Helena,
Missoula and Billings. Just as the Walls
and Rauchs observed the establishment of a new social understanding and adapted
to it – Anabaptists of all stripes will at some point adapt to the new social
realities of no-Prop 8, just in their own time and each to his own
understanding.
Nor is the question of accepting gay
marriage in states such as Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, the District of
Columbia or the provinces of Canada, Argentina or the Netherlands dependent
only on the soundness of and respect for traditional doctrinal issues. The Mennonite Brethren USA, one of
Anabaptism’s most Fundamentalist sects, has recently reversed equally
controversial and longer-held doctrinal positions in recent decisions to
accredit former military personal as pastoral staff, the acceptance of divorced
members, or even that most holy of holies doctrine – relaxing the requirement
that all members must be baptized as adults and only through immersion prior to
membership.
Even in such conservative conferences,
acceptance of gay marriage is unlikely to come about by court decree, but
rather, as it has every place else, through exposure, individual acceptance and
changed social expectations – condemning your openly gay daughter to Hell and
refusing to allow her to bring her same-sex spouse to holiday dinners doesn’t
quite carry the cache it once held.
The power to shape these changing social
realities is the true power and heritage of the overturning of California’s
Proposition 8. California simply has too
many gay marriages to unleash on the larger North American society and such
couples will increasingly help redefine the reality of marriage in the US and
Canada, and probably even Belize, Mexico, Bolivia and Paraguay. California’s reality is simply our reality
too. Just as attitudes towards baptism,
inter-faith dating and for most people, interracial couples have changed over
time, so too will the true heirs of Prop 8 be found a decade or so from now –
probably in the greater majority of Anabaptist congregations. Genetics is pretty blind to matters of religion,
ethnicity or political persuasion. The
issue is sure to come up.
(According to MennoLink.org, California is home to 16 self-identified
Mennonite heritage congregations mixed amongst roughly 24 Church of the
Brethren congregations, 83 Mennonite Brethren Churches and 36 Mennonite Church-USA
congregations, for a total of 143 impacted congregations.)
English (en): Laws regarding
same-sex sexuality
|
Homosexuality legal
Same-sex
marriage1
Other type
of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation)1
Foreign
same-sex marriages recognized1
No
recognition of same-sex couples
|
Homosexuality
illegal
Minimal
penalty
Large
penalty
Life in
prison
Death
penalty
|
1May include recent laws or court
decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but
which have not entered into effect yet
Deutsch (de): Rechtlicher Status der Homosexualität.
|
Homosexualität
legal
Gleichgeschlechtliche Ehen
(Offizielle)
gleichgeschlechtliche Partnerschaften
Anerkennung
ausländischer gleichgeschlechtlicher Ehen
Keine
(offiziellen) gleichgeschlechtlichen Partnerschaften
|
Homosexualität
illegal
Kleinere
Strafen
Empfindliche
Strafen
Lebenslängliche Haft
Todesstrafe
|
