Pastor Flake is the spiritual adviser to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith.
“I don’t care what the politicians think,” Mr. Flake, a former Democratic congressman and one of the city’s most influential religious leaders, thundered last week during a Sunday service at the Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral in Queens. “Ain’t nothing perfect about laying down and signing a license with somebody who got the same body parts you got.”
Mr. Flake went on for about two minutes, much to the delight of many in the pews, who cheered and applauded as the church organist punctuated the reverend’s words with notes from “I’ve Got a Woman,” by Ray Charles.
The sentiment, shared in many churches, would normally warrant little notice. Mr. Flake is the pastor of a predominantly black congregation in a community with a socially conservative tilt — hardly an unlikely spokesman for those opposed to same-sex marriage.
But Mr. Flake is also a mentor to the Senate majority leader, Malcolm A. Smith, who is among a handful of political leaders in Albany who will be responsible for the fate of same-sex marriage in New York.
Looking on as Mr. Flake preached that morning were Mr. Smith’s wife, Michele, and one of his senior aides, Mortimer Lawrence. Mr. Smith was not in church that day, though he is a regular.
Mr. Smith’s close relationship with Mr. Flake and the Allen A.M.E. church encapsulates the pressure the senator is experiencing from two distinct worlds — the political and the spiritual — as he strives to persuade his colleagues that they should vote to legalize same-sex marriage.
“He is both a servant of God and a servant of the state,” Mr. Flake said in a telephone interview. “It’s clearly a dichotomy one does not like to be in, but it’s clearly before him now.”
Mr. Smith, who went to work for Mr. Flake in 1986 as a Congressional aide, said the minister’s views on the subject have not weakened his own resolve to see same-sex marriage legalized. Though they speak nearly every day, the two men said they have not broached the topic recently.
“He knows what my position is. I know what his position is,” Mr. Smith said. “He looks at it as a religious matter, and I look at it as a legal matter.”
Mr. Smith said he arrived at his decision to support same-sex marriage two years ago when he began considering it a matter of equal rights.
Read it all
Y'all are so wonderfully gifted with your theological discussions and fancy language and all...
I'm a simple guy.
But it seems to me that the Anglican version of "the chicken and the egg is:"
How can you include someone who's bent on excluding you?
Neil Houghton
Rochester L3
To the Ordained and Lay Leaders of the Diocese of Maine
After considerable reflection I have decided to add my voice to the testimony being offered at the legislative hearing to be held by the Judiciary Committee on April 22, 2009 concerning L.D. 1020, "An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom." As my presence is required elsewhere that day, Canon Heidi Shott will read the testimony in my stead.
I have decided to submit testimony because I believe the conversations we've had within the Episcopal Church can be of use to our wider community. I think we have something to say beyond simply "yes" or "no." I'm writing to you so that you will know exactly what I am saying and will have this information no matter what is reported in the press. My personal opinions are fairly well known on this matter, and I spoke to you about them during the election process. But I think it's essential that all of us in the diocese continue the conversation ourselves, and that all points of view be honored.
My testimony will be brief and will focus on equal rights and protection under civil law. I acknowledge continuing discussion within the church and affirm that there should be no coercion for anyone to act contrary to conscience or church doctrine.
The written version of the testimony that will be submitted to members of the Judiciary Committee may be found below. (Because of a three minute time limit on oral testimony, a shorter version will be read on Wednesday.) I welcome your response.
If you would like more information about the legislative hearing, please contact Canon Heidi Shott.
+Steve
The Rt. Rev. Stephen T. Lane
Bishop of Maine
Testimony Regarding L.D. 1020, "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom"
Submitted by the Rt. Rev. Stephen T. Lane, IX Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine
Presented by Cn. Heidi Shott, Canon for Communications and Social Justice, Episcopal Diocese of Maine
Thank you Senator Bliss, Representative Priest and members of the Judiciary Committee for the opportunity to share this testimony.
I stand in support of the L.D. 1020, "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom." I write as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine, a diocese of The Episcopal Church, but this testimony is my own and does not represent a decision by the Diocese of Maine.
The Episcopal Church has been engaged in a decades' long conversation about human sexuality and the church. We have some practice in this. I have participated in discussions for more than twenty years and think the outcomes of those conversations may benefit the dialogue we're engaging in today.
The Episcopal Church, long ago, concluded and publicly proclaimed through its own legislative body that gay and lesbian persons are children of God and, by baptism, full members of the church. We have also concluded that sexual orientation, in and of itself, is no bar to holding any office or ministry in the church, as long as the particular requirements of that office or ministry are met. And we have repeatedly affirmed our support for the human and civil rights of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered persons. In many of our congregations, both here in Maine and around the country, faithful same sex couples and their families are participating in the life of the church and sharing in the work of ministry and service to their communities.
If we, as Mainers, believe that faithful, lifelong monogamous relationships are among the building blocks of a healthy and stable society, then it is in our interest to extend the rights and obligations of civil marriage to all Maine citizens. To deny those rights to certain persons on the basis of sexual orientation is to create two classes of citizens and to deny one group what we believe is best for them and for society.
The Episcopal Church continues its conversations about doctrine in relation to same sex marriage and the blessing of same sex relationships, and there is yet no consensus. We continue to search for ways to honor the varied viewpoints of all our members and to provide a place of dignity and respect for each of them. Therefore, I also affirm that part of L.D. 1020 that states there will be no effort to compel or coerce any minister to act in a way contrary to his or her belief and conscience. There will certainly never be any requirement in the Episcopal Diocese of Maine to act in contravention of conscience or of church doctrine. It is my expectation that The Episcopal Church will continue to engage in this conversation for some years, even as I hope the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage will be extended to all Maine citizens.
Jaheem’s body was discovered by his 10-year-old sister, Yerralis, also a fifth-grader.
“His sister was screaming, ‘Get him down, get him down,’ ” Keene said.
When Keene got to the room, he saw Yerralis holding her brother, trying to remove the pressure of the noose her brother had fashioned with a fabric belt.
Jaheem was bullied relentlessly, his family said. Keene said the family knew the boy was a target, but until his death they didn’t understand the scope.
“We’d ask him, ‘Jaheem, what’s wrong with you?’ ” Keene recalled. “He’d never tell us.”
He didn’t want his sister to tell, either. She witnessed much of the bullying, and many times rose to her brother’s defense, Keene said.
“They called him gay and a snitch,” his stepfather said. “All the time they’d call him this.”
In an interview with WSB-TV, Masika Bermudez also said her son was being bullied at school. She said she had complained to the school.
She said she asked him about the bullying Thursday when he came home from school and he denied it. She sent him to his room to calm down. It was the last time she would see him alive.
Bermudez told WSB she talked to Jaheem’s best friend about the situation last week.
“He said, ‘Yes ma’am. He told me that he’s tired of everybody always messing with him in school. He is tired of telling the teachers and the staff, and they never do anything about the problems. So, the only way out is by killing himself,’ ” Bermudez told WSB.
Earlier this month the suicide of a Massachusetts boy, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover — who suffered taunts that he was gay — attracted national attention.
He was also 11. His mother found him hanging from an extension cord in the family’s home.
Jaheem was excelling academically, Keene said, adapting quickly to his new home. The family moved to the Avondale Estates area less than a year ago from St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Last winter, his grandmother died from cancer. She was living with the family at the time.
His grandfather returned to St. Croix after his wife’s passing. He’s taking Jaheem’s death especially hard.
“He says he has nothing to live for now,” Keene said. The family had planned a trip home in June. They’ll be returning next Monday instead to bury their 11-year-old son.
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.
Analysis of the Status of Resolution B033, passed by General Convention 2009
Deputy Sally Johnson, Chancellor to the President of the House of Deputies
Part I
What is the present status of B033?
I am going to respond to this question in two parts. In this first part I will address the question is in terms of the overall structure and polity of the Church. In a separate post I will talk about the extent to which Resolutions of General Convention are binding.
The answer to this question leads to the broader question of what is the effect of a Resolution of General Convention. General Convention, with the exception of elections and a few other minor things, only acts through the adoption of Resolutions. Resolutions may be for the purpose of amending the Constitution (it takes two consecutive General Conventions), amending the Canons (it takes one General Convention), amending the Rules of Order, talking stands on public policy issues, taking positions on theological issues, making changes to the Church Calendar, directing a part of the Church to do something or refrain from doing something (i.e. directing a Standing Commission to study X and report back at the next General Convention) or encouraging, but not requiring, a part of the Church to do something or refrain from doing something (i.e. encourage use of vendors that pay a living wage).
It is a fundamental principle of our secular legal systems that when a body (Congress, state legislature, town council, board of directors, etc.) authorized to adopt a policy, rule, or other guiding statement does so, the position or rule adopted is in full force and effect until (1) it expires by its own terms - i.e. it sunsets on a certain date or event, (2) it is explicitly revoked by a subsequent act of the same body, (3) it is superseded by the subsequent adoption of something clearly contrary to the prior enactment even if the prior enactment is not explicitly revoked, or (4) a body such as a court declares the initial act to be null and void or contrary to a rule of a higher order than the act itself (i.e. The Constitution is of a higher order than the Canons. The Canons are of a higher order than the House of Bishops or House of Deputies Rules of Order). This principle is set out in some governing documents but not in many others. It is not set out explicitly in the Constitution and Canons of the Church.
So, a Resolution adopted by one General Convention remains the position of the General Convention until it (1) expires by its own terms, (2) is revoked by a subsequent act of a General Convention, or (3) is superseded by General Convention's adoption of something clearly contrary to the prior enactment even if the prior act is not explicitly revoked. A General Convention cannot bind a future General Convention, a future General Convention can always change what a prior General Convention has done.*
Unlike the states and the federal government, the Church does not have a Supreme Court with the authority to declare a Canon or other act of General Convention unconstitutional or null and void. Article IX of the Constitution says, "The General Convention ... may establish an ultimate Court of Appeal, solely for the review of the determination of any Court of Review on questions of Doctrine, Faith or Worship." General Convention has never established an ultimate Court of Appeal. Even if it did, its jurisdiction would be limited and would not include matters of "Discipline" or anything not within the definitions of "Doctrine," "Faith" or "Worship." The Church has Provincial Courts of Review for hearing appeals from diocesan Ecclesiastical Trial Courts. Their rulings may be binding on Diocesan Ecclesiastical Trial Courts within the Province. The Church also has a Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop to hear appeals from the Courts for the Trial of a Bishop. It can issue rulings that may bind Courts for the Trial of a Bishop. The rulings of the Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop, however, are not binding on Provincial Courts of Review or Diocesan Ecclesiastical Trial Courts. Similarly, the Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop does not have jurisdiction to resolve differences in the decisions of the Provincial Courts of Review nor does it have jurisdiction to review acts of General Convention and declare them null and void or contrary to the Constitution or Canons. General Convention is the ultimate decision-maker about, and interpreter of, the Constitution, Canons and other acts of General Convention.
Therefore, Resolution B033, since it did not contain language stating when it will expire, remains the position of General Convention until General Convention revokes it, adopts something contrary to it so as to supersede it, or in some way determines that it is contrary to a Church rule of a higher order such as the Constitution or Canons and is therefore null and void or of no effect.
Part II
For just a moment, let's look at the function of rules, laws, positions, statutes, processes, and the like. Groups of people have found it useful to have an agreed upon set of ways for (1) the process of how they will decide certain things and (2) what the decision is on certain things. These agreed upon ways save time and conflict in that every time a question arises the group does not have to first decide how it will decide the answer to the question and in many instances when the question has been considered before, the group can say, "We've already decided that and we're not going to change it."
The discussion of the current status of B033 focuses on the later. What question did General Convention answer through its adoption of B033 and what is the status of that decision? In my previous post I discussed that a decision of General Convention stands until General Convention changes it (I'm ignoring those situations where the decision itself contains an expiration date). Having established that B033 is still in effect, what status does it have?
Sometimes people in the Church will say, "If it's in the Canons, it's binding. If it's not in the Canons, it's not binding." Or, "A Canon is binding but a Resolution of General Convention isn't." I have heard others say, "Canons are aspirational statements, they are not laws." B033 was not an amendment to the Constitution. It was not an amendment to the Canons. It was a Resolution of General Convention. A review of General Convention resolutions shows that some of them are clearly intended to be binding and some of them are intended not to be binding. For example, the budget priorities and budget are intended to bind the Church. A Resolution directing a Standing Commission to study an issue and report back at the next General Convention is intended to bind that Standing Commission. A Resolution saying, "We encourage all dioceses to consider adopting a policy on X" would not be binding in the same way.
The Court for the Trial of a Bishop In The Matter of The Rt. Rev. Walter Righter considered this matter in depth but for the limited purpose of whether a Bishop's failure to follow a General Convention Resolution could be the basis for discipline under Title IV of the Canons. It concluded that either a Canon or a "mandatory" resolution which called for specific penalties could be used as the basis of ecclesiastical discipline. Bishop Righter was charged with violating the "Doctrine" of the Church because he ordained a non-celibate man to the Diaconate, contrary to Resolution A-53s of the 1979 General Convention. That Resolution stated in part, "We believe it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relationships outside of marriage. ... that this General Convention recommend to Bishops, Pastors, Vestries, Commissions on Ministry and Standing Committees, the following considerations as they continue to exercise their proper canonical functions in the selection and approval of persons for ordination." The Court for the Trial of a Bishop held:
Resolution A-53s is clearly recommendatory and therefore not binding on the members of this Church for the purpose of canonical discipline under Title IV. ... it does not set forth a clear constraint which allows canonical disciplinary action. The Church may forbid what has been done here, but not by a recommendatory resolution. The Court for the Trial of a Bishop, In the Matter of The Rt. Rev. Walter Righter, Opinion, page 14.
The Court went on to say:
The Court would remind the Church that there are ways we could order our life less ambiguously. General Convention has the authority to pass Canons which are binding, and could, perhaps, adopt resolutions which clearly declare themselves to be mandatory, and which call for specific penalties when they are disobeyed. The Court for the Trial of a Bishop, In the Matter of The Rt. Rev. Walter Righter, Opinion, page 19.
So, Resolutions of General Convention can be as binding as Canons in terms of being used as the basis for discipline if they meet the criteria set forth above. Resolutions can be intended to bind persons or bodies but not to the extent that they can be the basis for Title IV discipline. And, they can clearly be recommendatory. The language of a Resolution must be looked at carefully and in a broader context to determine to what extent it was intended to be binding and in what ways.
Deputy Sally Johnson
Chancellor to the President of the House of Deputies
On the right, the restrained response was striking. Fox barely mentioned the subject; its rising-star demagogue, Glenn Beck, while still dismissing same-sex marriage, went so far as to “celebrate what happened in Vermont” because “instead of the courts making a decision, the people did.” Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the self-help media star once notorious for portraying homosexuality as “a biological error” and a gateway to pedophilia, told CNN’s Larry King that she now views committed gay relationships as “a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.” In The New York Post, the invariably witty and invariably conservative writer Kyle Smith demolished a Maggie Gallagher screed published in National Review and wondered whether her errant arguments against gay equality were “something else in disguise.”
More startling still was the abrupt about-face of the Rev. Rick Warren, the hugely popular megachurch leader whose endorsement last year of Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, had roiled his appearance at the Obama inaugural. Warren also dropped in on Larry King to declare that he had “never” been and “never will be” an “anti-gay-marriage activist.” This was an unmistakable slap at the National Organization for Marriage, which lavished far more money on Proposition 8 than even James Dobson’s Focus on the Family.
The Obamas’ dog had longer legs on cable than the news from Iowa and Vermont. CNN’s weekly press critique, “Reliable Sources,” inquired why. The gay blogger John Aravosis suggested that many Americans are more worried about their mortgages than their neighbors’ private lives. Besides, Aravosis said, there are “only so many news stories you can do showing guys in tuxes.”
As the polls attest, the majority of Americans who support civil unions for gay couples has been steadily growing. Younger voters are fine with marriage. Generational changeover will seal the deal. Crunching all the numbers, the poll maven Nate Silver sees same-sex marriage achieving majority support “at some point in the 2010s.”
Iowa and Vermont were the tipping point because they struck down the right’s two major arguments against marriage equality. The unanimous ruling of the seven-member Iowa Supreme Court proved that the issue is not merely a bicoastal fad. The decision, written by Mark Cady, a Republican appointee, was particularly articulate in explaining that a state’s legalization of same-sex marriage has no effect on marriage as practiced by religions. “The only difference,” the judge wrote, is that “civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law.”
From the Washington Blade:
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — The mother of an 11-year-old Massachusetts boy who killed himself after enduring anti-gay bullying at school is calling on schools to end such harassment.
Sirdeaner Walker told WCVB television in Boston that school officials shouldn’t tolerate bullying. Walker’s son, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, died April 6 after hanging himself with an extension cord.
“I just want to help some other child,” she told the station. “I know there are other kids being picked on, and it’s day in and day out.”
Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, supported Walker’s call for action.
“As we mourn yet another tragedy involving bullying at school, we must heed Ms. Walker’s urgent call for real, systemic, effective responses to the endemic problem of bullying and harassment,” she said. Byard noted that students who don’t identify as gay, such as Walker-Hoover, continue to face such bullying.
“From their earliest years on the school playground,” she said, “students learn to use anti-LGBT language as the ultimate weapon to degrade their peers.”
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.This had nothing to do with marriage AT ALL and happened before the recent CA gay marriage kerfuffle. The fact, or otherwise, of gay marriage in California was completely irrelevant. This case was ONLY about discriminating in providing a service to a lesbian couple. The doctor had no problem providing the service to others: it's not that she was forced to do a procedure against her faith. Just that her medical license requires her, once she decides to perform a procedure, to perform it on all citizens seeking her help. Replace "gay" with "black" and you get the picture.
The real facts of each case are:
The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.The church group was receiving PUBLIC FUNDS to provide access to this pavilion. If it were private property, there would be no case. The case is that once they receive public funds, all the public is equally entitled to use. Solution: don't like all the public? Don't accept their money, keep private property private.
The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.Again, gay marriage is really irrelevant. The gays are present whether they are married or not. She wants them back in the closet, and silent. This is understandable, but is no different than a Catholic parent faces when their child meets people on a second (straight) marriage after divorce; or learns about contraceptives. Or a Jewish parent whose child is friends with a kid eating ham sandwiches. Values are taught at home. An essence of our society is that we keep our own values but can intermingle in the public square.
In comment on a discussion about the impact of Vermont's Decision to allow Equal Access to Marriage, Bruce Garner, member of the Executive Committee of the Episcopal Church and former President of Integrity, get's to the heart of the matter... I excerpt this with his permission:"My experience is that folks will continue to find any way they can to perpetuate discrimination, regardless of the area of our common life together where such discrimination might be found. I would wager that some, perhaps even on this list, regret the overturning of the miscegenation laws....though most would not admit to such attitudes.
I am of the opinion that our church has a teaching role in this discussion. And once again I return to our baptismal covenant promises. Either we baptize into full membership or we do not. If we do not, then we need to own that and clearly state the level of membership into which we are baptizing someone....regardless of the reason for that limitation.
We seem to always conveniently overlook the fact that neither of our creeds, none of the Ten Commandments, nor the Summary of the Law contain any qualifiers at all with regard to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, economic status, educational status, legal residency or any other adjective we might want to slip in there. They summarize our creedal beliefs. They provide direction about our relationship with God and with each other. As Rabbi Hillel noted about the Summary of the Law, all else but the summary was commentary.
We CLAIM to want to grow our church. Yet the greatest source of growth for us, namely young people, has no interest in distinctions about race, gender, sexual orientation or any of the qualifiers we continue to squabble about. We will not attract those young people into or back into the church until we listen to what they are trying to teach us: They are not interested in our reasons for the squabbles. They don't see the need for such distinctions, despite what their elders keep trying to tell them about "what the Bible says."
Time and time again, I have noted that the crux of our duties may be found in the end of the 25th chapter of Matthew's account of the Gospel. Jesus tells us to feed the hungry, water the thirsty, clothe the naked, house the homeless, visit those who are sick and in prison. He does NOT tell us to determine where they sit on any scale of doctrinal purity as a condition of our engagement in ministry to and with them. And as I have also noted before, the Letter of James makes it clear that, to paraphrase, the growling noises of empty stomachs will drown out the salvation message of the Gospel. We are hypocrites if we attempt to preach at people who are more interested
in the source of their next meal or place to sleep.
