![[Home]](/graphics/2020-02_logo.png){kind=logo}
In February, 2015, Rev John Smith writes:
Some background material about Michelle's resolution respecting amending the Marriage Canon XXI that she and Jennifer Warren introduced to General Synod in 2013 and which was adopted.
We are cumbersome in our decision making, and assuming the 2016 Synod approves amending the Canon to allow same-sex marriage, it will still require approval at the 2019 Synod. (It takes two successive Synods to approve Canons or amendments.
The hierarchal and legal structure of the Anglican Church is fairly complicated, which makes it difficult for the ordinary person to understand and appreciate the convoluted process involved in making decisions.
We are governed by “Canons (Laws)” at both the National Church and Diocesan level. Dioceses are independent entities with a Bishop and have their own Canons and procedures. They do however ascribe to National Canons on certain topics that are deemed to be ‘doctrinal’ and common to all the dioceses. The Marriage Canon XXI is one of these. Each National Church (Province) is part of the world wide Anglican Communion that has some basic understandings of Anglican doctrine and ethos. This is subject to interpretation which has caused a split in the Communion with the more conservation third-world Anglicans and some North Americans over matters of sexuality. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no formal authority but is considered to be the leader and “first among equals” and is trying hard to keep the Communion together. For us in the GLBTQ community we find the desire for unity over-shadows the issue of fairness and justice.
Within the Canadian ACC and USA Episcopal Church the blessing of same-sex relationships (mostly civil marriages but with some exceptions) has been approved on an individual self-governing Diocesan level. The Diocese of NS and PEI has approved the Blessing of a same-sex Civil Marriage. There are some conservative Dioceses in the Canadian Church that has not approved these blessings (our next door neighbour, New Brunswick, Diocese of Fredericton is one of these) As you see I could go on-and-on about the peculiarities of the Anglican Communion The Resolution that Nova Scotia delegates Michelle Bull and Jennifer Warren submitted to General Synod 2013 and was adopted essentially:
“Directed the Council of General Synod, COGS (governing body between Synods) to bring to the floor of General Synod 2016 a motion that would amend Canon XXI (On Marriage in the Church) so as to enable same-sex unions in our church” The full resolution as amended can be found here.
COGS subsequently set up a Marriage Commission to address the resolution. The terms of reference can be found here. The Marriage Canon XXI states “marriage is the union of man and woman” (Section 2). It also provides for annulment if there is deceit or misrepresentation of certain conditions: Section 17 (c), (v): VD, AIDS, addiction to drugs or alcohol, homosexuality, etc. Canon XXI may be found here.
Michelle gave the homily at our September, 2014 Integrity Service. She is a postulant for ordination to the priesthood and is in her second year at AST.
A week later, Rev MichelleBull? responds:
Hi, Daniel. So, first a couple comments on RevJohnSmith's piece. My motion was as follows:
Be it resolved that this General Synod direct the Council of General Synod to prepare and present a motion at General Synod 2016 to change Canon XXI on Marriage to allow the marriage of same sex couples in the same way as opposite sex couples, and that this motion should include a conscience clause so that no member of the clergy, bishop, congregation or diocese should be constrained to participate in or authorize such marriages against the dictates of their conscience. This motion will also include supporting documentation that:
So my motion was to allow same sex marriages in the Anglican church on the same basis as opposite sex marriages. What this means is that a gay couple could marry just as a hetero couple could and with the same restrictions. So, you still can't marry your sibling or whatever. And I also put in a conscience clause so no one would have to do this against their conscience. The motion was amended to require a broad based consultation, and something to show it wasn't against the Bible or the "Solemn Declaration" (which essentially requires us not to do anything too disturbing to the rest of the Anglican communion world wide) and also to get legal advice about the value of the conscience clause. This passed easily.
I wouldn't say as John did, "to enable same sex unions." We already have lots of same sex unions and we even bless them. But the GLBTQ community wants more. They want the sacrament of marriage and this is what my motion was about. Right now, if you are gay or lesbian, you can have a civil marriage and then come to church and have it blessed. But you can't marry in the church as straight couples can. And technically, the church doesn't see a same sex marriage as a sacrament. I know this is one of those churchy words, and if I'll explain it a bit below. Suffice to say, I see it as an equality matter and at the moment, it's not equal.
OK, Questions:
1. So what the church does now is, if a same sex couple gets married civilly, they can come and have their marriage blessed in church (if the priest and the church both agree to this in principle). I'm not sure what the service consists of but it would be asking God to bless their marriage. It is not the wedding service. It would be like the last part of the service after the wedding itself where the priest prays for them and pronounces God's blessing on them and their relationship.
2. So the Anglican church already has stated that same sex unions can be blessed by God and can be sacred, just as opposite sex unions. My motion went beyond this to say the church can actually marry same sex couples in the same way as hetero couples, which we can't do at the moment. It's a fine distinction but it's important. Marriage, in the Anglican church, is a sacrament. This means it is one of the many ways (along with baptism, communion, and others) where we see a visible thing become a sign of God's presence and action in the world. So, essentially, when we look at a marriage, we can see the love between the couple and with their children, if any, as a sign and a reminder of God's love in the world. For Anglican Christians this is very important. It was what made me want to get married as opposed to living together - the idea that God is at work in our marriage and that it can be a sign of that grace to the world.
I believe that same sex marriages can be just as much of a sacrament as opposite sex marriages. It grieves me deeply that my Anglican brothers and sisters who are gay can't marry in the church. To me this is saying that their relationships, while OK, are not as good as hetero relationships and I don't believe this is true. I think all Anglicans should have access to marriage if they want it. So my motivation was partly for truth and justice, partly for full inclusion, and partly because my soul is deeply grieved by this exclusion, as I see it. It makes me very sad that my homosexual brothers and sisters are not treated as full members of the church, in my opinion. I think this is wrong. I don't think this is what God desires. So I set about changing it.
3. If this motion passes in 2016, it then has to go to the provinces and dioceses and then back to General Synod (the national governing body which meets every three years) in 2019. So, actually, if it passes in 2016, nothing much will change. There'll just be a flurry of activity. But if it passes again in 2019, the marriage canon will be changed to allow same sex couples to marry in the church. This means that if a same sex couple wants to marry they can go to an Anglican church and get married, same as a hetero couple. Assuming the priest and the parish and the bishop agree, because we would have the conscience clause to allow people not to have to act contrary to their consciences.
4. This would instate same sex marriage. That's what the intent was and that's what the motion would do.
5. What I did was complicated because I've never been a General Synod delegate before and didn't entirely understand the way the system worked. I wasn't sure I could make this motion and by the time I figured it out and got some help it was too late for me to make a motion to actually change the canon (law) though I could make other motions. So I made a motion requiring the Council of General Synod, which is the governing body between synods, to bring a motion in 2016, to change the marriage canon. My motion passed, which means that in 2016, COGS should bring that motion. In some ways that's pretty convoluted, but it also means that the church is actively thinking about and planning for this and it will end up being a better motion. It allows for some thought on the matter. I felt we'd talked it to death, but what we actually talked about in the past was blessing same sex civil marriages. I think if we can do that we should approve actually marrying same sex couples but some people talked as if these were light years apart. Anyway, it allowed for a broad consultation and work at answering some of the questions that arise, like whether the conscience clause would stand up in law. This means when the motion comes in 2016 it will be much clearer what is proposed and what its results might be. I think this makes it more likely to pass. We shall see.
6. The response was interesting. The first thing that happened was that the most conservative bishop in Canada (or so I'm told) made an amendment to my motion, seconded by one of the most progressive (and gay) clergy. This passed in the end. I think it actually strengthened the motion but we had no idea it was coming and didn't feel we could endorse it without thinking about it first. It required further consultation and a few other things as mentioned above.
There were a number of points of view expressed. A lot of people said, Yeah, let's get on with this. It's time. Most of the youth delegates would be in that category, but not all. Some said that the Bible forbids homosexuality and that we should not, therefore, consider it. Some of these people were younger, too. Some of the first nations people were opposed, too. They said that they had been told back in the day by Christian missionaries that homosexuality was wrong and they had come to accept that and they don't make decisions quickly. They like to think about things for a while because they don't make decisions without thinking what the effects might be to the 7th generation.
The motion passed. In the General Synod, we vote by "houses" which is to say that the lay people vote in one block, the clergy in another and the bishops in a third block and every motion must pass all three houses. This passed all three houses. I don't remember the exact numbers but about 75% of the lay people voted for it, about 70% of clergy and about 65% of bishops. It required 50%. But when the motion to change the canon comes I believe it requires 66% in each house. Not sure about that though. Some of the delegates, I know, voted in favour of this because they think we will be unable to show that this does not contradict the Bible and the other things and therefore the motion will come, be defeated, and they will not have to worry about it raising its ugly head again. But I think most voted for it because they approved of it.
Afterwards a few people avoided me like the plague and several perfect strangers came up and hugged me. All the delegates from NS and PEI (our diocese) came and hugged Jennifer and me as soon as it passed. It was like a big hug fest! I kind of felt like they might knock me over they were so excited. They were so happy and so proud of us for doing this. But there were people who gave me the cold shoulder afterwards too.
None of this particularly surprised me. People were extremely civil, which did rather surprise me because the last time this was debated, that wasn't the case. I am aware that the church is divided on this issue, with more and more people each year being in favour of same sex marriage as society becomes more and more accepting. And possibly as more and more people have relatives and friends coming out.
7. Well, actually, I don't have to handle the religious objections. Having made this motion, it is now out of my hands, except I hope to be elected as a delegate in 2016, so I can be there and speak and vote to the motion. But it's up to the church to handle these objections.
However, in my own mind, this is how I see it. Jesus was constantly in trouble for hanging out with the wrong people, all the people that the religious authorities of his day would shun. Jesus hung out with them, ate with them, made friends of them, welcomed them. I believe the overarching message of the Bible is that God loves us, every one of us, just as we are. I also see that God creates and loves diversity. There are some passages in the Bible that suggest homosexuality is a bad thing. There are also passages suggesting we should never get divorced, we should not allow women any authority, we should not wear clothing made of two kinds of fabric, and a great many other things that we completely disregard today. We say these are the cultural baggage of the writers. I think this is the same story. The people of the day could not see past their culture to recognise that God loves everyone and even created people different from one another. Most people are right handed. Some are left handed. This used to be seen as a bad thing to be stamped out. My Mom was made to write with her right hand and punished for using her left. Now we see this as laughable. But human beings are always trying to enforce conformity and I don't think that's the way God likes things. I think God likes diversity and that's why God created some people to be homosexual and some hetero and some trans and whatever else. I have no religious problem with any of this.
The fact that medical science has shown that this is not just a choice people make but something that is inborn has also helped people realise this is part of creation, the nature of things, and not the result of human choice or sin, which is what people used to think.
8. The Anglican church worldwide is largely much more conservative than the Canadian Anglican church. The US and parts of Europe would be exceptions to this. But most Anglicans world wide actually live in Africa and most African Anglicans are strongly against homosexuality. If we pass this motion and allow same sex marriage, we are likely to be excluded from the world wide Anglican communion. At least it's a good possibility. We are also likely to bring some problems for them if they don't disassociate themselves from us. Already in parts of Africa some Anglicans are singled out for persecution, even death, because of the actions of the North American church on homosexuality. This is also a deep grief for me. However, I feel this is such an important matter that we cannot wait to bring the whole world along with us. We didn't wait for ordaining women, some 35 or more years ago, but went ahead. This also caused some problems and still does today. Many of our brother and sister churches around the world still consider women's ordination to be a major problem and unchristian. I would rather stand with the oppressed, even if it means being oppressed myself, than continue to stand with the oppressors in the hope that they may come around.
This is a particular concern to our bishops because among other things, they take vows to uphold the world wide Anglican communion and maintain its unity. If they vote for same sex marriage some of them may feel they are breaking their ordination vows. This is a hard place for them to be in.
9. The church has been talking about same sex relationships for quite a long time now, at least 25 or 30 years. I'm not sure what started it off but it might have been the legalization of homosexuality under Pierre Trudeau. We have been studying the Bible, studying our traditions, studying modern medical science and all sorts of things like that. We have debated it at General synods in the past, and come to the conclusion that same sex relationships can be sacred, too. But last time it came to a vote we stopped short of approving this, largely because of the bishops who defeated it by a narrow margin. That was in 2007. In 2010, the General Synod decided that there would be no motions or debate about this issue but that there would be talking circles and they did this and really listened to each other. I think there was a lot of healing at this time. That's when the church came to the difficult decision to agree to differ and allow some dioceses to bless same sex unions if they wanted to and felt it was a necessary pastoral response to their context. Which means if there was a general desire on the part of their people to see this and not doing it was causing problems for people. Many dioceses, including our own, have approved this. A lot of people hoped that would be the end of it.
10. Yes, there are lots of GLBTQ clergy. At least there are lots of gay and lesbian clergy, some of them married to their same sex partner. I'm not personally aware of any transgendered clergy, but there may well be some. There have always been GLB clergy, but they used to have to stay in the closet and they were expected to be celibate. Being gay has never been that much of an issue as long as the clergy person was celibate (and they didn't talk about it). And straight clergy were also expected to be celibate outside marriage. Of course, lots of people were unmarried but not celibate, but they had to be pretty secret about it. But now, there are lots of openly gay clergy and, as I said, many of them married. This is not much of a problem in this area. Certainly our bishops in this diocese haven't had any trouble with it for a long time. But actually, they are now saying that gay clergy, like hetero clergy, should get married if they are in a long term relationship to set a good example, which is what they have said to straight clergy for years: no living together, no promiscuity. That's the same for all clergy and now that gay and lesbian clergy can marry, the same standards are applied to them, whereas for a while it was kind of winked at.
11. I don't know how much clergy understand GLBTQ issues. I'm not sure how much any straight person understands them. But it's a lot more now than it used to be. And now so many people have family members who are out that it's becoming something more people have an idea about.
12. How can you know a local church will accept you? Well, there is a registry of affirming churches. Some churches are very welcoming and make a big point of it. Others are quietly welcoming and some still have trouble with it. There is an Anglican group called Integrity that promotes the full inclusion of the GLBTQ community in the Anglican church. They could probably recommend churches and they meet once a month at the Cathedral. John Smith would have more information about this. I am a member but not very active. Some church websites will be pretty upfront about their welcoming status. But I suppose there are no guarantees. I wish there were.
12. The church has made no formal apology that I am aware of for its past homophobia.
13. What I would want to say to the GLBTQ community. Although it looks like the church is one big thing, this is not true. There are a lot of different types of churches. Most of us don't have much time for the American right wing fundamentalists and don't have much in common with them. So please don't judge us all by the stuff you see on American TV. That being said, we still have a way to go. Change in the church takes time and it's complicated, so nothing happens overnight. But change is happening. In the Anglican church most people are prepared to accept GLBTQ people as complete equals, but there are some who aren't, unfortunately. I get impatient that things haven't changed more quickly, but still, in my lifetime, homosexuality has gone from being illegal to being seen as completely normal. For some people, that's a pretty big transition and it takes time for all people's opinions to catch up. But it is coming and I hope and pray the time will soon be here when these questions will not even need to be asked any more.
I made this motion, to change the marriage canon so same sex couples could be married in church in the same way as opposite sex couples, because I believe it is vitally important. I think our current stance on gay marriage is driving people away from the church and I think it's wrong. I think it's displeasing to God. I have believed this for at least 25 years. I felt called to make this motion, called by God. I felt like God was pushing me to make it, and I went along with that. It meant getting myself elected to synod and then figuring out the procedure. It was a difficult thing to do. I knew that when I stood up there at the mike and made this motion that I would instantly become a hero to some and a villain to others. I was scared, to tell the truth. Jennifer (who seconded the motion) and I went and hunted up a nun before hand to pray with us. What happens now is out of our hands, but I am glad I did it, even though it has raised a lot of problems for the church internationally. I am most sorry that it seems to be causing some problems with the First Nations communities. That is too bad, and I'm sorry about it. But I feel very strongly that it is time the church recognised gays and lesbians as equal members in the church and allowed them equal access to what the church offers, to the sacraments. I believe this is what God wants for the church and for the GLBTQ community. So, I guess what I would like to say is this: change is coming. It is slow. So slow that sometimes I almost despair. But it is coming. And there are a lot of people in the church today, gay and straight, who look forward to and long for that day and who are working for it. This is because we believe that God loves every single human being, just as they are, and we believe the church should do the same.