Editor's note: Rev. Tom Altepeter is a priest in the Ecumenical Catholic Communion, which is an independent Catholic tradition, not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
Soon we will vote. In addition to casting votes for political candidates, we will be asked to decide on Referendum 74, which addresses the issue of marriage equality. The Washington Roman Catholic Bishops have made a number of public statements in opposition to Referendum 74. As a lifelong Catholic, an ordained Ecumenical Catholic priest in the Ecumenical Catholic Communion (which differs from the Roman Catholic Church), and a licensed psychologist, I feel compelled to respond to these statements, and to offer an alternative Catholic perspective.
1. Is homosexuality unacceptable?
The bishops would have us believe so. The Roman Catholic Catechism characterizes homosexuality as a“grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered” and asserts that “Under no circumstances can they be approved” (CCC # 2357). However, the facts do not support the assertion. Numerous studies have consistently found that homosexuality occurs in a significant subgroup of people across all cultures. The commonly accepted estimate is about 10 percent. Based upon this estimate, approximately 700,000 people in Washington State are gay. And, the scientific and clinical experts have concluded that being gay is not abnormal or pathological. All mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country have concluded that both heterosexual and homosexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Who are these folks? Where are they? You may be surprised to learn that they are all around you. They are the friendly grocery store clerk; the physical therapist that worked with mom after her stroke; the soldier that is overseas protecting your freedoms; your child’s teacher; your favorite aunt and her friend; your insurance agent; your family doctor. They are your friend’s daughter or son. They have jobs and pay taxes. They are well respected, contributing members of our society.
2. Is it detrimental to a child to have gay or lesbian parents?
The bishops would have us believe so. Recently Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane wrote, “In the past 50 years the international community has made progress in coming to a consensus on a standard of rights for the protection and care of children. Redefining marriage is a step backwards in the progress that has been made in protecting the rights of children.” However, again, the facts do not support the assertion. The American Psychological Association has stated, “On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the APA and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.” There is nothing about being a gay or lesbian parent that interferes with effective parenting — children can thrive equally well in heterosexual or homosexual families.
3. Is marriage equality a religious issue?
The bishops would have us believe so. However, this is clearly a legal and not a religious issue. It has to do with civil laws which define certain obligations and rights. All of the various marriage equality laws, including Washington’s, have nothing to do with religious practice. Under these laws, all religious groups, from the most conservative to the most liberal, remain free to practice their faith and worship their God as they always have. Passage of marriage equality laws puts no restrictions or mandates on any religious group.
4. Is there a need for a same sex marriage law?
The bishops say no because Washington already has a domestic partner law. However, there is a conflict between state and federal laws in this matter which require a state marriage equality law. It is the purview of the states to define ‘marriage,’ and who can legally marry within the state. Yet, in many federal laws certain rights are extended to those who are legally married and withheld from those who are not. By excluding same gender couples from the status of legal marriage at the state level (even when forming a separate legal category such as ‘domestic partnership,’) the state effectively excludes these couples from the federal benefits, rights and protections afforded married couples. And, this is no minor thing. Currently, there are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in federal law. These include provisions concerning taxation, federal loans, dependent and survivor benefits (e.g., Social Security, military and veterans), health insurance, health care decision making, property rights, pension and retirement benefits, inheritance, etc. All of these benefits, rights and protections are significantly limited or excluded for gay or lesbian persons involved in loving, committed relationships because they are not allowed to legally marry. And, they are significantly limited or denied to the children of these individuals, often putting these children at a disadvantage, and perhaps at risk.
5. What would Jesus say?
Since the bishops cast this issue in religious terms, it is worth examining what Jesus says about this issue. Nothing. That’s right, nothing. If you read all of the gospels from beginning to end, and pay close attention to what Jesus says, you will never see homosexuality, same gender relationships, or same sex marriage mentioned. Jesus says absolutely nothing about it. On the other hand, the teaching of Jesus is overwhelmingly in favor of love of our neighbors and concern for the welfare of others. Jesus talks frequently about compassion for those among us who are marginalized and treated as outcasts. Certainly, many of our lesbian and gay friends have been treated as outcasts, and marginalized with regard to marital status and associated legal rights. Jesus would have us reach out to these neighbors, our sisters and brothers, with compassion. And, Jesus talks frequently about justice in social structures and social systems, including legal systems. He would have us advocate for victims of injustice, and to correct unjust structures. Referendum 74 seeks to do this, to promote justice and equity for these loving couples. It is sad that some of our religious leaders openly and energetically advocate a position which lacks mercy and compassion for our neighbors, and which withholds justice from a marginalized group.
The Washington Roman Catholic Bishops do not speak for me. They do not speak for the majority of Catholics in our state. Several polls have documented that a majority of Catholics support marriage for same sex couples. I plan to vote yes for Referendum 74, and thereby take a stand in compassionate support of my lesbian and gay neighbors. My personal commitment as a disciple of Jesus, and my public commitment as a minister in the Christian church compel me to do so. I invite all Catholics, all followers of Jesus of other denominations, and all people of good will to join me in standing in solidarity with our lesbian and gay friends, and voting yes for Referendum 74.
While I think it is important to have a Catholic perspective in support of Referendum 74, there are a few points that need to be clarified. 1) The writer here, Tom, is not a Roman Catholic priest and has no official connection to the Roman Catholic Church. The Ecumenical Catholic Church http://www.ecchurch.org/aboutus.htm is a separate denomination. 2) While it is true that the State regulates and defines legal marriage with all the procedures, rights, and privileges that go with it – I don’t think you can so easily separate the State and the Church. There are relationships and crossovers and most married people I know don’t consider that they had two separate weddings – a state one and a religious one, 3) The estimate that ten percent of the population is LGBT is always been a guess…never verified through Sunday. Gallup just completed a survey with better numbers – http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/oct/19/study-34-percent-lgbt/
I am not sure that I would title this article “An Alternative Catholic” perspective. This is a denomination that rejects significant parts of the Roman Catholic Church….duh…Protestants …that is how we started lo those 500 years ago. As a Pastor in the United Church of Christ, does the UCC and my perspective qualify as an alternative Catholic perspective?
That said…everyone please, vote for God’s justice, vote for Referendum 74.
Thanks for your comment Jim. You raise good points. Anyone want to join in on this discussion?
Excellent!
Excellent article. I particularly like the documentation. The Roman Catholic Bishops, sadly, are disinclined to pay attention to science, facts, and reason (on this and many other issues). They are not a bunch who are “encumbered by facts.” Instead they simply go around anything that doesn’t fit their worldview, which is one that promotes an unreasoned perspective on life, trying to make their worldview look fact-based and reasoned (which it often is not).
One point that I think could be added to this argument — in the best of all possible worlds, we would separate “marriage” (a legal entity) from “sacrament” (a spiritual construct) by simply not allowing ministers (of any denomination) to marry people. I can’t understand why we let ministers perform this civil ceremony — when we don’t, for example, let them perform divorces. I’d like to see us move to having legal marriages performed in court houses and religious blessings of those marriages performed (on a discretionary basis) in houses of worship. I think we’ve given ministers too much power to interfere in what is, at its core, a legal process.
Actually Jesus was pretty clear about his idea of what constitues marriage.
4 “Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.” 5 And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’6 Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.” -Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6)
The bible speaks clearly to the issue, if someone chooses to simply disagree with ‘the scriptures’ that’s their freedom but let’s not say what it doesn’t say.
If you approach the subject from a sacred point of view you can’t get away from the bible’s clear condemnation of homosexuality.
If you approach the issue from a secular position and talk of rights (i.e. fed vs state) then I think it clearly becomes a matter of constitutional law. No discrimination.
In response to Jim CastroLang: Jim, thanks for the comments. While a bit tangential, I do want to respond to some misinformation in your comments. I am a priest in the Ecumencial Catholic Communion (www.ecumenical-catholic-communion.org) not the Ecumenical Catholic Church. Two completely different groups. You are correct that I have no official connection with the Roman Catholic Church. The ‘Catholic church’ extends far beyond the boundaries of Roman Catholicism, although most of us here in the Spokane area do not have experience with other valid expressions of Catholicism.
And, back to the main point. Yes, let’s vote for God’s justice, vote for Referendum 74.
In response to Elizabeth Siler: Elizabeth, I agree that separating the legal process of marriage and the church-sacramental blessing of marriage would be a good thing. That already occurs in the case of two people who get married by a judge or justice of the peace. A religious service is not required to get married in our country or state.
I think about gay or lesbian couples who might consider themselves agnostic or atheist. It seems quite odd to me that their right to legally marry is being opposed so strongly by religious leaders.
In response to Eric Blauer: Eric, a few comments:
1. I think the bible is less clear about same sex relationships than you suggest. The passage that you quote does not mention same sex relationships; it simply affirmed heterosexual relationships. Many scripture scholars conclude, that when the passages in the bible that seem to address same gender relationships are understood in their cultural context, language, etc., they probably are not addressing what we regard as same gender marriage.
2. When we consider the totality of what Jesus says in scripture, it is abundantly clear that he speaks often, and passionately, about love of neighbor, compassion for the marginalized, etc. Almost all gay folks report that they have chosen their sexual orientation. They “discovered it,” much like I discovered my heterosexual orientation. Being gay is a naturally occurring human experience, as is being left handed, or having red hair or blue eyes. If we are to take Jesus’ message and ministry seriously, we have to love our gay sisters and brothers, extend compassion to them, and speak out when they are treated unjustly.
3. The bible is more clear in support of slavery than it is in denouncing same gender relationships. Our society has managed to deal with slavery in a more humane and compassionate way. And, interestingly, those who quote scripture in support of their opinions against gay marriage seem comfortable overlooking or dismissing the passages which support slavery. Why can’t we also deal with same gender relationships more humanely and compassionately?
Anything can mean anything, If one uses the line of reasoning you give for reading the words of Jesus.
If I talk to someone about how to live in the social structure of a current Mideast country, it’s going to be different than talking to them about living in Seattle. Slavery was and is a issue that had broad social use and abuse and one can’t talk to someone about it in 1700 like its 2012.
I don’t see the legitimate correlation.
The reason many people will oppose Ref 74 is because posts like this take the issue from a secular matter about human rights and turn it into a sacred matter related to challenging historical church teaching.
You free to approach the issue from that angle but I think it undermines the cause.
Tom, thanks for the clarifications. Sorry I confused your Ecumenical Catholic Communion with another. Do you consider yourself a denomination? Your post refers to the actions of the Roman Catholic church and I think since the word Catholic is a broad word, it would help if you were very specific using the full and formal names of denominations. Many Protestants consider themselves Catholic in the broad sense of the term. So, I would enjoy hearing more about the Ecumenical Catholic Communion. Thanks….for your posting.
@Eric — I appreciate your distinction between secular equal rights and non-discrimination and the honoring of the integrity of the beliefs of specific religious groups. As a Progressive Christian, the main reason that I speak to God and Biblical issues in the public debate on Ref 74 and other similar issues is because almost every person who is against this in the Public Square invokes God and certain biblical verses and talks often about God’s condemnation and judgement for our whole society for doing this. If these Christians stop bringing this into the public square then I will stop countering them in the public square. And…when we do discuss the Bible….you must read the Bible as a law book and instruction book in order to pick out isolated verses to determine God’s judgement here. I take the Bible seriously as a collection of sacred books about the journey of humanity with God. It is about the steadfast love of God in the face of human vacillation. It is written using all forms of human literature. It is filled with story and journey. It’s sacred incite for our lives comes when we bring our whole lives to the texts in spiritual community paying attention to the movement of the Spirit in our midst. It is not meant to be read like a lawyer to prove our points. Ok..enough for now.
@Jim- I appreciate your view of the Bible!
In response to Jim CastroLang: Jim, I am happy to share more about our Communion, and our community, but that is perhaps off topic here. So, briefly, yes, the ECC considers itself a catholic denomination. We have communities in every region of the country, and 6 countries in Europe. We continue to hold core catholic beliefs, and celebrate the traditional catholic sacraments. We seek to give contemporary expression to the longstanding tradition. Enough for here and now. Perhaps we can chat more about this sometime.
I suppose I am one of those that keeps bringing this debate out into the public square. I won’t stop, but neither would I want you to stop Jim. I believe it boils down to whether one wants to put himself above Scripture or is willing to be under it. I am humbled by much of what it has to say, and also am awed by the fact that it is an anthology of 66 books by more than 40 authors, but still shows itself to be a precise, integrated message that could not have been thought up or put together that way by any human effort or plan. It proves itself to be God’s Word, not men’s and it claims that for itself in II Tim. 3:16,17, among hundreds of other passages. Jesus Himself was the One who said, “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.” (Luke 16:17) That sounds a bit lawyer-like to me. God’s teaching regarding homosexuality in particular is not taught in isolation at all. Every reference is in perfect harmony with every other one, revealing it to be an abomination in God’s sight. Much of how I lived before I knew Christ and for a season after I had come to know Him was just as much an abomination, but I confessed it, I agreed with God for what it was, repented and turned away from it. He has marvelously and graciously restored me to a joyful, more blessed than I can sometimes take, life. Not rich, not without frustration and pain, but overflowing with hope and anticipation of the moment I see Him. I can’t convey how excited I get about Scripture these days, the more I read it the more miraculous and wonderful it becomes. It is light-years more than a law book, but it speaks clearly and concisely to every part of the human condition. Oh so dark about our condition without Christ, but brighter than the sun about all that we can have right now, and for eternity with Him! Blessings to you Jim.