"Are you married?" "No, I am in covenant."

One of the most anticipated topics and resolutions of discussion at General Convention will be the work of the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, who have presented I Will Bless You, and You Will Be a Blessing: Resources for Blessing Same-Gender Relationships.*  This is a hefty report of some 96 pages, and I have yet to finish reading all the work.  However, to this point, I have several concerns and reservations with what I have read.

"I will bless you and you will be a blessing."  

The Abrahamic Covenant

These begin with the comments made by a member of one of the churches in the Diocese of Lexington who attended one of the several Town Meetings about General Convention that were hosted at various churches in the diocese.  He approached the microphone to share his thoughts about potential blessings of same-gender relationships.  I paraphrase:

"To me, it seems that there is as much sense in authorizing a separate rite for blessing of same-gender relationships as there is authorizing a rite for the ordination of women to the diaconate, priesthood, or episcopate.  Why not change the language in the marriage rite to make it available for same-gender couples?  Creating a separate and different rite is only institutionalizing discrimination and otherness."

His impassioned commentary has been with me as I've read this report from the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music.

The report includes what I consider to be solid and significant work on the theology of covenant and covenantal relationships.  Indeed, I deeply felt the following to be true in reading the report: "Heterosexual people may also find their own vocations and ministries strengthened and empowered in those moments of blessing [of relationships]..." (The Blue Book, page 198)

Similarly, the work of this Standing Committee in this report was to present history, theology, exegesis, and more in effort to provide a thorough discourse on The Episcopal Church's encounter with the topic of safe-gender relationships.  However, the report was much more than that.  To this point in my reading, I have felt my own vocation to my covenantal relationship with my husband strengthened and blessed.  I wish that portions of this report had been available to us when we were going through pre-marital counseling.

The language and theology that I particularly wish we had had available to us for study and discussion was that of "covenantal relationship."  The Standing Committee describes covenantal relationship in a variety of ways, including:

• "love that is self-giving and other-receiving" (205)
• a relationship in which "painful aspects are exposed"(209) but can be healed and made whole
• a relationship that is set apart as "'a sign of Christ's love to this sinful and broken world, that unity may overcome estrangement, forgiveness heal guilt, and joy conquer despair'" (201)

And, the report recalls Resolution D039 from General Convention in 2000, where the characteristics the Church expects to see in lifelong, committed relationships include "fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God." (202)

This covenantal relationship sounds pretty good, right?  It sounds like the type of relationship to which my husband and I aspire and toward which we continually work.  

But, there's a problem that I see in the work of the Standing Committee - and it's the problem the gentleman raised at the Town Hall meeting.  It is that same-gendered relationships are being discussed as covenantal relationships while not being called marriage.  And that our society places a higher premium on "marriage" and excludes same-gendered couples from this civil (and religious) union.

"While the Canons of the Episcopal Church describe marriage as a union of a man and a woman, the patterns of marriage can help us understand other kinds of covenantal relationship, such as vowed religious life and the commitments of same-gender couples." (206)

The authors of the report seem to be trying to level the proverbial playing field and remove a culturally-understood hierarchy of types of covenantal relationships.   They explain that, "Indeed, for the first half of its history, the Church understood vowed religious life as a calling higher than marriage, a view that changed decisively only during the Protestant Reformation (206)." That is no longer the case, and "in all of these covenantal relationships [marriage, same-gender committed relationships, vowed religious life], the partners promise to be trustworthy, to remain faithful to one another despite other demands on their time and energy of possibilities of engagement with others (206)."  

However, the culture still disallows same-gender couples to be in unions with all the rights and privileges afforded to different-gender couples on discriminatory grounds.  The culture says that same-gender relationships are lesser, and not worthy of the same rights and privileges given to married different-gender couples.  "Marriage," the civil union that allows for a plethora of rights to couples, is forbidden to same-gender couples.  No matter what The Episcopal Church does to uplift and bless covenantal relationships of same-gender couples, the simple fact is this: same-gender couples are denied "marriage" in civil society and thereby are denied rights and benefits.  It is a human rights and social justice issue.

So, while I appreciate the theology of covenantal relationships presented in this report, especially in the sense that it allowed me time for reflection and prayer about my marriage, the report neglects to address the human rights and social justice issues surrounding same-gender relationships in our society.  The dominant culture doesn't care if same-gender couples are in "covenantal relationship" when it comes down to end-of-life visitation rights.  They're not married, and they are denied these rights.

Clergy bless the unions of nine same-gendered couples in the Diocese of Southeast Florida 

The report distinguishes between "married different-gender couples and covenanted same-gender couples (208)."  Why the different terms?  If a covenantal relationship between two people is a relationship in the image of the Triune, inherently relational God of Christian faith, if it is a relationship in the image of God's relationship with the Church, the shouldn't we dispense with the terms "marriage" and "matrimony" altogether?  Are not they inappropriate or inaccurate, and filled with histories of exploitation, economic arrangements, patriarchy, and on and on?  

Isn't covenantal relationship what we should be blessing, and not marriage - for any couple - same-gendered or different-gendered?  

All I know is that covenantal relationship as defined by this Report is what I aspire to in my relationship with my husband.  I don't know that marriage, with all its baggage, is the most accurate to describe the type of relationship that we wish to have.

So, when people ask me, "Are you married?" 

I believe I'll respond, "No, I am in covenant." 

*This portion of the report is intended for consideration of the 77th General Convention and for study in preparation for Convention.  None of the material in the document is authorized for use in TEC.