Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:43:15 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: Integrator, back issues from 1994 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 94-3, issue date 1994 06 30 copyright 1994 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9 == contents == [94-3-1] "THE YEAR OF THE FAMILY" IN ONTARIO / by Chris Ambidge [94-3-2] WHAT'S IN A NAME? / by Brad Colby [94-3-3] PARTNERSHIPS AND THEIR PURPOSES IN ANGLICAN THOUGHT / a briefing paper by Chris Ambidge [94-3-4] MORE ON FIDELITY / by Chris Ambidge [94-3-5] BIBLICAL FAMILIES / some family models found in the Bible, collated by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott [94-3-6] LESBIAN AND GAY PRIDE DAY [94-3-7] PEOPLE OF FAITH FOR EQUAL FAMILIES / by Chris Ambidge [94-3-8] "OUR RIGHTS BETRAYED!" / The Bill 167 Protests, by Doug Fox [94-3-9] EMMAUS AND BACK / The Integrity/Toronto 1994 Retreat, reported by KD Miller [94-3-10] ANGLICANS FACE DIVISIONS OVER GAYS IN THE CHURCH / an article from the Toronto Star, by Michael McAteer ======== [94-3-1] "THE YEAR OF THE FAMILY" IN ONTARIO by Chris Ambidge The United Nations has designated 1994 as International Year of the Family. Families have certainly been much under discussion in Ontario, though maybe not in ways the UN anticipated. The past two months have been rather more exciting for lesgays in Ontario than I might have wished. The provincial government introduced Bill 167, the *Equal Rights Statutes Amendment Act 1994*. The bill was an omnibus piece of legislation which would have amended seventy-odd Ontario statutes to give legal status to same-sex couples -- putting them on the same basis as opposite- sex common-law couples. This really put the cat among the pigeons. Both the lesbian/gay/supportive community and those opposed to them mobilised. The Campaign for Equal Families set up shop on Church Street in Toronto, and branch offices opened all over the province. Different groups focused on different areas, one of them on religious matters. The religious group was particularly necessary because there was, of course, particular opposition from various denominations. Both fundamentalist/evangelical churches and the Roman Catholic church (politics does make strange bedfellows) got very upset at the thought of lesbians and gays as "families". Although it is not clear to me just how families based on same-sex couples could derogate from other families, the anti-Bill 167 forces were emphatic that the bill would mean the downfall of "families" and thence western civilisation. One of the main sticking points is certainly that same-sex couples cannot have children without outside assistance. There were weeks of intense political lobbying. The Campaign for Equal Families organised rallies and letter-writing in support of the bill; the RC Archbishop of Toronto had a letter read in all parishes urging all the faithful to write to their MPPs in opposition. Bill 167 was a free vote, with members not tied to party discipline. It narrowly survived first reading on a vote (only the second bill in forty years to actually have a recorded vote at first reading), and was defeated on second reading 59-68. Bill 167 certainly galvanised the gay/lesbian/supportive community. We were working for recognition of ourselves and our position in society. For many, this became a social justice issue, rather than one of morality, or freedom-to-do-one's-own- thing. The activities of those opposed to the bill were extreme enough that some people came forward and said "no, that's too far", and entered the debate on the pro side. The public debate was certainly lively, in all the news media, in homes and offices across the province, and of course in the Legislature chamber. The same old arguments about child molesters were trotted out, as was the superstition that children raised by two parents of the same sex would be somehow abnormal. Those who held that the proposed form of "family" was just-plain-un-Canadian were answered by Marion Boyd, the Attorney-General, who pointed out that Anne of Green Gables hardly came from a traditional family [Anne was an orphan, raised first by a brother and sister, and then another woman moved in to share the parental role when the brother died -- and heterosexual Anne went on to have six children of her own] The public galleries were packed in the legislature chamber during debate. Many of those people were ordained, wearing clericals, showing that not all churches and religious people were opposed to the legislation. When the bill failed, cries of "Shame!" echoed from the galleries. The Speaker ordered the galleries cleared, which is understandable. What is objectionable is the manner in which they were cleared -- the police donned latex gloves and used billy clubs to manhandle people out. Presumably they were afraid "all those homos" had AIDS and would give it to them. Shame indeed. There were huge demonstrations that evening against the legislature failing to pass the bill, and again on the following Saturday. The next Wednesday, six days after the defeat, there was an interfaith service held at Holy Trinity. It was originally scheduled as a rallying point along the campaign for Bill 167, but the speed of political events was rather faster than anticipated. Instead of praying for a particular piece of legislation, those there prayed in thanksgiving for the progress made, and for strength in the ongoing struggle. Everyone in Holy Trinity knew that this was NOT the end of the work for social justice for lesbians, gays and their families. This issue of *Integrator* explores the ramifications of Bill 167 from the point-of-view of Christian lesbigays and their supporters. Although the Anglican Church was silent on the legislation, I believe that supporting it consistent with Anglican theology and indeed mandated by statements that our church has made at various points. A briefing paper that I wrote while the bill was still pending appears below [Article 94-3-3]. Brad Colby offers a theological reflection on the power of naming ourselves as Family [Article 94-3-2]. Doug Fox was at the demonstrations after the bill failed, and his report is here too [Article 94-3-8]. One of the favourite arguments of religious people against lesbigay families is "it's not in the bible". They call for a return to "biblical sexuality" and "biblical models of the family". It is my impression that this translates to dad-and-mom-and-kids, usually with dad as breadwinner and mom as homemaker and don't forget the kids. That narrow view of what constitutes "family" is not backed up by the actual contents of the Bible. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott has found no less than forty different ways of people living as families or in relationships in the Bible. Part of that list is found below [Article 94-3-5]. While Bill 167 was played out in the very public and secular arena of the Ontario Legislature, the debate has profound impact upon all of us who are gay or lesbian and who are part of the household of faith. It is knowing that I am a beloved child of a loving God which gives me my sense of self- worth. It is knowing God's love which means I have love to give to other human beings. It is loving other humans which makes my relationships and my family. When the Provincial Parliament says that I may not have a family, it is denying that self-worth. God requires us "to do justice and love kindness." Bill 167 has been defeated, but the work for justice continues. ======== [94-3-2] WHAT'S IN A NAME? by Brad Colby What's in a name? Everything. Confucius taught that all truth began with the proper naming of things. Marx exposed how elites control the power of naming and use it to protect privilege. Even churches understand that the names we use for God shape the way we experience this reality. The old children's saying, "sticks and stones may brake my bones, but names will never hurt me," is patently untrue. names are powerful. When they are charged with hatred and prejudice they become a weapon that can crush the human spirit. Anyone who has felt the sting of a vicious insult knows how names can be used to destroy. Lesbians and gays have a special knowledge of this power. Throughout history we have been known by the names others have given us: faggots; queers; dykes; homosexuals. These stereotypes and labels have been used to criminalise us, pathologise us, silence us. So we have fought to break free of their negative meanings. Our struggle has been to reclaim the power to name ourselves in our own voices and overcome oppression. In Ontario, these past few months have shown us how far lesbians and gays have come in this struggle, and how much further we have to go. The debate over Bill 167, which would have recognised the rights of same)sex families, was a debate over names and the power of naming. Who is a family? A spouse? A parent? These questions ask who has the right to claim theses names and to transform their meaning. When lesbians and gays claim these names, we claim access to the power of naming. We take ourselves off the margins of society and place ourselves at its very centre. We assert that we have a role in shaping society's most fundamental relationships. Perhaps that's why the bill was defeated and the gay and lesbian community has experienced such a violent backlash against it. Bill 167 made people aware of our presence. It challenged many assumptions and sent ripples through the calm surface of heterosexism that is status quo. It also challenged the power of those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. While much of the homophobia we've heard during the debate was the product of irrational fear and ignorance, much of it was not. When the Tories won a by-election seat by bashing same-sex families, it showed how homophobia and homohatred can be used as tools to defend power and privilege. Lesbians and gays were falsely depicted as a threat to the nuclear family in order to hide the real issue. It is not the family that is threatened, but those forces who use the family to win influence and authority. Gays and lesbians prove that love flourishes outside the nuclear family and remind everyone that relationships succeed because of the quality of their love, not their ability to conform to a stereotype. Such love doesn't threaten the family. But it does threaten those governments, churches and businesses who maintain their power by convincing us that love is in scarce supply. They want us to believer that the nuclear family is the last refuge for love, and that they are the only agents capable of defending it. Loving same-sex families expose the lie of scarcity and rob these interests of their influence and control. All of this reminds me of the scene in which Jesus' family came and demanded that he stop playing the prophet and come home. they were scandalised by his behaviour and wanted to put him back in his place. Instead of answering them, Jesus stood up and asked the crowd, "who are my mother, my brothers, my sisters?" Then he rebuked his own family when he said, "only those who do the will of God are my mother, my brothers, my sisters." Jesus must have broken their hearts by refusing to come home. But what he was trying to do was break open their minds. He wanted to liberate them from the rigid cultural stereotypes which blinded them to the presence of God in their midst. By redefining his family, Jesus revealed the new work God was doing in calling people together to hear the good news. His vision provoked fear and reaction, but he had to liberate people from old habits of thinking and living in order to share his love and joy with them. Today we must follow Jesus' example. Though archbishops and politicians may defeat legislation, they cannot defeat our love or keep us from gathering our families together. God is working through our love, nurturing our families, revealing a new understanding of the family for everyone. When we are asked, "Who is a spouse? A family? A parent?" we must stand up and proclaim, "*WE* ARE!" But we must realise what this means for us. It means more than fighting legal battles and carving out a safe place for ourselves. Claiming our rights as families means claiming a place at the heart of the community. That community is bitterly divided in the wake of the fight over Bill 167. We can't ignore the mess and brokenness. Somehow, we must reach into it with compassion. Now that people can finally hear our voices, we must speak an invitation to them to step over fear and hatred and come home. These past few months have witnessed people tossing around the name "family" and using it as a weapon to split the community. Lesbians and gays must now come forward and remind everyone what families are really all about. If we want to be families in more than name alone, we must now use our families to promote reconciliation and healing. With or without legislation we have already taken back the name family. Now we must take back its deepest truth by showing our community that loving families work for peace and justice. = = = = {Author Box: BRAD COLBY is a 29 year old gay Catholic who lives in the L'Arche Daybreak community in Toronto, and is completing an MA thesis in church history at the Toronto School of Theology. } ======== [94-3-3] PARTNERSHIPS AND THEIR PURPOSES IN ANGLICAN THOUGHT a briefing paper written for the Diocese of Toronto by Chris Ambidge while Bill 167 was still pending The *Equal Rights Statue Amendment Act 1994*, presently before the Ontario legislature, addresses provincial legislation to amend the definition of "spouse" to make same-sex couples equivalent in provincial law to opposite-sex common-law couples. This recognition of the partnerships in law has a number of effects, particularly fostering mutual support and responsibility, allowing for cross-adoption of children of one partner by the other partner, and making provisions for wills and insurance benefits. Support of the omnibus legislation is not only consistent with Anglican theology, but is mandated by the same theology. The House of Bishops in 1978 said: "We believe as Christians that homosexual persons, as children of God, have a full and equal claim, with all other persons, upon the love, acceptance, concern, and pastoral care of the Church. The Gospel of Jesus Christ compels Christians to guard against all forms of human injustice, and to affirm that all persons are brothers and sisters for whom Christ died. We affirm that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection under the law with all other Canadian citizens." It is that gospel imperative and claim upon our pastoral care which calls the Anglican Church of Canada to support the legislation. Homosexual persons are NOT at present equal before the law with their heterosexual sisters and brothers, and the legislation addresses that deficiency. It should be made clear that these are not special rights for gays and lesbians. As things stand now, they do receive special treatment which heterosexual partners do not. o If one spouse is hospitalised, the other as a matter of course is admitted to their room and becomes part of the care team -- unless the spouse is of the same sex, when they will be treated specially and excluded. o If one spouse brings a child into the relationship as a birth parent, the other spouse may as a matter of course adopt the child, and assume responsibility for the proper nurture and upbringing of the child -- unless the spouse is of the same sex, when they will be treated specially and not allowed to adopt. o If one spouse dies, as a matter of course the family home and property will go to the surviving spouse, or be distributed according to the will of the deceased spouse -- unless the spouse is of the same sex, when parents of the deceased all too often swoop in and take control of the funeral and home; and challenge the will, if it exists. That special treatment is unfair. Homosexual persons do not have equal protection under the law as it presently stands, and the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada have affirmed that such protection should be theirs. Anglican theology is most explicit in the various *Books of Common Prayer* and in the various canons of Synods. Other parts of the church postulate that the main (and in many denominations, ONLY) purpose of marriage is procreation of children. *This is not, and never has been, Anglican theology*. The very first BCP, of 1549, gave three "causes for the which Matrimony was ordained:" procreation of children (and to allow them to be nurtured in the praise of God), a remedy against sin, and "the mutual society, help and comfort that one aught to have of the other". Only one of these three causes is procreation, and that is linked to the *nurture* of children (which is possible in any home). Only the actual procreation is physiologically impossible to a same-sex couple by themselves. Anglicans have always given procreation as only one of many reasons for marriage, and indeed over the years the order of those reasons has shifted. In the Canadian BCP 1962 procreation came second, and in the BAS 1985 it is last. Anglicans (unlike some denominations) have always been prepared to marry people who will never have children: the marriage service provides a prayer asking for the blessing of children -- but a rubric allowing the prayer to be omitted when the woman is past child bearing has been in the BCP ever since 1549. Some people are childless by choice. This too is consistent with Anglican theology: artificial birth control was approved by the Lambeth conference in 1948. Many people today are objecting to the *ERSAA* on the grounds that "same sex couples can't have children!" That objection is false, on two grounds: first, they can, and do -- either as a couple using various birth technologies, or by adoption, or by bringing children by previous marriages into the same-sex couple's spousal home. Second, and much more importantly, procreation is not the purpose of spousal relationships. The preface to [General Synod] Canon XXI, on Marriage in the Church (1967) reads as follows: "The Anglican Church of Canada affirms, according to our Lord's teaching as found in Holy Scripture and expressed in the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony in the *Book of Common Prayer*, that marriage is a lifelong union in faithful love, for better or for worse, to the exclusion of all others on either side. This union is established by God's grace when two duly qualified persons enter into a contract of marriage in which they declare their intention of fulfilling its purposes and exchange vows to be faithful to one another until they are separated by death. The purposes of marriage are mutual fellowship, support, and comfort, the procreation (if it may be) and nurture of children, and the creation of a relationship in which sexuality may serve personal fulfilment in a community of faithful love. That description of the marital relationship could equally describe a same-sex spousal relationship. Same-sex spousal relationships, while not marriages, are nonetheless deserving of support by the Anglican Church. It should also be made clear that the pending legislation does NOT speak of marriage: marriage is under federal jurisdiction, and cannot be addressed by provincial legislation. It refers to relationships between two people of the same sex, and the bishops in 1978 acknowledged these relationships of "mutual support, help and comfort, about which the Church must show an appropriate concern." The bishops were also clear that these relationships were not Holy Matrimony: the pending legislation is likewise clear that marriage is not at issue. It should be pointed out that the common stereotype of the family -- Dad at work, Mom at home, a couple of children -- does not reflect reality for most households in Ontario. It is not even particularly biblical. Dozens of diverse types of family are spoken of in the Bible. They range from single-parent families (the Widow of Nain) to polygamy (King Solomon), from surrogate motherhood (Hagar, Bilhah and Zilpah) to incest (Lot's daughters) by way of children caring for their parents (Rufus and his mother in Romans 16) and cohabitation without marriage (Samson and Delilah). All of these, with the possible exception of polygamy, will be found in twentieth century Ontario. One cannot promote a single "biblical model of family" as the epitome to which all must aspire, for one single biblical model does not exist. The abuses mentioned above all happen today: o non-recognition of the supportive spouse in medical emergencies (though spouses want to give succour in sickness and in health), o not allowing a co-parent to assume the full responsibilities of parenthood by adoption (though parents want to see their child nurtured in faith and life), o the birth family displacing the widowed partner after death (though the deceased partner may have made it clear by word and action where his/her primary support lay by "leav[ing] his father and mother, and cleaving to his [spouse]") and many more besides. They would be removed by passage of the *ERSAA*, which would not give special rights, but rather equal rights. It would not derogate from the rights and responsibilities now given to heterosexual couples. Our baptismal covenant calls upon us to strive for justice and peace, and to respect the dignity of every human being. The *ERSAA* is all about justice, and working for its passage is to respect the dignity of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. ======== [94-3-4] MORE ON FIDELITY by Chris Ambidge In the last issue of *Integrator*, we spoke of Fidelity, the group of Anglicans in Toronto who are concerned that the traditional teachings of the church be given voice on the matter of human sexuality. Integrity welcomes their entry into the debate, and looks forward to an ongoing dialogue with them. I have had more feedback on the Fidelity article than on any previous item in *Integrator.* That feedback came from bishops, laity and clergy. One priest from a rural parish wrote: I want to tell you how impressed I am by your April issue of *Integrator*. In the selection and tone of its articles, you have shown exemplary patience and wisdom. It's easy to become disheartened and condemnatory in reaction to things like the Fidelity paper. And yet you have responded with openness and kindness, and what one expert on conflict resolution calls an "unanxious presence." That has given me renewed courage and hope as I work in a faith community that is called, but often fails, to be inclusive and just. God bless. Shortly after that issue was mailed, I had a phone call from Michael McAteer of the *Toronto Star*. The resulting article [94-3-10, below] appeared 28 May. Fidelity is sponsoring a conference, entitled *The Homosexual Challenge-- A Christian Response*, at Wycliffe College on Saturday 24 September from 8:30 - 4:00. There are two keynote speakers, Philip Turner of Yale and Elizabeth Moberley from the UK. I certainly intend to be there -- certainly not to heckle, but to join in the discussion and debate. This is the bridge-building that Bishop Finlay has called for. I join him in encouraging everyone to go to Fidelity's conference. ======== [94-3-5] BIBLICAL FAMILIES Some family models found in the Bible, collated by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott The ideal of "biblical sexuality" is often touted as a cure-all for today's problems. The trouble is, the bible does not present a single model of family, or marriage, or living with others. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott has found dozens, and published a list in *Sensuous Spirituality*. Her are a few of them: ## PATRIARCHAL [FATHER RULED] EXTENDED FAMILIES including grandparents, servants, etc: Abraham's household numbered 318 men, not counting women and children (Gen 14.14) ## POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE: one man with several or many wives and/or concubines and their children (Deut 21.15) ## FEMALE-HEADED EXTENDED FAMILY: Rahab and her household (Joshua 6.17, 25) ## MATRILOCAL FAMILIES: Jacob and Moss lived for long periods with the birth-families of their wives. (Gen 29-31; Exod 2.21-22) ## SINGLE PARENTS and their children: a widow and her two sons (2 Kings 4:1-7); a widow and her resurrected son (Luke 7.11-12) ## LEVIRATE MARRIAGES: a brother marrying the widow of his deceased brother (Deut 25.5-10, Matt 22.23-27) ## MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE and the ideal of "one-fleshedness" (Gen 2.24, Matt 19.5) ## "TRIAL MARRIAGES": among the Hebrews, sex was no prohibited during the betrothal period, and even at weddings, the major ceremony was the sexual intimacy itself -- cf the Song of Solomon and the "premarital sex" of Ruth and Boaz, (Ruth 3.7; Exod 21.8) ## UNRELATED ADULTS SHARING A HOME: the widows who mourned Dorcas apparently lived in community (Acts 9.36-39) ## RELATED SINGLE ADULTS SHARING A HOME: Martha, Mary and Lazarus: Luke 10.38 indicates that Martha headed the household (Luke 10.38-40) ## CELIBATE SINGLES: Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul(?) ## SPIRITUAL MARRIAGES: a Christian man and "his virgin" cohabiting except for sexual intimacy -- an approved practice until the end of the fourth century (1 Cor 7.36-38) ## A CHRISTIAN COMMUNE: all property held in common (Acts 4.32) ## AN EQUAL-PARTNER, DUAL-CAREER MARRIAGE: Priscilla and Aquilla both travelled with Paul, team-taught the Bible, and were tentmakers by trade. (Acts 18.2-3,18, 26) ## ADOPTION WITHIN THE EXTENDED FAMILY: (1)Hadassah (Esther) was adopted by her cousin Mordecai (Esther 2.15, 20); (2) Ephraim and Manasseh were adopted by their grandfather Jacob (Gen 48.6) ## CROSS-CULTURAL ADOPTIVE FAMILY: Moses was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter (Exod 2.10); Believers are adopted into God's family (Rom 8.14) ## WIDOW LIVING WITH HER PARENTS: Orpah (Ruth 1.8,14-15) ## DIVORCED MAN IN SECOND MARRIAGE: King Ahasuerus and Queen Esther, after Vashti was rejected (Esther 2.17) ## WOMEN MARRIED BY FORCE: the daughters of Shiloh abducted by the Benjamites; and women taken as the spoils of war (Judges 21) ## SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD: Hagar bore Ishmael for Abraham and Sarah (Gen 16.1-15); Bilhah bore Dan and Naphtali for Jacob and Rachel (Gen 30.1-7); Zilpah bore Gad and Asher for Jacob and Leah (Gen 20:9-13) ## FAMILIES ESTABLISHED THROUGH INCEST: Lot's children conceived by his daughters (Gen 19.31-38) ## CHILDLESS MARRIAGES: Tamar's to Er and Onan (Gen 38.6-10) ## YOUNGER PEOPLE CARING FOR ELDERLY PEOPLE: John and Mary, Jesus' mother (John 18.15-16); Rufus and his mother (Rom 16.13) Copyright 1991 Virginia Ramey Mollenkott ======== [94-3-6] LESBIAN AND GAY PRIDE DAY Pride Day this year was a resounding success, and religious groups played, as is becoming the pattern, a very significant role. Many groups marched in the huge parade, which marched a longer route than in previous years and stopped in at Queen's Park to tie a pink ribbon around it! Nearly 2000 people attended an inter-faith service in Maple Leaf Gardens, led by the MCC. Sadly, apparently serious death threats forced people leading the service to wear bullet-proof vests and police had to scan and search people for weapons. It is appalling that such hatred exists that we need to take measures like this in order to hold a church service. More on Pride Day in our next issue. ======== [94-3-7] PEOPLE OF FAITH FOR EQUAL FAMILIES by Chris Ambidge The people in the Campaign for Equal Families religious group had their work cut out for them. We represented a wide spectrum of Christian denominations, and early on in the campaign sought out ministers of religion who were in favour of Bill 167. Signatures on a letter to MPPs came in from all over the province, advocating equal rights for same-sex couples. In the first cycle, over 250 ministers, priests and rabbis signed. These were private letters, rather than petitions -- the latter are presented on the floor of the legislature, and then become part of the public record -- that publicity unfortunately could have had disastrous career implications for clergy in some faith communities. More signatures were collected as time went on. Other clergy were not in such a precarious position, and at news conferences were able to state publicly theological support for Bill 167. Brent Hawkes, pastor of MCC Toronto was one of these, and so was Duncan Abraham, Dean-Emeritus of St James' Cathedral Toronto. Lay persons of faith also responded. Petitions were circulated for them, and were presented in the legislature during debate on the bill. The Sunday after Bill 167's defeat, people gathered in churches to reflect upon the events of the previous week. Gays and lesbians are not the only ones who will feel it as a significant blow. Here follows a letter from a church pastor who visited Christos MCC that Sunday: "Dear Susan: [Pastor of Christos MCC] "Greetings in His Name. I met you for the first time this Sunday past when I attended Christos. When I left, I was asked by the two men with me "what did you think of the service?" I responded that I found it terrible, disturbing, moving. "Terrible in its dignity and gentleness. Disturbing that I did not find such love and acceptance in my own congregation. Moving in that it has empowered me to make a decision concerning my own ministry. "I have been asked by my denomination to "clarify" my stand on homosexuality by signing a document that would oppose much of what I experienced with you on Sunday evening. I cannot do so. That means that following their annual convention in July of this year, I will probably be without a church. No matter. I feel good about my decision. "I hugged my wife of 25 years this morning and felt her support and love and caring. I could not accept that my God has created any man or woman with the intent that they should be deprived of such a wonderful joy. I cannot accept that God would be in any way glorified by loneliness or isolation. "I do not have a clear theology on homosexuality. I am working through many issues. I take refuge in a statement I recently made in a sermon: "I believe everything written in my bible. Every word, every sentence. I do not, cannot, believe everything written in my bible. Reading is the assigning of meaning and value to symbols. Symbols made using toxic chemicals on the remains of a once-beautiful living tree and interpreted by my biases, prejudices and training. I do not trust my biases and am not absolute that I always hear His Spirit. If that leaves me weak on church dogma I take pride in it. I am enjoying the search for truth and gentleness in his love. "May God bless you and support you in your ministry. My prayers and certainly my thoughts are with you. " [signed] The Rev XX [the cleric who visited Christos] The most visible action taken by the religious group was the Interfaith Service at Holy Trinity. Leaders and laity from a wide range of communities came to pray together. The list of speakers was long and varied: United Church, Quaker, Presbyterian, Jewish, Anglican, Unitarian, Wiccan, Roman Catholic, people of private spirituality, and the Metropolitan Community Church. All came together to re-affirm our conviction that working for full civil rights for lesbians and gays is working for justice, that it is God's work, and that we will continue. The service was long, because there were so many to hear from, and it was important that those things get said. We sang too: -- "We are a gentle, angry people / and we are singing for our lives" at the beginning, and "We shall overcome" at the end. This last song crystallised my feelings of the entire debate. Standing at the back of the church, I could see over 200 people holding lit candles overhead, and just how clearly this is a justice issue came home to me. That may sound odd, coming from a gay man who has lived with this all my life -- but I realise now just what a child of privilege I am. I'm a tall, blue-eyed, able-bodied, Anglo, well educated, reasonably affluent, protestant right-handed male. Up to now, I haven't been at the receiving end of social injustice -- though I hope I have been alert to and worked against injustices to other people. Now I know, and now I am even more committed. Deep in my heart, I *do* believe that we shall overcome some day. God hasten the day! ======== [94-3-8] "OUR RIGHTS BETRAYED!" The Bill 167 Protests by Doug Fox A crowd had gathered in front of the legislature when I arrived there late in the afternoon of June 9. The lack of exuberance made it clear what the result of the vote had been. "How close was it?" I asked a friend. "It wasn't," he told me. "The split was about nine votes, and a dozen NDP voted against." Another friend told me about what happened inside. Angry supporters of the bill in the galleries began chanting "Shame! shame!" as the Speaker announced the result, and a crowd gathered on the main stairs and blocked them to express its displeasure with the politicians who had contributed to the bill's downfall. Alarmed by these threatening events, security hustled cabinet members into a secure room, and after a few minutes, the guards pushed the demonstrators out of the building . They did so quite gingerly, not out of innate gentleness, but apparently out of the same fear and ignorance that brought the bill down -- a number of the guards wore rubber gloves. It seems that untouchability is alive and well in Canada! The response from our community was rapid, substantial, and well- organised. Within minutes of the vote, handbills entitled "Our Rights Betrayed!" were going out on Church Street to announce a demonstration at 9:00 p.m. that evening. Sometimes, people argue over whether there is such a thing as a lesbigay community. Its existence was confirmed for me that day, because one thing that defines a community for me is that it is a place you turn for strength and solidarity when you are hurt, or sick, or in trouble. That's what some thousands of us did on the evening of June 9th and again on the following Saturday. The defeat of this bill hurt us -- and we responded by seeking strength in each other, and by acting together to achieve redress for the wrong. That quickly-mobilised demonstration marched on the legislature, chanting slogans (We're queer! We're here! And we all pay taxes!) singing, and then gathering to listen to speeches by our leaders. These included Brent Hawkes, pastor of MCC Toronto, and Allison Kemper, who heads up the 519 Church St. Community Centre. The speeches were inaudible towards the back of the crowd, because the available sound equipment couldn't carry their voices to an audience of that size. But during the speeches, a spontaneous act took place which expressed our feelings as well as any speech could have. Demonstrators lowered the Ontario flag from its pole, and, resisting efforts by some of the more passionate who wanted to burn it, they hoisted in its place the rainbow flag -- *our* flag, the flag of inclusion. The flag was adopted by the lesbigay community in recent years, but the rainbow itself of course is a very ancient symbol of reconciliation and peace, as the book of Genesis records. This first rally wound up with a relatively uneventful march back along Wellesley. The crowd was now in a somewhat lighter mood, still singing and chanting, and occasionally stopping to shout Shame! in front of buildings where MPPs who had voted down the bill were known to live. At the end of the march we gathered in the street for a few minutes at the intersection of Church and Wellesley to hear the closing speeches, then everyone went home. The following Saturday afternoon, another large rally met outside the constituency office of our local Liberal MPP, Tim Murphy. Mr. Murphy had proposed a less sweeping but still progressive piece of legislation on the rights of gays and lesbians and our families. This bill, Bill 45, is still in the legislative process, at the committee stage between 2nd and 3rd reading; so the rally gathered to urge him to press forward with this legislation. Other reasons for holding the rally were to express our outrage that our rights had become the object of petty politicking. A special target of anger was the Liberal leader, Lyn McLeod, who originally, during the by-election in the riding that includes the Church Wellesley neighbourhood, urged the government to bring forward same-sex benefits legislation, but when legislation was introduced, found fault with it and refused to support it. Organisers brought along an effigy of Ms. McLeod wearing a button that read Shame on Me; they also supplied rubber gloves, which members of the crowd wore to protest the ignorant behaviour of Queen's park security people on the day the bill was defeated. On the longish march back along Carlton to Church Street, we passed by a house decorated with neo-nazi symbols. Its occupants took many pictures of the crowd as we passed. Back at the 519, at a rally which I had expected to be the end of the demonstration, a new move was announced; a march on Yonge Street. I found myself near the front of a large crowd which marched south to Yonge and Wellesley and then sat down chanting "We're queer! We're here! and we're not going away!" There were demands from some that the effigy of Lyn McLeod be burned, which the speaker leading the march turned aside. ("She won't burn -- she's a little too polyester.") Taking over Yonge Street, he told us, was in itself a significant gesture, given our local lesbigay history; we have always done this when we were under attack as a community, beginning with the reaction to the bathhouse raids of 1981. The message was a simple one, really: when we act together, we empower each other. And every time our community is attacked and reacts by coming together, it becomes stronger. And finally, he promised -- if you think this rally's big, just wait till we come out on Pride Day, 130,000 strong! (Note: according to figures released after this issue was put together, his estimate was low -- police estimated 50,000 marchers turned out, plus 300,000 people along the route, for a total of 350,000!) ======== [94-3-9] EMMAUS AND BACK by KD Miller "...As they talked and argued, Jesus himself came up and walked with them; but something prevented them from recognising him..." The two who talked and argued were on their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus. Going home in despair after the crucifixion, that monumental failure of the imagination that killed their hope. This year, at the Integrity retreat, our leader, Sister Thelma- Anne, suggested that the travellers on the road to Emmaus might have been a same-sex couple. Yes, I can see that. I think they might also have been a straight couple, or simply two friends. Because no matter who you are or how it affects you, the issue of lesgay rights will be your stranger on the road. Like him, it just won't go away. You can run away from it, but it will catch up with you. You can even try to kill it, but it won't stay dead. Still, it's so easy for imagination to fail. There have been too many mornings lately when my crusted eyes have been greeted over the rim of my coffee cup with headlines like *Opponents Set to Kill Same-Sex Rights Bill*. "Jesus!" I mutter. Exactly. Even the two travellers on the road, in their grief, momentarily imitate their oppressors. They look at the stranger, the unknown, the third party, the odd man out, and they fail to see who and what he really is. "Something" prevents them. As a gay-positive heterosexual, and as a writer of short fiction, I have often tried to figure out what the "something" is that causes imagination to fail. I suspect that writer's block and prejudice have a lot in common. When I'm blocked, I'm scared. I reject one idea after another as hopeless, pointless or too difficult even to consider. Something keeps me from seeing possibilities. Something banishes the work "maybe" from my vocabulary. The energy, courage and love that fuel creativity are dammed up behind that "something." The good news is that in time the dam breaks. Imagination triumphs as mysteriously as it once failed. In the meantime, I travel that road, back and forth. Trudging to Emmaus. Dancing to Jerusalem. = = = = = {Author Box: KD MILLER is a parishioner of St Clement's Eglinton. This article was written after the Integrity retreat at St John's Convent this spring, while Bill 167 was still pending.} ======== [94-3-10] ANGLICANS FACE DIVISIONS OVER GAYS IN THE CHURCH an article from the *Toronto Star*, by Michael McAteer [*Toronto Star*, Saturday 28 May 1994, page K14] The debate in the Anglican Diocese of Toronto over homosexuality is expected to intensify with the formation of Fidelity and its position paper supporting the traditional church's stand on sexuality. Fidelity identifies itself as a group of Anglicans who have heeded the call of the diocese' synod, or parliament, and the bishops to study the church's pastoral guidance with respect to human sexuality and, in particular, the guidance which the church gives on the subject of homosexuality. The 10-page position paper, "Human Sexuality: traditional Christian perspective," was enclosed in the regular mailing to Toronto diocesan clergy early in Lent. It was signed by Trent- Durham Bishop Douglas Blackwell and eight other male clerics. In early 1992, Blackwell made known his views on homosexual activity when he testified at a bishop's court trial of the Rev James Ferry, a homosexual priest ousted from the active ministry by Toronto Bishop Terence Finlay for refusing to end a relationship with his lover. Until the Anglican Church changes its mind, Blackwell told the court, he would continue to consider homosexual activity sinful even in the context of a loving relationship. Blackwell's name on Fidelity's position paper, and Fidelity's current stance that it sees no reason for the church to "move its moral counsel and pastoral discipline from the 1979 House of Bishops' statement," will, no doubt, boost the morale of those who fear the church's active and vocal pro-gay lobby could convince enough Anglicans that their church should change its current stand. The 1979 House of Bishops statement on the ordination of homosexuals says that, while the church accepts all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, as equal before God, acceptance of people with homosexual orientation is not an acceptance of homosexual activity. The bishops said they rejected the blessing of homosexual unions. They also said they would not question the ordination of a candidate who has told the bishop about his or her homosexual orientation if the candidate has promised the bishop to abstained from sexual acts with persons of the same sex as part of the requirement for ordination. "It is our judgement that, on the matter of sexuality, the Bible has set a norm for chaste living: fidelity within marriage and continence outside it," Fidelity's position paper says. "Homosexual activity, together with all extra-marital activities, are inherent departures from God's order." While "it is the continual duty of biblical scholars to re-examine the sense of scripture for possible new light to come forth, at present, however, the burden of proof lies with those who would challenge the traditional interpretation on this matter." Fidelity says it is in sympathy with Bishop Finlay's call for "bridge-building, dialogue an mutual understanding. However, Fidelity expresses concern that, at critical points in the controversy, the "church's classical wisdom on the subject of sexuality ahs been relegated to a minor role. "Furthermore, it is our view that, where the traditional Anglican standards of scripture, tradition and reason have been presented, in too many cases the scriptures have been misused, tradition has been caricatured and the role of reason and personal experience has been overstated. "We believe that, so long as the debate continues in this fashion, critical voices are missing and the study is seriously impoverished." On homosexuality, Fidelity says that nowhere in the Bible is homosexual activity referred to in a favourable light. In fact, traditional exposition of scripture identifies several texts with "mention homosexual activity, all of which describe it negatively, variously as an abomination, against nature, and among a list of sins that, if consistently practised, bars on e from entering God's Kingdom. Chris Ambidge is a member of Integrity/Toronto, a support group for "gay and lesbian Anglicans and friends," and edits its newsletter Integrator. He says he wasn't overjoyed at the formation of Fidelity and the publication of its position paper. But, on reflection, he sees the positive sides. "If our efforts were being completely unnoticed, this would not have happened," he says. Writing in the April issue of Integrator, Ambidge recalls someone telling him the Ferry trial was a "healthy" event. "At first I thought he was out of his mind, praising a Star- Chamber procedure which resulted in one man's personal life being splattered across front pages across the country. "Then I realised that the trial was forcing a public debate; that papering over the cracks, that traditional Anglican way of dealing with conflict, was now impossible. "It makes about as much sense -- and is about as profitable -- as arguing with an announcer on the radio. Fidelity enter this debate as an identifiable party representing the traditional side. That is a positive sign. "The appearance of Fidelity," Ambidge writes, "with a bishop as one of its signatories, has provided a focus for those conservative or traditional viewpoints within the diocese. They join bishop Finlay in calling for bridge-building, dialogue and mutual understanding. Integrity has been singing that song for a long time. WE look forward to the dance." Ambidge told The Star that since the emergence of the "very conservative" Episcopalians United in the US, the formation of Fidelity was not unexpected. "It happened in the Episcopalian Church, why should Canada be any different," he said. Ambidge acknowledges the "opposition camp" is significant, but points out that the Trend-Durham [area of the] diocese is generally "very small-c conservative. It's rural Ontario and people tend not to change their opinions." In general, Ambidge says, the body of church opinion is not generally pro-gay. "They need to be persuaded that gays and lesbians can be Christians, ARE Christians, and full members of the body of Christ." = = = = {Two pictures} (a) Bishop Blackwell, with the caption: ... On the matter of sexuality, the Bible has set a norm for chaste living; fidelity within marriage and continence outside it. Homosexual activity (is an) inherent departure from God's order. From "Human Sexuality: a traditional Christian perspective", signed by Trent-Durham Bishop Douglas Blackwell (b) Chris Ambidge, at computer with Integrity banner in the background, with the caption: BRIDGE BUILDING: Chris Ambidge says conservative Anglicans "need to be persuaded that gays and lesbians can be Christians, ARE Christians, and full members of the body of Christ." ======== End of volume 94-3 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1994 Integrity/Toronto comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9 http://www.whirlwind.ca/integrity -- -- Chris Ambidge chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca Integrity/Toronto http://www.whirlwind.ca/integrity Integrity is a member of the Alliance of Lesbian & Gay Anglicans http://www.alga.org