At "An Inch at a Time", Susan Russell (an ordained Episcopalian minister) discusses the M word:
So the other morning I was having breakfast with a clergy colleague and the subject of monogamy came up. It came up in the in context of a conversation about his concern (my clergy colleague's, that is) that we (the LGBT lobby, that is) had been "ambiguous" about what it was we were asking for in terms of the blessing of same-gender unions.
"Really?" I said. "What have 'we' been 'ambiguous' about?"
"Well, monogamy," he said.
"Monogamy?" I echoed -- thinking of all the things we could be accused of being ambiguous about that isn't one I'd have come up with on my list.
"Because monogamy means something different in the gay community," he said. (I think it fair to note here for clarification that my breakfast colleague was a straight, white, male, rector of a neighboring congregation.) "And if you're going to be clear about what you want from the church you have to be clear about what you mean."
Read the whole post.
Personally, I think Russell's response and the conversation in the comment boxes miss the mark. Russell's definition of monogamy as "one mate" doesn't really answer any of the subtle yet important questions raised primarily in relationships of two men. At any given time, gay men may be in relationship with a partner. However, among partnered gay men, sexual monogamy (exclusive sexual relations) becomes more and more rare as years pass. After five years in a relationship, the majority of gay men have one degree or another of "openness" in their relationships. At that point, the relationship may continue as a single pairing (monogamous) but sexually non-exclusive according to the negotiated terms between the partners.
Russell's response seems to feign ignorance of this very real phenomenon, and this very real concern. Would she exclude gay partnerships between two men (or any two persons) that are long-term, emotionally exclusive, stable, and healthy from a "blessing ceremony" because the partners have chosen to allow a limited and defined amount of sexual non-exclusivity (for example, by sharing a "three-way" with another man on occasion?)
Obviously, Russell doesn't want to look at this issue head on, and I don't blame her. If her answer is that relationships between men should not be blessed if they are open to any degree then she should come out and say so. There are plenty of partnered gay men who will be surprised to learn that in her view their relationships aren't worthy of a blessing.
What constitutes fidelity in a relationship? What is a healthy and emotionally loving and nurturing response? On the one hand, a heterosexual couple who have vowed to monogamy, but who in practice cheat on the other spouse, lie about it, and then ask God for forgiveness? According to conventional speech, their relationship is still "monogamous". On the other hand, you may have a gay male couple who have vowed, say, to a period of monogamy followed by a potentially open relationship. After the monogamous phase of their relationship is passed, they want to stay together, but would prefer to allow a limited amount of sexual non-exclusivity so long as it is done with honesty according to mutually agreed upon terms. According to conventional speech, their relationship is "non-monogamous" or "open". Apparently, Russell's theological view is that only the heterosexual couple's relationship should be blessed, and the gay male couple should receive no blessing.
Needless to say, in my view, such opinions haven't yet done the theology, and their claims to have done so are really dubious. My own view, described in Soulfully Gay, is that monogamy is a stage in relationships that may or may not be best made into a permanent agreement, and the best covenant between the partners is one appropriate for their level of sexual and emotional maturity. Such a view doesn't easily translate into sound bites like "monogamy is one mate, case closed" but at least my view stands a chance at taking into account the very real complexity and richness of gay men's lives, and openness to the Spirit as it is revealed therein.
Recent Comments