PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — According to a national poll, a majority of people of faith oppose same-sex marriage.But denominations, congregations, and members of the clergy diverge on whether to support Ballot Measure 36, which would ban same-sex marriage in Oregon, according to an analysis by The Oregonian.
A couple of items to point out in regards to this article:
First, for reference I’ll remind those who might be interested that I posted on this very subject recently. It is disappointing that The Oregonian article did not point out that the Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ has urged their members to vote against this measure.
The article does, however, point out that Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon is taking no position on Measure 36. EMO has an outstanding record of supporting gay rights. Some people will be confused as to why they are not opposing this ballot measure.
“EMO is an association of 17 Christian denominations including Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox bodies” and that kind of theological diversity can sometimes make finding consensus on social issues difficult. Both the pro-Measure 36 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland and the anti-Measure 36 Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ are members. EMO simply couldn’t agree on a position in regards to Measure 36.
The group does publish a ballot measure guide each election and it is worth looking at. It offers a thoughtful statement on Measure 36 and the internal debate EMO went through in deciding not to take a position:
The board of directors makes no recommendation on Measure 36. After a lengthy discernment process, the board recognizes there is a diversity of theological understandings when considering a definition of marriage and how it is to be understood in a religious and legal context. Some of EMO’s members understand marriage to be reserved for heterosexual couples only, while others support same gender marriage. It is within this context that the board is unable to reach consensus both on the theological and legal definition of marriage among its members.
Clearly, what is held in common, however, is the need for ongoing dialogue and discernment. The myriad of issues of human and legal rights associated with marriage must be explored. There are also questions of religious freedom and the practicality of defining marriage in the state constitution. Does amending the constitution with a particular religious definition of marriage impose upon other religions with different definitions? Can civil unions or civil marriage coexist with religious marriage? Can religious differences on marriage coexist in a legal context? Are there human and legal rights associated with marriage that are denied to certain populations because of sexual orientation? These are just a few of the many questions that need further discussion and public discourse to fully appreciate the complexities that defining marriage legally presents. The board is acutely aware of the personal human impact this measure has on all Oregonians. The board is united in opposing any effort to use this measure to denigrate any religion, person or community in this state. The board of directors has consistently acknowledged and advocated for the human dignity of all people regardless of sexual orientation, legal status, race, religious affiliation, gender, age or disability. It is in this spirit of inclusiveness that the board advises discernment, prayer, reflection, civil debate, discussion and thoughtful study in a manner that acknowledges that all are children of a loving Creator.
That fact that EMO made the effort to be public about their differences speaks volumes about the integrity of the people involved with their process. I’ll note that my trust level in these folks is higher because I have worked with many of them.
However, I still don’t like the eventual outcome. My hope is that one day all churches and Christian organizations will be able to speak loudly with one voice in opposition to discrimination of all forms.
