Earlier this week it was a hard couple of days in the hearing rooms of Committee 13 (idiosyncratically titled “Committee to Receive the Report of Resolution A169”). This committee was charged with hearing a range of topics from comprehensive prayer book revision (A068)  to more narrow resolutions on marriage rites and their availability to all couples (A085, B012), including same sex couples. The committee considered how the various resolutions might or might not operate together. 
 
On Thursday, July 5th, the committee had open hearings on two resolutions. First, A085, designed to add the two marriage rites available to all couples to the Book of Common Prayer, and to require all bishops to make the rites available with “reasonable and convenient access.” Second, B012, designed to continue to allow access to the marriage rites under the official banner of “trial use” but also leave open the possibility for diocesan bishops to prohibit their use within their diocese while providing an alternative access point for same sex couples. Over the last triennium the vast majority of the church has been able to access these rites, but in the case of eight dioceses, bishops have prohibited their use. 
 
In the hearings, trans Episcopalians brought unique perspectives to the table, highlighting the absurdly implicit focus on body parts that often pervades opposition to marriage equality. My own testimony revisited a point (and blog post) I made at the 2015 General Convention. I asked the committee to consider the contradiction embodied in my life. For the first 46 years of my life, the church happily would have allowed me access to marriage with a man, while denying me access to marriage with a woman. After becoming Iain the opposite could now hold true. Now that I have a receding hairline and beard, no one would be troubled if I marry a woman. When I contemplate my reality, I have to wonder what sacred truth is being upheld. It would seem what matters to the church is the visual and outward representation of heterosexuality. In this way, the church has made an idol of heterosexuality. To move forward, we need to realize – to truly realize— that marriage is not about body parts, but rather about the love between the couple. 
 
The Reverend Gwen Fry, President-elect of Integrity, stood up and challenged the committee to act now:
 
“As a trans queer priest I know the importance of resolutions that make real and substantive change in the church in concrete ways. A085 does that. If the church is serious, really serious about full inclusion of all the children of God and full access to all the sacraments of the church, this resolution is the only one that will accomplish that. We have been waiting patiently for decades to have what every straight person has enjoyed and never had to think about because the sacrament has always been available. No one wants to take that away. We are simply asking for what the majority of the church already has.
 
Separate but equal is not equal and it is not inclusive. If we don’t make these revisions in the Book of Common Prayer when will we? The time is now.”
 
Julianne, an alternate deputy of Iowaand trans woman, offered a powerful witness, telling the committee that she is part of a 45 year marriage: half in an opposite sex marriage and half in a same sex marriage. She recommends both! She also asked the committee to not hold 20 plus years of her marriage as second class to the other 20 plus years. 
 
As our words joined others in favor of adding marriage rites for all into the Book of Common Prayer, others rose in opposition. The committee deliberated. It ultimately put together a compromise version of B012. The Reverend Canon Susan Russell, who helped hammer out the compromise, describes it in this post. The result was that a changed version of B012 went to the House of Deputies. If passed, it will continue the use of marriage rites under the rubric of “trial use” until comprehensive revision to the Book of Common Prayer is complete.It also limits Episcopal oversight regarding marriages to its intended area, namely, marriage after a divorce. 
 
With this turn of events, attention has turned more acutely to the larger question of Prayer Book revision, which we have written about in two previous blog posts this Convention (here and here).
 
At the end of the day yesterday, June 6th, the House of Deputies decided to extend its deliberation into today’s morning session. The Deputies made several amendments were made to A068, the resolution setting forth a plan for comprehensive Prayer Book revision. Yesterday comments about this resolution seemed evenly split in favor and against Prayer Book revision. It was not at all clear which way the House would go. But right around noon they finally took a vote. By a measure of almost two thirds, the House of Deputies voted in favor of A068 (read more about it here). Now the resolution heads to the House of Bishops. Liturgical marriage equality is very much tied into this vote which only adds to our keen interest in it. Stay tuned.
 
The Reverend Iain Stanford, Priest of the Diocese of Oregon & TransEpiscopal Steering Committee member 

As TransEpiscopal celebrates today's Supreme Court decision honoring marriage equality, and as we join in supporting efforts toward full liturgical marriage equality in The Episcopal Church here at General Convention, we offer this essay from Iain Stanford who brings a trans angle to this conversation.

by Iain Stanford

Over the last several weeks, the blogosphere and Facebook have been alive with different opinions, questions and concerns about the various resolutions regarding  marriage equality in The Episcopal Church. As I read the various arguments, I keep wondering if people realize that we already have same sex couples in The Episcopal Church who were married using the service for Holy Matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer. Let me explain.

At the 77th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 2012, the church spoke loudly in support of transgender people as full members of our Church by adding gender identity and gender expression to the non-discrimination canons. As a trans person, though, the canons for marriage and the use of the BCP can become a bit, well, surreal.

Take for example the fictional couple of Jim and Francine. On their day, they walk through the red doors and up the aisle, the celebration begins with the words from the BCP, “Dearly Beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony.” (BCP 423) And a little later, the priest pronounces, “they are husband and wife.”  (BCP 428) Now several years go by, and Francine slowly acknowledges all those feelings when it comes to gender. All her life, people have asked, “are you a girl or boy?” She talks to friends, therapists, and yes, even her priest. Eventually, she knows that God is calling her to move forward, to become Francis. She does! After transition, they are now Jim and Francis. They live into what it means to be a same sex couple in society. And yes, they are still married in the eyes of the Church.

I can hear some people say, “But they came to the altar like any other heterosexual couple.”
​
Which begs the question: what is the connection between the outward and visible sign or signs of gender and marriage?

November in the Episcopal Diocese of Massachsusetts has been quite the month on the LGBT front with big ticket items during our Diocesan Convention, to Transweek and Transgender Day of Remembrance, to this weekend’s announcement about the role of clergy in same sex marriage.

At our Diocesan Convention during the first weekend of November, a resolution was overwhelmingly passed expressing our hope that Bishop M. Thomas Shaw III would give clergy permission to legally solemnize same sex marriages. +Tom has long been a supporter of LGBT people in general – and speaking as a trans priest whom he ordained, I mean it when I include the T – and equal marriage in particular, stepping out in support of equal civil marriage during this state’s protracted battle over it.  

But once gay couples were legally allowed to wed, Episcopal clergy were still limited to blessing said couples. And while I realize just being allowed to do blessings would be a coup in some dioceses, here being limited to blessings felt like a pastoral nightmare. I can’t tell you how many clergy have had repeated conversations with couples about how they could solemnize some marriages but not others. Some clergy have refused to solemnize any marriages in the in-between time of the past five years. And so, while the conversation about whether we should even “be in the marriage business” as legal representatives of the state goes on, that is a conversation that I suspect will take this Church a long time to sort out. It’s a lot more difficult to disentangle than I think people on all sides of the debate realize. In the meantime, to me it has made no sense to refuse to let same sex couples in the solemnization door while we figure out whether we want to restrict our involvement in all marriages to blessings.

Another way I have personally faced this issue is in doing trans marriages. We who are trans also face limitations in our ability to wed. Much depends not only on whether our partnerships are gay, bi, or heterosexual – just like everyone else -- but also on whether our legal documentation (e.g. drivers licenses) accurately reflects our gender. And when I say accurate, I mean whether it reflects our identities, not the meanings that others might write on our bodies. In some states changing appropriate identification is easier than in others (for instance, Ohio is notoriously difficult). So when a couple with a trans member has approached me to do their wedding (and I have now done several), one of the things I have had to ask at some point is what the gender markers on their drivers licenses say. In some cases I have been able to bless only and in others I have been able to bless and solemnize. Each time I have been aware that I am part of the ongoing transformation of marriage in this time and place. Because, as I see it, marriage is not now and has never been static. Its meaning and form has long been changing. What was the miracle that Jesus undertook at Cana? The transformation of water into wine. Our relationships are to be sacred vessels in which we walk together through the changes and chances of this life.

But I have to say—and I say this as someone who obviously cares a lot about the marriage debates -- all the energy we pour into marriage can get pretty irritating to the trans community. Because even though we are impacted by the rules regarding marriage as well, marriage is not the most important thing to the trans community (insofar as we can say there is a single trans community—there are indeed numerous communities). Protecting our most basic human rights are. Keeping members of our community safe from violence – as our sisters of color most often experience – and free from often blatant discrimination on the job, in schools, housing, credit, and medical care, is what we are most concerned about. And so we are pleased that the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Act is finally now law, but we wait eagerly for the passage of a fully inclusive Employment Nondiscrimination Act and the passage of local and state laws that safeguard us in our various communities.

November is a month that the trans community around the globe is increasingly claiming as its own. The main impetus for this is Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR) which takes place every year on November 20th. Fourteen years ago, an African American Bostonian named Chanelle Pickett was murdered here in Boston on that date. I remember it well because I was a first year MDiv student interning at the Victim Recovery Program at the Fenway Community Health Center at the time, and it was also my birthday. Three years later, on November 28th, 1998 another African American woman named Rita Hester died in Brighton, MA, three blocks from the congregation I now serve, St. Luke’s and St. Margaret’s. This murder sparked a vigil on Brighton Avenue across from the place she was last seen. One year later, the trans community in San Francisco marked that anniversary with the first ever Transgender Day of Remembrance. And so the TDOR tradition, which is now international, was born.  

Last year for the first time, Boston’s TDOR was held at St. Luke’s and St. Margaret’s in a secular event that packed the small church. This year, once again, we were asked to host this event (read about it here in the Allston/Brighton TAB; photos by Marilyn Humphries are here). It was a particular honor to be able to share with the gathered community that at its General Convention this past summer The Episcopal Church went on record in support of our full civil rights. And in another important demonstration of support and encouragement, the Crossing, the emergent church style congregation at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Boston, held a special service in honor of TDOR on Thursday evening, November 19th, also hosting Transcriptions, the local trans/queer themed open mic. More and more Episcopal congregations are opening their arms to trans people.

And then yesterday lay and ordained leaders in Diomass received a beautifully clear letter from our bishop declaring that as of Advent I clergy in this diocese are indeed authorized to solemnize the marriages of same sex couples (read about it in the Boston Globe or Bay Windows). No more do gender markers on licenses matter. As I talked about it on the phone with a friend and fellow trans priest, I said, “what a relief!” He replied, “I know—now I wanna run out and find a gay couple to marry!” 

And so life here in Massachusetts continues to move forward with blessings amid all our complexities. But to me the greatest gift of all this November is my son who was born in mid-October. Today, literally as I wrote this piece, he smiled at me for the first time. God is so good.

- The Rev'd Dr. Cameron Partridge

This piece was originally written for the Walking with Integrity blog.

Earlier this week I got an email from the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) detailing "Transgender Rights Week in New England," an amazing confluence of events: in Connecticut today there was a Gender Identity and Expression Lobby Day in support of their non-discrimination bill; in Rhode Island this evening there was House Judiciary Committee hearing about their hate crime definition; tomorrow (April 8th) New Hampshire is possibly holding a second vote on its transgender non-discrimination bill. And at the State House in Boston, MTPC held a rally in support of the Massachusetts non-discrimination bill, "An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes".  

And as if the stars weren't already apparently aligning, Iowa's supreme court unanimously legalized equal marriage last Friday (April 3), and this morning, Vermont's legislature overrode it's governor's veto, making Vermont the latest state to claim equal marriage.

I arrived with fellow members of the Interfaith Coalition for Transgender Equality (ICTE) at 10am. What an amazing sight it was to emerge from the main stairs and see so many people gathered-- at least as many as last year, and likely more. MTPC has now put up a number of photos from the event (source of the photos in this piece).  

I was honored to speak briefly as one of the co-Chairs of ICTE (the other being Mycroft Holmes) and to introduce two other clergy speakers, Rabbi Stephanie Kolin (photo below) of Temple Israel in Brookline, and Rev. Will Green (photo also below), Pastor of St. Nicholas United Methodist Church in Hull. I'm hoping to be able to reprint their remarks in the coming days. In the meantime, what struck me about Rabbi Stephanie's comments was her strong claim that the work we are all doing is holy work, and that the place in which we were standing was a holy place. Pastor Will passionately underscored how supported we are in our struggle by communities of faith-- much more than we know. 

In our own ways, each of us reflected our convictions that religious traditions and communities of faith *should not* be assumed to be anti-trans, despite the terrible reality that many transgender people have been betrayed by communities of faith. Nevertheless, some of our strongest wellsprings of support can, do, and should come from precisely communities of faith and the rich traditions they sustain.

One particularly firey speaker-- whom I had to follow directly (!)-- was the Honorable Byron Rushing, a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. He spoke of how we weren't gathered to gain the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because we already have those rights. Massachusetts has failed to live up to its obligation to guarantee those rights, he said, for which the state has no excuse. We were there to hold the state to account. Amen!

We heard several speakers who shared stories of discrimination and extreme difficulty. One such story was told, haltingly, by Ken Garber, the father of a transgender son, CJ, who died a couple of months ago. I remember Mr. Garber speaking in support of his son at the hearing last Spring, and it was so devastating to hear of CJ's death. I attended this young man's funeral a couple of months ago, and my heart has been with the Garber family ever since. Even incredibly supportive parents cannot finally protect trans young people from the pervasive toll of the cruelties that lie outside a home's door.

As I look back on this incredibly long day, the overall pattern is of border walking, crossing in and out of contexts and communities that often misunderstand one another. As a clergy person at the trans lobby day-- and quite visibly clerical at that-- I felt like an emblem, a living, breathing progress report on how far religious traditions in general and my own in particular have come in their support of transgender people, and the distance they still have to travel. And so it was important to me to state quite clearly the truth for which the Interfaith Coalition for Transgender Equality stands: that people and communities of many faiths support transgender people, and that transgender people come from and claim many faith traditions. I talked about how proud I am that my own diocese, the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts passed a resolution in support of exactly what we were doing at the State House today. The audience interrupted me at that point to clap, which really moved me. I was reminded of moments at Trans Day of Remembrance and Diocesan Convention last November, when the intersections of my particular faith and gender journeys felt not only present but in some sense uplifted.

I then said that for Christians, this week is Holy Week, the most significant, and indeed holy, week of the entire liturgical year. And I said that, for me, being at the State House and doing what I was doing right then was a spiritual practice, a fitting complement to the several other spiritual practices of prayer and worship that I will be doing as this week continues. These practices are of a piece for me, I explained, because of the narrative that propels the events of Holy Week: the movement from bondage to freedom, from fear to hope, from death and despair to transformation and newness of life.  

After the conclusion of the event, a parishioner and I made our way first to the Cathedral Church of St. Paul where a service of "the Blessing of the Holy Oils" was in progress, and then to the university department where I am teaching a one-on-one course ("Junior Tutorial") this semester. When we got to the cathedral, Bishop Tom Shaw was in the midst of his sermon, sitting in the central aisle. As we stepped into the cathedral, directly opposite him, he was in the middle of saying, "gay, lesbian, bisexual..." I felt like something of a transgender jack-in-the-box, with my "trans rights now" sticker still stuck to my lapel from the rally. I imagine Tom was saying something celebratory about the Vermont override, the announcement of which had elicited prolonged cheering during the rally.  

The theme of the service was healing-- the various ministries of healing, lay and ordained, taken up by people throughout the diocese. There was a moment in the service when people in healing ministries were invited to come forward for the anointing of the palms of their hands. I walked forward with my parishioner, who recently started a queer, non-sectarian spirituality group at my church (called "BEND"). I loved seeing people with whom I work in the diocese in this context, in the middle of this intense week. And particularly after being at the rally, it felt good to walk across the Boston Common and into the cathedral. I felt both a sense of difference between how I spent my morning and how I imagine most people in the cathedral spent theirs, and a sense of affirmation that I was indeed walking from one holy space and activity to another.  

From the cathedral, I made my way to a coffee shop, where I finished preparing for my class. Somewhere between the Statehouse and the classroom, I divested myself of both the "trans rights now" sticker and the clerical collar, aware of myself crossing into yet another communal space, this one academic. The course, "Thirty Years of Trans Studies" is a blast to teach, and also very much of a piece with the morning's activities.  

What a day it was. And the holiness of the week continues.

- The Rev'd Dr. Cameron Partridge

State Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

By DANIELA ALTIMARI

October 11, 2008

The state Supreme Court on Friday delivered gay and lesbian couples the validation they have long been seeking — the right to marry.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that same-sex couples cannot be prevented from marrying — and that civil unions, those marriage-like legal arrangements that Connecticut has offered to gay people since 2005, are not an acceptable substitute.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the ... same-sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard Palmer wrote. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

The 85-page ruling means that thousands of gay couples soon will be able to marry in Connecticut, perhaps as early as next month. It also provides fresh fuel to opponents of same-sex marriage, who are pushing for a mechanism that would permit them to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex unions.

Connecticut will join Massachusetts and California as the only states to permit gay partners to wed. Meanwhile, high courts in New York and New Jersey have opted not to expand the legal rights of same-sex couples.

Friday's landmark decision was met with cheers and tears of joy from gay activists throughout the state and nation. Janet Peck held the hand of Carol Conklin, her partner of more than three decades, as they walked to the podium at an afternoon press conference at the Hilton Hartford hotel.

"For 33 years, my heart has ached for this moment," said Peck, 56. The Colchester couple, one of eight plaintiff couples in the case, chose not to get a civil union because they considered it inferior to marriage.

On Friday, Peck called Conklin "my soon-to-be spouse."

The ruling culminates a long march toward acceptance for gay and lesbian couples, a journey that has shifted from the halls of the state Capitol to the chambers of the state's highest court. Through the years, legislators held countless hearings, and political support kept building — but gay rights activists decided last year to wait until the courts had weighed in.

"For nine years, the Connecticut legislature and the Connecticut courts have been moving along a path where they have considered a whole host of decisions pertaining to same-sex couples," said Rep. Michael Lawlor, a Democrat from East Haven and outspoken supporter of same-sex marriage. "Both the courts and the legislature have evolved. ... This is a topic most people didn't even think about 15 years ago."

The majority opinion, written by Palmer and joined by Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr. and Joette Katz, along with Appellate Judge Lubbie Harper (sitting for Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, who recused herself), rejects the notion of a "separate but equal" system of civil unions.

"Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means 'equal,'" Palmer wrote. "As we have explained, the former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter most surely is not."

In other words, "separate but equal is not OK," said Susan Schmeiser, professor of family and gender law at the University of Connecticut School of Law. "Nothing short of marriage is going to satisfy the equal protection concern."

The court's ruling significantly expands the judicial protections afforded to gays and lesbians, Schmeiser said. "The bulk of the opinion is devoted to establishing that gay men and lesbians warrant protected status under the Connecticut constitution ... based on the history of discrimination that gay men and lesbians have suffered."

In a statement released minutes after the decision was posted on the judicial branch website, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said that she disagreed with it but would uphold it. She said that she was proud to sign the state's civil unions law in 2005, the first in the nation enacted without a court mandate, and thought it was "equitable and just," but that she does not support same-sex marriage.

And yet, Rell added, "the Supreme Court has spoken. ... I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state constitution — will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling."

Other opponents, however, are already ratcheting up their campaign to stop same-sex marriage. They are pushing for passage of a ballot question asking voters if the state should convene a constitutional convention. Their hope is to use the convention to allow the state constitution to be reworked to allow for something called "direct initiative," a mechanism that permits citizens to force a vote on matters of public policy, such as same-sex marriage.

"The court has just usurped democracy in Connecticut and redefined marriage by judicial force," said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut. Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on Nov. 4 to reassert their right to self-government, he said.

Dissenting opinions were written by now-retired Justice David Borden, who was acting chief justice when the case was heard in May 2007, Justice Christine Vertefeuille and Justice Peter Zarella.

Senior Justice William J. Sullivan, one of the more conservative members of the court, removed himself from the panel just days before the case was scheduled to be heard. He did not give a reason.

Borden said it was far too early to say that civil unions signify second-class status. "Our experience with civil unions is simply too new and the views of the people of our state about it as a social institution are too much in flux to say with any certitude that the marriage statute must be struck down in order to vindicate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights," he wrote.

In his dissenting opinion, Zarella invoked that traditional view of marriage. "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry," he wrote. "The fact that same sex couples cannot engage in sexual conduct of a type that can result in the birth of a child is a critical difference in this context."

Most of the eight couples in the case, Kerrigan et al. v. Commissioner of Public Health et al., are parents — in fact, there are 14 children spread among them.

According to an analysis of a U.S. Census Bureau survey by the Williams Institute, about 30 percent of the 9,546 same-sex couples in Connecticut are raising children.

Courant Staff Writer Bill Leukhardt contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2008, The Hartford Courant

I know, that's a long quote, but it is important. I live in Connecticut and this is another victory for human rights in this state. The struggle to have legal same sex marriage has been a long one and now it is successful. The next battles are clear: keep the Constitution intact (no Constitutional Convention to dismantle it) and protect the rights of all people from all forms of prejudice (namely protect rights to jobs, housing and services for Gender nonconforming people.)

As far as I can tell, there have always been same sex couples living in committed relationships. There has just in the past been no legal recognition of their existence or rights. There have always been gender nonconforming people in society. They have lived and worked and some have thrived, but their ability to thrive has often been limited to their ability to "pass" (I really hate that term, but most people understand it.) Legal recognition of the right to have relationships, the right to work, the right to get housing, and the right to be in society is so critical.  

One of the things I hate in the news is that it brings news of societal violence and tragedy. I find it so tragic when I see another transgender person who has become a victim of violence. I find it so tragic when I see news of another transgender person who has committed suicide. What we often do not see in the news though is the people who have been beaten or victimized, but not killed and the trans people who attempted suicide, but didn't succeed. Even more we don't see news of the trans people who have to work on the street because they are denied all other jobs. We don't hear of the ones who decide to work in the porn industry because they aren't allowed to work elsewhere. We don't see that homeless Trans individuals are denied access even to homeless shelters.

I rejoice in the legal victory in Connecticut because it means that attitudes are changing, but we must all remember that there is far more yet to do.

God's Peace,
Mother Michelle Hansen