Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Acceptance for all

I just sent an e-mail to a friend. As I was writing it I realized that one of the reasons I haven't posted on my blog recently is that I have been e-mailing this friend with my thoughts once or twice a week. Once those thoughts are written in the e-mail, I don't feel the need to express myself on this blog. However, this time, I will post my thoughts.

Not only was a black president sworn in but the ceremonies included Gene Robinson. Although he did not play a role in the actual inauguration, he was definitely present at the functions.

This also offers some hope. (By the way, I got the link from Mad Priest's blog.)

But as much as things are happening on official levels - in Canada, same-sex marriage is legal - there is still a lot of work at the grass roots level. I've noticed this in regard to the equality of women. Once things become government official there tends to be an attitude of - you've got what you want, what's your problem. And this ignores the fact that what is happening at an official level does not always happen at the more grass roots level. My orders of ordination are not accepted world wide in the Anglican church. Men who are ordained by a woman bishop cannot apply for positions in the Church of England (although I can unless it specifies male priest). There are parts of the communion that will not accept +Rodney because he ordained me (and two other women).

There's still a lot of work and speaking out to be done and in some ways it is harder when things are okay on an official level. Everyone figures that we have nothing for which to work toward because the government has made everything okay.

Don't I wish.

Even if I do have my equality in Canada there are still parishes that can refuse me just because I'm a woman - not that I would want to be their priest anyway. Our rights are there but not the full acceptance. And in my mind it is not enough just to have rights - there needs to be acceptance. Non-acceptance is still brutal. That is as true for equality for women as it is for equality for GLBTs. And people wonder why I speak out for full acceptance. What choice do I have? If I see the difference in regard to woman's issues, how can I not for GLBT issues? We can't just stop at acceptance for one and not work for acceptance for all.

Enough of a rant for today. I have to do research for Bible Study this afternoon.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie


Anonymous said...

Acceptance for all, you say .... does this include polygamists????

Ann Marie said...

Yes, in certain circumstances. If you are thinking of the case in B.C. - then no. I don't have a problem with polygamy per se. I do have a problem with what is happening in Bountiful and I have for a number of years. I would qualify my acceptance of polygamous with committed healthy adult relationships.

Polygamy is certainly not something I would choose.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie