Archbishop Edward (Ted) Scott on non-traditional familes

WHY I CANNOT ACCEPT THE POPE

FINAL: December 31, 2003

By Archbishop E.W. Scott.

On the Sunday before New Years, in his weekly comments in St. Peter's Square, the Pope said that giving same-sex couples access to civil marriage has "disturbed the nature of the family institution" and he called on "those who believe in the importance of the family based on matrimony" to unite. In Canada, I take it that the call is to unite in opposition to legal changes that would extend civil marriage to same sex couples across the country.

With all due respect to His Holiness, and my respect for him is great, I cannot respond affirmatively to this invitation. This is not because of lack of respect for the family on my part but because of the very high respect for the family unit that I hold. In the light of the high rates of suicide by gay and lesbian youth compared with their heterosexual peers, I cannot help asking, "Would permitting civil marriage to same-sex couples not strengthen the family rather than weaken it?

For centuries, which included those in which the Bible came to be, there were no such concepts as "sexual orientation" or being "gay" or "lesbian". All human beings were assumed to be heterosexual and in many, but not all, cultures homosexual behaviour was viewed as evil or wrong. To-day new knowledge that is available to us makes it impossible to easily accept that gay and lesbian people are automatically evil.

We now know that some people's sexual orientation is not heterosexual and that this is true not just for some cultures but for many, if not all. The evidence is growing that one's sexual orientation is not caught, not taught, and not chosen but rather is given and discovered as are many of the other great gifts human beings possess. Persons, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, have the responsibility to make decisions about what are the rightful expressions of the gifts they have received, including their sexuality, and societies have the responsibility of seeking a social fabric that provides justice for all of its members.

In the course of human history there have been a wide range of acceptable patterns of family life. A number are revealed in the Biblical books. These patterns came to be within the cultural context of the times and in the period of history when travel was much more limited and when the spread of knowledge was much, much less rapid than it is to-day.

One of the issues which needs to be addressed is what constitutes a family? Is it not love and commitment that holds the couple or larger family group together? Is it not the emotional support which the members provide for each other? Are these not the things which make families healthy and productive? Are these only possible within a family based on one man and one woman?

I have become convinced that it is not anti-family to embrace non-traditional families. In so concluding I asked myself many questions. People in non-traditional families have often been marginalized because they are different. Would it not be better to accept them into the mainstream of society and set them free to make a much fuller contribution to the human community? Instead of imposing hardship, would we not be treating others as we would like to be treated?

Although responsible families seek to support themselves, they are not islands. To thrive, they need to be supported by society. Would not giving same-sex families access to civil marriage do just that? On the other hand, would not the refusal to provide such access tend to perpetuate the view that homosexuality is, of itself, immoral? Would it not tend to brand same-sex couples as second class citizens and would not this branding carry on to the children? All children need to feel that society accepts and recognizes them and their families as having worth and dignity. Children of same sex families are no exception to this need.

Within a pluralistic democratic society such as Canada, religious institutions should have a right to have their own conditions of membership and their own definition of marriage. Parliament has the demanding task of seeking to be concerned about the present and future well being of the whole community. Are not gay and lesbian people part of that community?

As Canadians consider this issue, I believe we are called to dialogue together seeking a deeper understanding of what constitutes a truly healthy social fabric in a pluralistic nation and world. Our country has been richly blessed in part because we have had a strong commitment to do just that.

Archbishop Edward (Ted) Scott was the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada from 1971 to 1986. He was also moderator of the central committee of the World Council of Churches and a member of the so-called Eminent Persons Group, a committee of distinguished individuals from the British Commonwealth that helped South Africa work toward a peaceful end to apartheid. Archbishop Scott passed away in June, 2004