Listen now | In this searing and darkly comic epilogue to the "Marriage After Equality" series, the narrator revisits the collapse of a sacred union—not just with a spouse, but with a Church that once claimed to bless and uphold their vows. It's a story of love, loss, and liturgical gaslighting—told from the pews where no one remembered the person who once sat beside the man in the robes.
Beautifully written, yet so hard to listen to. I am so sorry you went through this.
I hope our church "has ears to hear" how it failed you and learns from you to be *truly* supportive of marriage: providing correction and guidance for those in the marriage that stray from their commitments--even when that betrayal is by a clergy member--and providing true comfort for those who are betrayed in the commitment.
As you have noted before, marriage equality should mean more than just getting to the ceremony in front of the altar. It requires providing support to how to live within the boundaries of the commitments made there. Our church failed you horribly and I hope it learns from its mistakes.
Speaking as a non American from a country with a state church, I believe that the ethical framework that wrecked your marriage is bound to always predominate under the conditions of American secular freedom, as evidenced by the fact that American youths are embracing gay male typical sexual behaviors precisely as Christianity recedes from cultural consciousness. Sexually active homosexual men were simply early because they operated outside of the sphere of Christian ethics since forever.
As you've indicated in your articles, social exclusion reinforces homosexual pathologies by fostering the existence of marginal homosexual social groups where a subcultural identity is cultivated and a divergent parallel value system to that of the faith is promoted. That said, Liberal democracies are founded on personal autonomy and fundamentally uphold consent ethics whereby the moral qualities of an action are mostly determined by whether it violates the notion of voluntary conduct, placing no restraint on Libertine sentiments insofar as all actions taken fall within the framework of individualistic contractualism. Consequently, Liberal/secular integration does not promote monogamous sexual mores. At the same time, consent ethics are bound to favor majoritarian sentiments that affirm base instinct and orient man towards the state of nature by virtue of the fact that most humans are impulsive and short sighted, and man in the state of nature is promiscuous as a consequence of carnal instincts which have evolved to encourage a polygynous mating strategy.
I agree with your overall thesis that the Integration of homosexuality into ILLIBERAL institutions of moral authority (Christian churches that have not abdicated formation) to the exclusion of parallel systems of group identity whose values diverge from Christian propriety would leave homosexuals with room to comply without denying their fundamental human desire for romantic companionship and sexual expression, accomplished by fulfilling their need for belonging to a wider group that does not burden them with an undue cross. However, homosexuals are unlikely to make the choice to be part of such restrictive systems under the cultural zeitgeist of secular American freedom for the same reason heterosexual youths do not, so a neoreactionary desecularizing political shift that challenges the first amendment and frames America as an explicitly Christian nation might be necessary for such a thing to be accomplished. A progressive yet orthodox form of Christian nationalism might be necessary to spare America from an endless Libertine spiral towards social collapse.
You are absolutely correct to underscore the inherent tension that exists in modern society. That tension is ubiquitous (change v tradition; freedom v order; autonomy v obligation, etc. etc). My own theory focues on the tension between liberty and equality that I posit is critical to understanding the unique "American Ideology." (https://americanideologue.substack.com/p/a-framework-for-the-american-ideology) Liberty is at the center of our creed, history, and culture. It is, however, very different from European liberalism. It is unique because in Europe liberalism was a reaction against throne and altar. Americans didn't need to overthrow either. Instead, American liberty has always been yoked to a communitarian, moral obligation led by conscience. (https://americanideologue.substack.com/p/we-were-never-lockeans)
While I agree that my experience with same-sex marriage and the Epsicopal Church exposes the challege associated with hyper-individualism that has been infecting our culture since the1960's and is valorized in the LGBTQ community. Until we start focusing on the institutions that build character and citizens, the American experiment may face the same fate as the famed Republic our national symbols harken back to. The work of restoration is ours to do - rebuilding each church, PTA, food bank, small businesses, city hall, etc. Any other solution will not work becxause it is profoundly unAmerican.
Beautifully written, yet so hard to listen to. I am so sorry you went through this.
I hope our church "has ears to hear" how it failed you and learns from you to be *truly* supportive of marriage: providing correction and guidance for those in the marriage that stray from their commitments--even when that betrayal is by a clergy member--and providing true comfort for those who are betrayed in the commitment.
As you have noted before, marriage equality should mean more than just getting to the ceremony in front of the altar. It requires providing support to how to live within the boundaries of the commitments made there. Our church failed you horribly and I hope it learns from its mistakes.
Speaking as a non American from a country with a state church, I believe that the ethical framework that wrecked your marriage is bound to always predominate under the conditions of American secular freedom, as evidenced by the fact that American youths are embracing gay male typical sexual behaviors precisely as Christianity recedes from cultural consciousness. Sexually active homosexual men were simply early because they operated outside of the sphere of Christian ethics since forever.
As you've indicated in your articles, social exclusion reinforces homosexual pathologies by fostering the existence of marginal homosexual social groups where a subcultural identity is cultivated and a divergent parallel value system to that of the faith is promoted. That said, Liberal democracies are founded on personal autonomy and fundamentally uphold consent ethics whereby the moral qualities of an action are mostly determined by whether it violates the notion of voluntary conduct, placing no restraint on Libertine sentiments insofar as all actions taken fall within the framework of individualistic contractualism. Consequently, Liberal/secular integration does not promote monogamous sexual mores. At the same time, consent ethics are bound to favor majoritarian sentiments that affirm base instinct and orient man towards the state of nature by virtue of the fact that most humans are impulsive and short sighted, and man in the state of nature is promiscuous as a consequence of carnal instincts which have evolved to encourage a polygynous mating strategy.
I agree with your overall thesis that the Integration of homosexuality into ILLIBERAL institutions of moral authority (Christian churches that have not abdicated formation) to the exclusion of parallel systems of group identity whose values diverge from Christian propriety would leave homosexuals with room to comply without denying their fundamental human desire for romantic companionship and sexual expression, accomplished by fulfilling their need for belonging to a wider group that does not burden them with an undue cross. However, homosexuals are unlikely to make the choice to be part of such restrictive systems under the cultural zeitgeist of secular American freedom for the same reason heterosexual youths do not, so a neoreactionary desecularizing political shift that challenges the first amendment and frames America as an explicitly Christian nation might be necessary for such a thing to be accomplished. A progressive yet orthodox form of Christian nationalism might be necessary to spare America from an endless Libertine spiral towards social collapse.
You are absolutely correct to underscore the inherent tension that exists in modern society. That tension is ubiquitous (change v tradition; freedom v order; autonomy v obligation, etc. etc). My own theory focues on the tension between liberty and equality that I posit is critical to understanding the unique "American Ideology." (https://americanideologue.substack.com/p/a-framework-for-the-american-ideology) Liberty is at the center of our creed, history, and culture. It is, however, very different from European liberalism. It is unique because in Europe liberalism was a reaction against throne and altar. Americans didn't need to overthrow either. Instead, American liberty has always been yoked to a communitarian, moral obligation led by conscience. (https://americanideologue.substack.com/p/we-were-never-lockeans)
While I agree that my experience with same-sex marriage and the Epsicopal Church exposes the challege associated with hyper-individualism that has been infecting our culture since the1960's and is valorized in the LGBTQ community. Until we start focusing on the institutions that build character and citizens, the American experiment may face the same fate as the famed Republic our national symbols harken back to. The work of restoration is ours to do - rebuilding each church, PTA, food bank, small businesses, city hall, etc. Any other solution will not work becxause it is profoundly unAmerican.