When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Originally posted by gwinna at When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Original Article or 

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

Why Rebuke You Him That Loves You SO?

After the post on Kurt and Glee, I thought it a good idea to post something that I thought was a positive depiction of gay teens in media, in this case cinema.

A reposting of my review of Were the World Mine.

The premise of Were the World Mine is romantic comedy trope: character A yearns for the love and affection of unattainable character B, then though a series of hi-jinks, true love wins in the end. That is about where the comparison ends as everything else is turned on its ear in Tom Gustafson's big screen adaptation of his own short film Fairies.

The film's tagline, ‘If you could make someone love you, would you?’ Is honestly, unexpectedly answered, "Obviously."

The first twist to the romantic comedy trope is that the lead couple is two young men. In the film our put-upon hero Timothy (Tanner Cohen), is cast as Puck in his senior production of A Midsummer Night's Dream. During rehearsal, he happens on the recipe to recreate the flower, here called a pansy in a nice play on words, which Puck uses on Shakespeare’s lovers. Timothy/Puck uses the pansy first on his unrequited crush Jonathon (Nathaniel David Becker), then on his classmates, and then the town, allowing everyone to see the world through his eyes. By the end of the film, as in Shakespeare's play, all is peace.

Of course, Timothy is hardly the usual trodden-down gay lead. This is not some Cinderella story with the homely, or even 'Hollywood Ugly' lead forlornly in love with someone quite beyond him; Timothy is a pretty boy himself. His only claim to the ill will of his classmates is that he is out of the closet. A situation that led to the dissolution of his parents’ marriage, and caused him trouble at previous schools. In another breath of fresh air, this is a young gay man not afraid of a fight.

Timothy's coming out story happens before the movie takes place, and we are allowed to move on with other interesting stuff, i.e. getting the boy you like, to like you. There is one brief, almost archaic 'why are you gay' scene between Timothy and his mother Donna (Judy McLane). One briefly wonders why the scene is even in the film, but then you remember the current headlines and realize the struggle is still very real and ongoing, and these conversations still happen all the time.

Timothy's love Jonathon is not the typical, unattainable ideal man. We are shown in subtle ways that he is just as interested in Timothy, as Timothy is in him. Oh, were things only a bit different, eh? Enter the pansy. Likewise Jonathon is shown as being worthy of his Timothy's love. It is a nice departure. In other films, the only thing this type of character has going for it, is their looks, but Jonathon is quite game. From the start of the film, he shows an interest in Timothy, seemingly falling for him while watching his singing audition. He is also up for the challenges of the school play. The boys attend an all-male prep school, so they will be playing all the female roles in the show as well, just as in Shakespeare's time. The pansy merely prompts Jonathon to overcome his normal, social inhibitions in pursuing Timothy. It does not make him love Timothy, he was already well on his way.

This is not an adaptation of Midsummer Night's Dream, but it does have plot points tacked on from that play. Helen Fielding did the same thing tacking on Jane Austen's plot from Pride and Prejudice to the novel Bridget Jones's Diary. Timothy at various points is Puck, Oberon, Bottom and Helena. Perhaps the most perfect descriptive combination for a young gay man; part fairy, part imp, part fool, and unrequited lover. Jonathon, likewise can be both Titania and Lysander, depending on where you are in the film. Mrs. Tibbet (Wendy Robie), described elsewhere as sort of sorceress, is nothing less than Puck, hirself. There are two subtle moments where Tibbet is watering the plants in her classroom, clearly nurturing the seeds she has planted to bloom. The Puck/Tibbet connection is drawn sharply in some of the fantasy sequences, as well.

The fantasy sequences are not really fantasy though. They are a part of the plot; they are literally magic spells that movie the movie along. In one of my favorite numbers, 'All Things Shall Be Peace', Timothy is pulled from Jonathon's arms asking, "You rent our ancient love asunder?" Gay love set to Shakespeare and well done at that.

The music and lyrics are inspired. Shakespeare interpolated and set to music, may hardly be revolutionary, but it is still quite fun and infectious. I find myself listening to the soundtrack repeatedly. Tanner Cohen is wonderful and has a slight sibilant 'S' that is quite endearing.

Tom Gustafson is definitely a director and writer to watch, he spins a fun engaging yarn with genuine moments of poignancy. Some of the imagery in the film is iconic and arresting. It is hardy without flaws, but the the music and the performances buoy you along over those flaws. Cohen and Becker are especially good. It is flawed, and the are leaden moments, but overall I would not change a frame.

Were the World Mine available at Amazon, and on iTunes.

The Problem of Kurt

This will probably be a bit disjointed and rambling.

I'll start out by saying that I do not hate Glee, I love nearly every crack-filled minute, warts and all. I do not hate Chris Cofler, far from it, I think he's done a marvelous job with what he's been given. The issue is what he's been given, is largely shit. Neither do I hate his character, Kurt, so much as I resent that this is being treated like a television breakthrough.

It's not. It just is not.

The Kurt character is not just badly and inconsistently drawn, but is a step back for gay people. The character is a Hollywood stand-by, the Camp Gay.

“The traditional stereotypical image of a gay man. He's flamboyantly effeminate in his dress, speech, mannerisms, and interests. He wears tight (often leather) pants and a loose, blousy shirt, often with a silk kerchief or scarf knotted around his neck, all of which will be in bright or pastel colors. He will often speak with a lisp, and is given to flouncing, prancing, and standing with one hand on his hip as the other is held out in a limp-wristed gesture.


Extreme cases will include a near-opaque slang, referring to himself and his gay friends with female pronouns, and minor to complete transvestism. Insofar as he has a personality, it will often be vain, catty, and cowardly.”

Ryan Murphy just had an interesting war of words with a member of the Kings of Leon. The band did not want to license their work for Glee to cover. An act of defiance to which Murphy took great offense.

One of the Kings tweeted a nasty remark in his direction, and really there is no excusing it. Murphy replied that, ‘it's telling that Nathan can reduce a group of people to a mean-spirited cliché,’ which kinda makes one wonder if he has ever actually seen his own show. Glee is populated with mean spirited cliché, after mean spirited cliché.

There’s the bitchy cheerleader, the vapid cheerleader, the dumb jock, the scheming diva, the fat black gospel singer (best friend of the bitchy fab gay guy, of course), and our own effeminate, show tunes singing, campy gay.

There is nothing wrong with being effeminate, singing show tunes, or being a catty queer, but when this is virtually the only consistent representation of gay people on television or movies, it is troubling. When a character like this is then lauded as ground breaking, it is offensive.

With few exceptions, the homosexual characters in movies are campy caricatures or creepy violent misfits. Glee has both in, Kurt and his tormentor Karofsky. Sometimes Kurt is both.

There was the nasty story point where it is implied Kurt sexually harassed another student. Kurt, it is claimed, does not know that, 'No' means 'No.' This even though 'No',  is never said by that student, Finn. Finn, never tells Kurt 'No', in fact Kurt never even tried anything. He just wasn’t behaving the way Finn wanted him to behave. Kurt was merely acting the way a young person interested in another young person acts. The big strong football player was unable to tell the tiny effete nancyboy, ‘No, I am not interested.’

Is the message here that Kurt is, that young gay men are by nature predators? Because that is certainly what is implied.

Then of course we have Dave Karofsky, the Glee closeted teen who bullies Kurt. There is a long tradition of gay, or coded gay people as villains. Unfortunately on Glee, this also make him the single most interesting character on the show.

The new Entertainment Weekly cover.

‘Bold,’ ‘new,’ really, EW? Screw you.

There is nothing bold or new about these characters. They aren’t even  characters, they are caricature, and people are hailing it like it's this revelatory experience having this character on a hit TV show, when it is the same recycled tropes? I can't even... I just shake my head.

Check out a net little documentary called The Celluloid Closet. It is both informative and entertaining and traces the history of Gays in cinema.

So, what is wrong with a stereotype? They are stereotypes because they are true, the voices cry, we all know people like Kurt.

True enough, there are also minorities in prison, that doesn’t make it any less problematic or racist, if that is the main portrayal of minorities in the media. Why should gay people accept less? Why should we be happy with crumbs from the table?

Honestly, if you want bitchy fab queens go watch Priscilla Queen of the Dessert, they did it up far better.

What about all the gay kids identify with Kurt? I’m sure there are plenty, just as I am sure there are many who do not, many who don't self-identify with a crying, effete show tunes singing spiteful queen. Yes, Ryan Murphy the character is often mean spirited as is the stereotype. Well, those young people are just out of luck, and portrayals like this just make it harder on them. They too need a role model.

What we need is something akin to what Uhura on Star Trek was to African-Americans in the sixties.

Nichelle Nichols famously relates the conversation she had with Martin Luther King when she told him she wanted to leave Star Trek.

“I told him I would be leaving the show, because; and that was as far as he let me go, and he said, “STOP! You cannot! You cannot leave this show! Do you not understand what you are doing?! You are the first non-stereotypical role in television! Of intelligence, and of a woman and a woman of color?! That you are playing a role that is not about your color! That this role could be played by anyone? This is not a black role. This is not a female role! A blue eyed blond or a pointed ear green person could take this role!” And I am looking at him and looking at him and buzzing, and he said, “Nichelle, for the first time, not only our little children and people can look on and see themselves, but people who don’t look like us, people who don’t look like us, from all over the world, for the first time, the first time on television, they can see us, as we should be!”

[go to planetwaves.ne for the full story]

As broad and diverse a group as the LGBT community is and the best we can get from our own people on network TV is the same age-old Hollywood tropes? It is sad.

Honestly, I watch the show and I laugh right along with everyone else, but they’re cheap laughs, and we’re usually not laughing with the character. They are the butt of the joke.

Clichés like this are shorthand, it is sloppy writing and as long as we have television, we’ll have bad television, and these tired tropes, but let us not kid ourselves about it. Stereotypes are demeaning, and people use them to justify violence against us.

Unfortunately there are precious few other options right now in prime time television, there is the gay couple on Brothers and Sisters, and the gay cop on SouthLAnd, but nothing for teens. Even these shows don’t get near the attention Glee does, nor for some odd reason are they lauded as Glee inexplicably has been. You want ‘bold’, ‘new’ depictions of gays on television look there, they are absent on Glee.

Review for Breeze Off the River

An issue packed fluid play

A review of my 2006 FringeNYC play: Breeze Off The River from Curtain up.com:

"Breeze Off the River 
While a more helpful title for this fluid and issue-packed play would be welcome, its penetrating and witty script and simple yet sharp production deserve considerable praise for putting a fresh spin on the familiar topic of the world's inability to deal with same-sex couples, or more particularly, parenting by such folks. Here we find an accidental odd couple who have nothing in common with Neil Simon's iconic Felix and Oscar other than a practical need to have a home in the absence of a former or hoped-for partner. Sean is a successful career waiter who at the gym finds a good sparring partner in Eric, a willing house-husband who sacrificed a lucrative career in finance for his wife's acting ambitions. While Sean's conservative manner makes his gay orientation a surprise for straight Eric, the two nevertheless quickly develop a strong platonic rapport; when Eric's wife selfishly and suddenly deserts both her husband and eight-year-old son, Eric turns to Sean in seeking a refuge for himself and especially for his troubled son E.J. Personality and lifestyle clashes predictably ensue, as well as a Thomas Hardy inspired deus ex machina plot twist which leads to soul searching and legal battles. The script is absolutely engrossing, and the performances are strong, particularly Kyle Baxter and Jon Crefeld as Sean and Eric respectively. Amazingly, the script is also by Mr. Baxter, whose authorship is barely detectable in the humble program notes. Added to the dramatic fodder is an examination of the classic Good Samaritan who believes "this is what I am supposed to be doing." The play is further helped by an excellent supporting cast and spot-on direction by Deloss Brown, although some of the actors were having projection trouble with dead spots in the challenging CSC stage which seats its audience on three sides. At Classic Stage Company. 2 hours, 10 minutes with intermission. [Bradley] "