Originally Posted by keltic63
I guess that my negative reaction is not to the entire church, but that conservative faction that is "ok" with gay couples worshipping with them, but not truly embracing them. Thus my reference to DADT. The gay couples in this congregation are being loved conditionally. As long as they "keep their place" and keep quiet about who they really are, then it seems ok to "allow" them to attend church, and allow them to support the church financially. It seems that the conservative faction is embarassed that a church pictorial would include gay couples. It seems like they are saying that they don't want anyone to know their church includes gay and lesbian families.
I commend the pastor. I agree that this is an imperfect resolution of the problem though. I also agree that there is much more going on here than just a question of whether lgbt people should be welcome in this church.
Please forgive the personal story, but when Jonathan and I were first together and my Grandmother was still alive, and had just been relocated closer to my parents, a 'family' photo was arranged during the Holiday's. Both of us were invited to the 'shoot'. However, when we got there, it became apparent that Jonathan was not going to stand beside me and was not going to be 'in the picture'. I was in shock. He was in shock. And rather than create a scene, we looked at each other in a daze, and I stood there and let the photo be taken- and then couldn't get out of there fast enough.
I was so angry afterwards, with myself, for not standing up for my man right then and there and the situation that arose.
To this day, I do not know who decided that Jonathan would not be part of the picture, though I do suspect that my older brother and his wife may have had something to do with it.
That picture hangs on my parent's wall- I just saw it a few days ago when I went to my nieces wedding. Jonathan is treated like family now- but it's been a decade since that picture incident.
And what did I learn? To deal with things in the moment.
It's still hard for me, but that's what this old dog is learning to do.
Let's not forget: A picture is worth a thousand words.
And like the rukus that was made when the NYTimes started included same-sex couples in the Weddings/Celebrations section of the paper, I have no doubt that, with time, the shutter will click with everyone included in this matter concerning Broadway B.
It's not a matter of if, but when.