The union of two human beings in mind, body and heart is one of God's greatest gifts. Heterosexual and homosexual people are equally capable of entering into lifelong unions of love, mutual support and fidelity. In the marriage vows of The Book of Common Prayer two people promise to "love, honour, and be faithful to each other for as long as they both shall live".

The prayer book defines marriage as intended for "mutual joy, help and comfort given to one another in prosperity and adversity; and when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture". Contrary to what is often thought, the purpose of the union of two people is not procreation. The true purpose of the union is for love and mutual support.

Children blessing a union may or may not be "God's will" for the couple. It is no secret among Vermont Episcopalians that I believe homosexual persons choosing to live together in a lifelong union are not committing a sin. I believe some persons are born homosexual and are not made/chosen as a result of trauma, rebellion, psychological difficulties or for any other reason.

God creates diversity in human beings - many skin colours, left-handed and right-handed people, tall and short, blue-eyed and brown-eyed, brilliant and average, disabled and able-bodied, sighted and non-sighted, hearing and non-hearing, extroverts and introverts, homosexual and heterosexual.

God also creates within us the urge to seek mates with whom to walk throughout our lives. God's great gift of love and expressing that love cannot and should not be denied to those among us who happen to be homosexual.

The Anglican tradition understands marriage as the lifelong union between a man and a woman. I have no quarrel with that understanding, but suggest the church might consider expanding what we mean or may want to mean by the union of two human beings committed to each other in a lifelong relationship.

The Supreme Court of Vermont in the US directed the state legislature to study the same question. Should not the church do the same? (Three gay couples in Vermont applied for a marriage licence and were refused. The couples sued and the case eventually arrived at the Vermont Supreme Court. The court, last December, issued a ruling that all gay couples are entitled to all benefits which flow from marriage).

The court further directed the Vermont legislature to define the nature of the relationship and to work out how equal rights can be implemented for gay and lesbian couples living in committed, lifelong relationships.

The legislature is considering a Marriage Act and a Domestic Partnership Act as the vehicles to which all the rights and benefits flowing from marriage between a man and a woman will be allowed to all Vermont's gay and lesbian couples.

IN COMING to its decision, the legislature twice held open hearings before a judiciary committee. Some 3,000 people attended those hearings. The judiciary committee later requested several Vermont religious leaders to appear to give testimony, among them Bishop Kenneth Angell, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese, and myself.

Both bishops issued pastoral letters to their dioceses, myself in favour and Bishop Angell against the action of the Supreme Court.

If we appreciate history and precedent, we need not look very far. Not so long ago in our country (the US) slaves could not obtain licences to marry, as their white owners certainly were required to do. Nor would the Anglican Church permit slaves to marry. In essence, slaves were not allowed to marry.

However, slaves committed to one another liturgically celebrated their relationship by "jumping the broom" at a ceremony in the slave quarters. It is repugnant to note that the expression of love within the union was considered beneficial rather than sinful because the birth of children was lucrative for the slave owner. The unions were tacitly recognised by the slave owners, though not by the state or church.

It was not until after the Emancipation Proclamation that African Americans were permitted to form unions like other US citizens. It is time for Christians to issue our emancipation proclamation for our homosexual sisters and brothers. We must emancipate them from the Catch 22 which traps Christians who are homosexual. The catch is that even though they love the Lord, and each other, at this time they cannot receive God's blessing from their church.

The role the priest plays in the union of two people is conveying God's blessing on the union. People come to the church to have their union blessed, the priest does not "marry" the couple. One might say the priest prompts the marriage vows as they are spoken by the couple, but a priest is not necessary for the vows. The priest is necessary to convey God's blessing on the union.

Every Christian couple who love each other, and are committed to living together for as long as they both shall live, need God's blessing and also need their commitment to be publicly affirmed and supported by the Christian community. Episcopalians need a priest to convey God's blessing and need their commitment affirmed within a liturgical context as outlined in The Book of Common Prayer.

I realise that I repeat myself, but I cannot say it often enough: God's great gift of love and the expression of that love cannot and should not be denied to those among us who happen to be homosexual. Let the church be the first to issue an emancipation proclamation.

When two people promise to "love, honour, and be faithful to each other for as long as they both shall live" let us also love, honour and be faithful to them.