"Committed monogamous relationship."

I'm going to go and be "one of those people." You know, the kind of person that spouts a bunch of "problems with the Church" and expects someone else to go solve them.

Okay, so you know me a little bit better than that. I might go spouting, but it is unlikely that I won't at least give you a solution or even try to solve it myself. So here it goes.

I have two problems with the Church. When I say "the Church," I mean either the ELCA as a whole or specifically the churches/congregations I have encountered in my (short) life. Also, these two problems are almost entirely unrelated. So there's that. I'll throw one out today and I'll leave the other one for another day.

The first one applies to the entire ELCA's policy on homosexual pastors, deacons, etc.

I know, you freaked out a little bit right? Chill. In the ELCA, they are trying really hard to be progressive and include as many people as possible into ministry (most likely because the Church is dying, but I'd like to think it is for more noble reasons). One of the policies for the "Visions and Expectations" of clergymen and women is that homosexuals are able to live together and are recognized as a family is they are in a committed monogamous relationship. I paraphrased the first part but "committed monogamous relationship" is a quote. Cool! Yay! Human rights!

Heterosexual couples are not to live with one another unless they are married.

Married.

Wait a second- why did the wording change? Why can't heterosexual couples be in "committed monogamous relationships" and live together? Well, you might think, because heterosexual couples are actually ABLE to be married, so they should  be in order to live with each other. But is this always the case? And in states were homosexual unions are legal, does the rule change? I'll give you a few examples:

My boyfriend and I are much too young (in our eyes) to be married at this point. Also, we have zero amounts of money to hold a wedding. Yet, when we move to South Carolina and I start seminary, we are unable to live in the family apartments. I have to live in a dorm and he will find a house or apartment to live in by himself. We will spend twice as much on housing and I will go into twice as much debt because we are not married. Even if we were engaged, we would not be permitted to live together, even though we have been in a "committed monogamous relationship" for four years.

A man and woman are so much in love and have committed to one another in their own way. They are unable to be married because the woman is a widow and if she remarries, her son with not be able to claim the money from his father's death. They are depending on that money for the son to go to college. The man and woman have been in a "committed monogamous relationship" for eight years. They would not be permitted to live together.

I understand what the ELCA is trying to do and I am proud of them for it. However, while they are inclusive to homosexuals, they must also realize that they are behind the times in other aspects of "untraditional marriage and relationships."

Beside the point that "it's not fair," which I understand is a pretty lame argument on any front, I don't think Jesus would have cared. Honestly. If we can go to sleep and night telling ourselves that love is love and what happens behind the closed doors of homosexuals is none of society's business, then why can't we say the same for heterosexuals? I'm a fan of tradition. But sometimes tradition just isn't how things work out. Sometimes you have to be a little progressive. After all, that's pretty much what Jesus preached the entire time He was on this earth. If we aren't moving forward we are moving back.

I am a twenty-one year old heterosexual female. I am in a committed monogamous relationship, and I should be allowed to live with my partner without being married. Darn it.