True to Your Word

Faithful Non-Monogamy in Quaker Vows

In the presence of God and these our friends, I take thee to be my spouse, promising with divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful partner so long as we both shall live.

My wedding took place in a beautiful outdoor location on a day when the weather could not have been more comfortable. The venue met all our needs, and both families were thrilled with the setting. It was also five miles from my second partner’s house. My now-wife knew when she reached for my hands to exchange vows that I have another longtime partner. We were also in agreement that our use of the traditional Quaker wedding vows was honest and true. We did not feel that our relationship configuration was in contradiction to the core of the traditional Quaker vows, and we still feel that way years later. It took a minor shift in understanding for our lived values to align with those inked on our wedding certificate. I offer this as an invitation to examine your perceptions of what faithfulness actually asks of us, rather than what is merely assumed to be faithful.

The vows on our wedding certificate from the late 2010s are the same vows that countless other couples have on their certificates going back to almost the very first days of Quakerism. Those vows hew closely to the following ones London Yearly Meeting laid out in a minute in 1675:

Friends, in the fear of the Lord, and before this assembly, I take my friend [name] to be my [spouse], promising, through divine assistance, to be unto [them] a loving and faithful [spouse], until it shall please the Lord by death to separate us.

In the 350 years since, the flourishes on Quaker wedding vows have evolved a little bit, but the core sentiment remains the same. It does not feel like a stretch to suggest that this Quaker statement includes space for polyamory and ethical non-monogamy without bending and twisting around to create a moral pretzel. Quaker faithfulness in marriage encompasses open relationships. Full stop.

When the Friends in London Yearly Meeting wrote their initial marriage minute, they were well aware of the form of a church wedding. The Sarum Rite—used in Salisbury Cathedral and across southern England—was already hundreds of years old. Only the vows in the Sarum Rite were in English; the rest of the service would have been conducted in Latin. The phrase “all others forsake” lands near the end of the first part of the Sarum Rite vows, then appears again in the original 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer. When Friends dropped that phrase from their vows, they were mindful of the culture of their day. These early Friends were also dedicated to the words of Matthew 5:37: a yes is a yes, needing no further assurances that an action would be followed through. (In point of fact, many of our modern Quaker practices are rooted in that verse; it’s pivotal for Friends.)

With that understanding, I posit that the intent behind the word faithful in Quaker wedding vows is a simple one: we are promising to be honest about who and how we are, and to live that personal truth. Even a quick glance at a dictionary affirms this take: faithful entered the English language in the fourteenth century, meaning “steadfast in affection or allegiance” or even “true, honest, trustworthy.” It may also be worth noting that even the earlier, non-Quaker wedding vows used the phrase “all others forsake” because the word faithful did not mean “don’t kiss anyone else, please.” Being faithful means so much more than merely monogamy.

It is socially implied that monogamy is the only acceptable relationship configuration, but that is not a universal truth. Monogamy is just the most popular relationship style. Many relationships, both within the Religious Society of Friends and within the wider world, are at their best when they are something other than one-to-one. Similarly, many Friends are at their best in open, honest, joyful love with more than one person. Accepting that as true, my own wedding vows were not a lie or even a convenient omission. My now-wife knew on that day who she was entering into a future with, and she was joyfully consenting to our life, too.

This is not an apologetic on the nature of cheating, which is understood to be engaging in a relationship that your partner has not consented to. This is not an attempt to erase the pain of Friends who have endured cheating partners. Ethical non-monogamy at its core is about communication and consent. Rules, guidelines, and vows are written together. Open, honest, joyful consent is offered by all parties. Ethical non-monogamy is a way to live, not a quick distraction. (And to be quite frank, a good 50 percent of your time in a non-monogamous relationship is devoted to basic communication and digging into your feelings. It’s not all hot dates and romantic evenings together.)

Rather, this article is an attempt to formally name a concept that has been quietly living within the Religious Society of Friends for many years. This is not the first mention of non-monogamous relationships within Friends Journal, nor is it the first to cast a positive or neutral light on the topic. My favorite mention is in the April 1, 1973 issue when Pendle Hill staffer and marriage counselor Bob Blood gently asks, “In these days of ‘open marriage’ it is important to explore the couple’s attitudes toward relationships with persons outside of marriage. How much exclusiveness does each expect of the other?”

There are Friends all over who are purposefully in ethically non-monogamous marriages. Each of these relationships is as unique as a snowflake, existing for a specific reason. There are openly poly Friends such as Kody Gabriel Hersh who wrote about their testimony of sexuality in the May 2016 issue of Friends Journal. There are deeply closeted Friends who are known to only their partners. There are Friends in my position: people whose relationships are no great secret but who don’t feel it’s the business of prospective employers in at-will states. If you have been to a Friends General Conference Gathering in the twenty-first century, you have likely met one of the many married, polyamorous Quakers. We are active in our monthly and yearly meetings. We serve on boards and offer our gifts as Spirit requests.

It does not feel like a stretch to suggest that this Quaker vows statement includes space for polyamory and ethical non-monogamy without bending and twisting around to create a moral pretzel. Quaker faithfulness in marriage encompasses open relationships. Full stop.

I imagine, dear reader, that it is tempting to deflect any discomfort that is arising by probing the life of the author here. Are my relationships perfect? Absolutely not. Have I gone to sleep in tears in the past month because communication with those closest to my heart is the hardest? Yes. But similarly, I wake up every day grateful to be loved by two very darling people, and I am grateful that I have the chance to honestly love them back. Just because a relationship requires work does not mean it is a failed concept. The divorce rate is a compelling argument against marriage at all, if we are mining that vein.

Perhaps it is tempting to suggest that this feels like a justification for people to flit from relationship to relationship like a butterfly in a flower garden rather than doing the hard work of marriage, and to question whether the people consenting to those encounters are wrong for engaging in a relationship that meets their needs and is no secret to all parties involved. People engaged in multiple committed partnerships end up doing the hard work of marriage multiple times.

My own relationships are nearly 10 years and 25 years old, respectively. There is a lot of work, care, and love that goes into sustaining a relationship for 25 years, especially if that relationship has grown up with you.

It’s a necessary and loving act to shift our understanding of “faithful” to “true to your word” rather than “monogamous.” This shift makes faithfulness a deeper and broader set of actions, which seems aligned with the Quaker view of marriages as holistic experiences. A faithful partner is one who keeps their word, be it as routine as taking out the trash without reminders or as big as only flirting with someone new after it’s been discussed at home. Quietly carving out space for ethically non-monogamous marriages harms no one, nor does it force any marriage to be open. Rather, this small mental shift embraces more of the joyful diversity found within the Religious Society of Friends.