When the Rev. Mary Anne Osborne and the Rev. Joanne Neel-Richard get married Dec. 31 at their Guilford home, they will be surrounded by family and friends, including several other Episcopal priests.
In the church’s view, a couple marries each other by reciting vows. But an agent of the state ”” either a clergy person, justice of the peace or other licensed official ”” must sign the marriage license for the union to be legal in the eyes of the state.
Osborne and Neel-Richard plan to ask one of the priests in attendance to sign the license and expect he or she will say yes, even though the national Episcopal Church and Connecticut Bishop Andrew D. Smith do not permit priests to officiate at same-sex weddings, which the state Supreme Court declared legal on Oct. 10.
It’s no surprise that the liberal New Haven Register would publish a fluff piece like this one that’s totally biased in favor of the normalization of homosexual behavior. There isn’t even any attempt whatsoever to present an opposing viewpoint. But what would you expect in New Haven?
This article even attempts to portray Bishop Andrew Smith as a moderate and as someone who is careful to uphold the national church canons, despite pressure from gay clergy and others to approve same sex marriages (SSMs). What a joke! +Andrew Smith, who has so blatantly harassed and persecuted conservative clergy and who has acted so shamelessly and highhandedly in his strident attempt to squash all opposition from “the CT Six” churches, is about as moderate in his religious politics as Ted Kennedy is in secular politics. This almost laughable report says far more about the severe leftward tilt of the newspaper than it does about +Smith of TEC.
David Handy+
New Haven resident for 3 years while in seminary at Yale in the 1980s
It is a sorry state of affairs when the clergy of the Church are looking for and longing for the state to define its theology.
Here’s a thought: If every state in the union recognized gay ‘marriage’ the question for the Church will still remain: What does God want? There’s a lot here about what these individuals want. There seems to be an implication that God (naturally) wants what we want and what God wants most of all is for us to be happy. The Church is portrayed as only being interested in keeping some people from being happy. What is absent in this article (and absent from the conversation, in general as I have observed over the years) is any real discernment of God’s will or what constitutes faithfulness. THIS is what lies the heart of the spiritual dilemma the Church if facing. Instead people have decided and voted. Instead of seeking the face of God we have settled for the exercise of power to get what we want. (Both sides do this with vigor, unfortunately) We should be on our knees a lot more and pontificating a lot less.
#2 If every state in the union recognized gay ‘marriage’ the question for the Church will still remain: What does God want? There’s a lot here about what these individuals want. There seems to be an implication that God (naturally) wants what we want and what God wants most of all is for us to be happy.
The pursuit of happiness is one of the principle aims of the state and in turn one of the goals for the insitution of civil marriage. I think you are quite right in observing that happiness is not the highest principle for spiritual and religious discernment.
With special reference to the case at hand in Connecticut, perhaps the best course of action for the church (as well as for the state) is to draw a clear line between civil marriage and sacramental marriage. Let the agencies of the state make decisions about what creates the greatest measure of happiness for its citizens. Civil marriage ought to be witnessed by agents of the state, and then in turn, the church should step back from being one of the agents of the state when it comes to witnessing civil marriage contracts. The church may then direct its clergy not to sign any marriage liscenses–without regard to the gender of the couple. That is the role of clerks of courts, judges and other magistrates appointed by the various states.
The church may then enact a blessing of sacramental marriage as it rightfully chooses to do within the counsels of its decision-making process, and base such decisions on the discernment of God’s will. Whether this or that state in the civil arena determines it is just to extend the civil protections of civil marriage to its gay and lesbian citizens has no impact on what churches elect to do.
[blockquote] Instead of seeking the face of God we have settled for the exercise of power to get what we want. (Both sides do this with vigor, unfortunately) We should be on our knees a lot more and pontificating a lot less. [/blockquote]
Amen!
Precisely #3, precisely. It is a relief to hear someone else say what I have been advocating – tiresomely, I daresay. But this is the only rational solution. The law has already distinguished between the function and name of the civil union in contrast to the sacramental union. The ruling in Loving vs. Virginia (do I have that right?) has already been superseded.
Incidentally, the local newspaper in here in Augusta has just reported that the ssm battle is ramping up here in Maine. Because the paper is exceedingly left, wing, most of the report was a description of all the support pouring in from religious groups favoring ssm. For some reason, it failed to notice that the Roman Catholic Bishop in Portland and the President of the ACA House of Bishops has published letters refusing to sanction ssm. These letter were mailed to the papers, but I guess they didn’t read them becuse they were never released as news items. Larry
#3 and #5… I agree with you guys wholeheartedly.
Larry in some of his other posts has emphasized the importance of us developing distinctively American solutions to problems we face (while remaining part of the broader AC and Church Universal). I agree.
Part of the genius of the American experiment was the idea of sharply separating church and state. This has gotten a bad rap amongst conservative Christians in the last 30 years, but it’s actually hugely beneficial to us. It gives us total protection to witness to Christ with ZERO interference from the state. Conversely, the more we insist on an ENTANGLEMENT of the function of priest and magistrate, the more we put ourselves at the risk of the government having the right to tell us that our ecclesial practice violates this or that popular will regarding “discrimination”.
Our beloved C.S. Lewis argued for this sharp separation as well. It’s in MERE CHRISTIANITY if I recall.
# 5 and # 6 The BCP also distinguishes civil marriage from religious marriage. Turn to page 433. The order of service for Blessing a Civil Marriage gives options for including a Eucharist or not as well as use of collects and lessons from the religious marriage rite. You’ve got the same progression of “I do’s” and options for blessing rings. The principle difference is that a civil authority signs the civil documents as a witness rather than the priest.
I would be happy to support a civil redefinition of marriage to include unions between any and all combos of people. I am opposed to the redefinition of marriage to include only a particular minority sexual orientation which some personally favor, but not for certain other minority sexual orientations of which they or other members of society may personally disapprove.
As long as the civil definition of marriage were opened up to include mother/daughter, grandaughter/grandfather, friend/friend, multiple sexual partnerships, gay/straight, celibate/noncelibate, life-challenged/life-advantaged, or whatever — so long as mutual, affirming, and consensual, I’m just cool with it.
Sarah, don’t forget species.
Such civil “unions” are simply another name for what the law simply calls partnerships. One may enter into a partnership of any sort so that homosexuals could have entered in to partnerships and gotten all the “rights” that they have been hot for, but they wanted “marriage” so they required a special name for themselves. But a partnership is still what it is, call it what you will. The one thing one does NOT want to do, is call this civil partnership “marriage,” for this latter word now is attached to the sacramental union. If the courts will only recognize that the disconnection has already taken place, the sooner they will realize that they cannot interfere with marriage, now properly so-called. For myself, I would dearly love to see the homosexuals hoist by their own petard.
#7. I was unaware that such existed in the BCP. In any case, our present situation is rather different from that supposed by the BCP. Larry