Effective on Pentecost, June 12, 2011, clergy in the Diocese of San Joaquin may perform blessings of same gender civil marriages, domestic partnerships, and relationships which are lifelong committed relationships characterized by “fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.” Said relationships shall be called “Sacred Unions” for purposes of the blessing and recognition of these relationships. A liturgy authorized for use within the Diocese will be published separately.
It must also be recognized that the Canons of the Church currently limit marriages to opposite sex couples, as does California law. Accordingly, until such time as both the Canons and state law permit the solemnization of the marriage of a same gender couple, and specific authorization of the bishop is given, no priest of this Diocese shall
attempt to solemnize a marriage between two persons of the same gender.
Read it all and you may find more links there.
And just so no one feels *compelled* to do anything, any couple of anything is still 100% free to merely shack up in any type of relationship they so desire in this here great diosese, whether it is in
“fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.â€
…….Or not! My we have advanced the cause of human dignity, haven’t we.
The article of course is referring to the Potemkin “Diocese of San Joaquin”.
When reading some Episcopal documents such as here one does not know whether to cry or laugh.
If my friend or neighbor, etc. consulted me on how to handle an affair he was having behind his wife’s back, I wouldn’t consider it a “generous pastoral response necessary to meet their needs as members of the Church” to offer my home for him to carry on his adulterous liaison. One doesn’t help one’s true friends embrace a sinful life. Instead, one tries to lead a friend from engaging in sinful acts.
“The article of course is referring to the Potemkin “Diocese of San Joaquinâ€.”
Thanks for the clarification. Somehow I couldn’t see ACNA allowing this to happen.
How many parishes does this’rump’ diocese have 2,3?
Just something I noticed while reading the statement. The refer to “same gender” couples, and an “opposite sex” couples. Never “same sex” or “opposite gender”. Interesting. Nevermind the incorrect usage of “gender”, it is almost as if they don’t dare say “same-sex”.
I’m not sure how many parishes they now claim to have, but the last I heard, it was seven, and I believe the total active membership is somewhere in the neighborhood of 450 people.
No theology presented to support their authorization of course. The only justification is the resolution of the general Convention. That makes it pretty easy to recognize this as false teaching from “clueless” teachers.
Don’t sneeze, cennydd. The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village ]Potemkin diocese[/url] will blow down.
So I ask again, how,given the First, can a church create a civil marriage? This should be nonsense. Larry
Larry,
There is no violation of the First Amendment because the church does not create the marriage. Any marriage, in order to be recognized by the State, must meet the requirements of the State. The Church simply blesses it.
And no Church is under any obligation to bless or even recognize such marriages. But of course, same sex ‘marriage’ proponents are demanding Church marriage rites, aren’t they?
8. Right now, robroy, the Potemkin Diocese of San Joaquin is $1m in hock to 815, and they have no way…..or any intention…..of paying back that [b]loan.[/b]
Notice how the “union” is optional for laymen (PECUSA is a “right to cohabit” state, union membership is not required) but it will certainly be mandatory for clergy to do it if asked. In one act it will get rid of backward clergy and pacify the people who want it to be there and yet probably won’t want it for themselves! I don’t think even the artful Thomas Cranmer could have invented such an ambiguity.