The Episcopal bishop in Western Washington, in sharp disagreement with Catholic prelates, believes that same-sex marriage is “a conservative proposal” that should be adopted “not only in our society but in our church.”
“It seems to me we have held our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in a Catch-22,” the Rt. Rev. Greg Rickel, Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of Olympia, argues in a blog post published without fanfare to the diocesan website….
Read it all and take the time to read the bishop’s blog post as well.
There will never be same sex marriage. They can call it that but they can’t change what it is–a commitment ordained by God between a man and a woman.
Same sex “marriage?” Hah! Not a chance!
If they’re stupid enough to pass this desecration of marriage, then TEC deserves what will happen to them……..and it won’t be good!
[blockquote]”Christianity has held, when considering relationships of all sorts, but especially in relation to two people in marriage, fidelity to be our value. Fidelity is the value in most all our sacraments and also in our life as Christians.”- Bishop Greg Rickel[/blockquote]
I don’t believe I have read this new catch-word “Fidelity” much in the ssm debate. Might I suggest to the bishop that he pay more attention to his fidelity to the Apostolic Faith.
I know that this is all well-worn territory, but is the Bishop suggesting that the overwhelming majority of same-sex marriages are going to be entered into with the fixed aspiration of ‘forsaking all others’?
Or is he implicitly prepared to have marriage redefined at that point as well, so as to include polygamous marriages down the track?
Part of the issue here is not simply that marriage simply is between a man and a woman (although that’s pretty darn critical) it is that it has also built in a requirement for sexual exclusivity between the husband and wife. While it is not the case that *no* homosexuals seek that kind of relationship, it does seem that most operate their relationships on a more open basis.
If same sex marriage is legalised more broadly, I think the next step will be the argument, “by recognising same sex marriage, any intrinsic connection between sexual exclusivity and marriage was removed from our common understanding of marriage. Marriage is what is common to heterosexual and homosexual pairings.”
It’ll be made either by a judge (as per what happened with the overturning of Prop 8 and two genders as basic to traditional definitions of marriage) or by people campaigning for legislation. Once (if it gets up) same sex marriage is in the bag, then the drip-drip stories in the media about open and polygamous marriages will be moved front and centre as the next human right to be legally recognised.
In the PCUSA, they got rid of both the word “fidelity” and the word “chastity.” And they wonder why some folks are upset.
5, then there is this:
[blockquote] The American Psychological Association (APA) has stated, ‘some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime’. The APA also says that ‘for some the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span…’
A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health similarly states, ‘For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time’ [/blockquote]
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/unstable_behaviour
So do they add to the vows: and for so long as my orientation doesn’t change.
And of course this still leaves out the bisexuals who will be forced to deny their orientation by being limited to only one partner.
Says a bishop in a “church” that gave a pointy hat and hooked stick to twice-divorced and thrice-married Barry “Third Time’s The Charm” Beisner.
And how does all of this mesh with that pesky TEC constitution? (which never seems to bother anyone, anyway.)
TEC will do what it feels like – it’s what it does best. Since the Bible no longer has the authority to prescribe right action and belief for the Episcopalian, there is no holding back TEC. It is fundamentally a problem of authority – “each man did as he saw fit” (Judges 17:6).
I think it’s hard to understand from this what exactly Bishop Rickel thinks might happen in Indianapolis. It does seem to me more likely than not that the SCLM draft for a blessings ceremony will be approved for Trial Use, or as an addition to the BOS, and that there will be repeated the assurance of “generous pastoral response” for its expanded though not carefully defined use, with the permission of the diocesan, in states where Civil Unions or Same-Sex Marriage is a matter of law. That’s something of a steamroller I’m afraid. Some of us there will have something to say as witness, but the vote won’t be close.
I’m not clear at all that there will be a successful effort to amend the marriage canon, which explictly describes an understanding that marriage is intended to be a life-long covenant between a man and a woman. And in any event it would not be possible at Indianapolis to amend, alter, discard, or replace the service of Holy Matrimony in the BCP or its associated rubrics. Prayer Book revision requires majority vote in both houses of Convention in successive Conventions.
Bruce Robison
This is the biggest liberal ploy of all time. We will get same sex blessings approved at Indianapolis and then the liberals will tell us they held the line against same sex marriage because they heard the voice of the orthodox, and we should feel good. IMHO this is being orchestrated by the left.
To refresh our memories, the canon in question, regarding requirements for those to be married in this Church:
I.18.2.b
That both parties understand that matrimony is the physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman, entered into within the community of faith, by mutual consent of heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it be lifelong.”
Bruce Robison
12, they will simply ignore the Canons and BCP and continue to lie out of both sides of their mouth: 1. That they support homosexual sex and behavior and 2. they are not changing the official teachings of TEC.
It’s totally dishonest of course, but they have bought 10 to 15 years with this lie.
The Church of England should be grateful to TEC. The consequences of the disastrous route down which TEC has headed are becoming plain. CofE thus gets a prophetic insight into where it is also headed if it does not repent from its flirtation with liberalism.