On Thursday, February 23, the Maryland General Assembly voted 25-22 in favor of Senate Bill 241, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which is summarized as: “Altering a provision of law to establish that only a marriage between two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying is valid in the State; prohibiting an official of a religious institution or body authorized to solemnize marriages from being required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the constitutional right to free exercise of religion; etc.” The law is scheduled to go into effect Jan.1, 2013.
The Episcopal Church acts as an agent of the state when its clergy officiate at marriages. The Church also has its own theology and canons, or laws, regarding what Christian marriage is. Our Episcopal Church governing body, the triennial General Convention, passed Resolution C056 at its last meeting in 2009, allowing bishops to provide “generous pastoral response” to members in dioceses where the civil authority has legalized same-gender marriage. The resolution also called for the collection and development of theological and liturgical resources for blessing same-gender unions for review by the next General Convention in 2012….
Guess they might not have gotten as many votes if it was called the “Dismantling of Traditional Marriage Act.”
Since Bp. Suttons “permission” violates the Constituion and Canons of the Episcopal Church, when can we expect charges to be brought by the Henderson Inquisitors?
[blockquote] we expect such relationships will be 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. [/blockquote]
Then I guess they have not actually looked at the history of GLBT relationships. My wife and I were in Europe for a while (supporting the US Military when a large percentage of it was in Europe), and became friends with a gay couple (one of them worked with my wife). Really nice guys, who had been in a formalized relationship for a long time. We were one of the few heterosexual people invited to their 15th anniversary party. Lots of nice folks there, but the party was anything but monogamous, and there were several rooms in their house that were reserved for activities that my wife and I were not privy to, though I expect they would not have objected to our joining in… These people that pontificate about GLBT relationships probably do not actually know anything about the lifestyle, and would be horrified if they were exposed to how they actually view ‘marriage’.
As indicated above, we actually have a marriage canon. This episcopal declaration violates it.
[blockquote]”For those who have discerned that such committed relationships have met the Church’s standards of holy matrimony, this bill will permit them to do so, and I am giving them my consent to perform these marriages.”[/blockquote]
Forget the liturgies for ssb’s folks. +Maryland needs litugues for ssm’s. Full steam ahead!
As a denizen of the Diocese of Maryland, I’m inclined not to take this too seriously. Bishop Sutton is a nice guy, but a bit shallow, a tad shy of brilliant, and not particularly cautious about how he says things the first time around. Although only installed for a few years, he by now has a pretty solid track record of saying stuff and then having to modify it once he’s made aware of having inadvertently insulted somebody or otherwise made the diocese look foolish.
He is probably blissfully unaware that what he is indicating herein is a violation of canons and would be only too ready to correct the record should the error be brought to his attention. The question is, of course, whether anybody thinks it worth pointing out. For myself, I’m not all that sure I care anymore. And I understand what a shame it is to find myself saying that.
I really do find it hard to believe that a bishop would not be aware that a granting of permission by him was in violation of his church’s marriage canon. More likely in the current climate that he just didn’t care that it violated the marriage canon.
But whatever his thoughts, in the end +Sutton is responsible before God for what he does, and that is contained in one half-sentence: “I am giving them my consent to perform these marriages.”
“MichaelA” – Fair enough. I’m just reporting my suspicions given +Sutton’s track record for verbal carelessness. It may well be that he knows full well the implications of what he is saying – but that would mark a step change in self-awareness for the man, as far as I can tell.
+Sutton was elected several year ago virtually by acclamation based on being smooth, good-looking, well-spoken, and blacker than the ace of spades. This at a time when the Maryland Convention was just getting into the spirit of its “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (the most prominent thing on the diocesan website at the moment), through which we are all going to lament the sins of our ancestors (slavery and racism) without ever actually sharing anything in common with them. Remember, like much of TEC, DioMD (at least its convention) is run primarily by a gaggle of aging hipsters increasingly nostalgic for the days when cheering the Civil Rights Movement from the sidelines was the principal way of telling Daddy he was all wet. Since indulging in homosexual sodomy is [i]exactly[/i] he same thing as being black… well, ‘nuf said.
My take on +Sutton is that he’s a smooth politician quite versed at telling whoever he happens to be talking to what they want to hear. He sincerely means it at the time, has, of course, absolutely no follow-through, and is continually surprised that saying what one group wants to hear ticks off some other group. He sincerely believes the Gospel of Salvation – having led an altar call at a recent Youth gathering – and indicates somewhat of a struggle with the obvious condemnations of the “gay lifestyle” in scripture. But, well, gosh-darn it, God really can’t have meant to say [i]that[/i], so he convinces himself to let it slide, tells the Lefties at the Diocesan Center what they want to hear, and then gets all surprised – and honestly is surprised – when it turns out that saying that stuff has actual consequences. In other words, he’s a pretty typical TEC bishop – too dim to actually defend the Faith and too vapid to really be capable of heresy.
I don’t know what God does with people like that. He’s a nice guy and I’d hate to think his eternal fate a bad one. He’s also a bishop and therefore accountable whether he realizes it or not. Either way, I don’t envy the man. And I do wish him well, whatever I think of his silly politics and however serious I think his errors of judgment.