In many jurisdictions, including many of the United States, civil authorities have adopted a definition of marriage that explicitly rejects the age-old requirement of male-female pairing. In a few short years or even months, it is very likely that this new definition will become the law of the land, and in all jurisdictions the rights, privileges, and duties of marriage will be granted to men in partnership with men, and women with women.
As Christian ministers we must bear clear witness. This is a perilous time. Divorce and co-Âhabitation have weakened marriage. We have been too complacent in our responses to these trends. Now marriage is being fundamentally redefined, and we are Âbeing tested yet again. If we fail to take clear action, we risk falsifying God’s Word.
The new definition of marriage no longer coincides with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and woman. Our biblical faith is committed to upholding, celebrating, and furthering this understanding, which is stated many times within the Scriptures and has been repeatedly restated in our wedding ceremonies, church laws, and doctrinal standards for centuries. To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.
Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles Âarticulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.
Please join us in this pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage by adding your name.
I have not been so heartened by an action by Episcopal clergy in years.
I am so so so happy and proud to see this.
Oh dear.
I see that the revisionist activists have discovered The Marriage Pledge and are quite quite irked.
; > )
Thank you, Sarah.
I see a comment at SF wondering about a lay pledge. That could be a good idea, but I also note that the First Things site shows laity signing.
I disagree. The proposal to require a civil declaration of the civil state of marriage and decline to sign the civil marriage license is a capitulation to secularism. It is the pattern in anti-clerical and secular states influenced by the French Revolution – France, Mexico, and others. Historically the church registered marriages, and the state was not involved. In England one can be married by banns with no state involvement. Until the easrly 19th century questions of personal status – marriage and probate – were settled in the church courts. In colonial English America the royal governors exercised the legal ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the crown and issued marriage licenses because there was no American bishop to do so. One of the reasons for the opposition to the mid-18th century proposals for a bishop in America was the fear that he would bring with him the system of ecclesiastical courts and take away from the governors the lucrative marriage and probate business. The “free exercise” clause of the US Constitution offers clergy legal protection from requirements to officiate at “marriages” that conflict with conscience and the plain words of Holy Scripture. There will be social and political pressure from the society and within the church, but those of us who take seriously our ordination vows to conform to the teaching of Holy Scripture are used to that. In defiance of the state attempt to dumb down the definition of marriage I propose to continue to officiate at Christian marriages and to exercise my right as a priest of God’s church to do so.
The State will enact the will of the people. Even if that “people” is a numerical minority that craftily exercises the levers of power to get what it wants.
The Church must stop being an agent of the State in administering the Sacraments of the Church and then recording such for the State. This has been our parish policy for over a year now.
In our State of Mississippi, same sex marriage is not [yet] legal or imposed. However, one county did issue a marriage license to a man and a “woman”, the “woman” having recently been medically created from a man. In our Marriage Policy manual we interpret man and woman as initially created by God; no medical hocus-pocus will be recognized.
These are dangerous times, to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves is imperative.
Was this timed to come out during Pope Francis’ synod on marriage? In any case, it seems the timing is good, whether intentional or not!
I haven’t had the chance to read much about the marriage synod, nor yet read this in full at First Things… but I did just come across links to the talks by Rick Warren and Russell Moore at the Vatican synod.
Warren:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/november/pope-francis-rick-warren-russell-moore-n-t-wright-marriage.html?&visit_source=twitter
Moore:
http://erlc.com/ecommerce-files/Vatican-Address.pdf
I’m also anxious to read the talks by Abp, Okoh of Nigeria, and NT Wright.
Apb Okoh’s address:
http://locusthoney.blogspot.com/2014/11/archbishop-okohs-address-to-humanum.html
NT Wright’s address:
http://locusthoney.blogspot.com/2014/11/nt-wrights-address-to-humanum-colloquium.html
RE: “Historically the church registered marriages, and the state was not involved.”
Sure — but now the state presumes to define “marriage.”
RE: “I propose to continue to officiate at Christian marriages and to exercise my right as a priest of God’s church to do so.”
And that’s what Drs. Radner and Seitz will do as well — without the government marriage contract. The government marriage contract is not the sine qua non of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
I can see some reasonable arguments against a priest’s signing the Marriage Pledge for sure. It won’t be for everyone. But boy — 10 years from now a whole lot of clergy will have signed it or something equivalent.
Thanks for posting this, Kendall. I just signed the pledge.
Hats off to Ephraim Radner and Christopher Seitz. Well done!
David Handy+
“But boy—10 years from now a whole lot of clergy will have signed it or something equivalent. ”
And diocesan canons will have to change to keep pace. In our diocese a requirement to marry a couple is that they have a valid State Marriage License. As I referenced above, transgender fiddling with nature can give a same sex couple a marriage license in Mississippi now.
I believe Churches also have to look at the whole 501c3 filing with the IRS. It is not required in order to operate as a Church with Federal tax free status [with tax deductible giving to the Church]. Other church ministries that look like non-profit businesses probably do still need it, but for the central body of Christ worshiping and proclaiming the Word, why are we seeking permission from the State?
Again, clever as serpents, innocent as doves needs to be in the Churches tool kit.
I have been arguing for years (usually to a cool reception) that the term “Marriage” should be stricken from the law and replaced with some variation of “civil union.” Those wishing to have their particular domestic circumstances recognized legally, for the purpose of benefits etc., would go and have this done by the appropriate public official. Those wishing to be “married” would then go to their respective place of worship and make arrangements, assuming it is allowed, with their clergy.
It is long since past time for marriage to be divorced from the state. Marriage should be under the sole jurisdiction of the church.
I signed it, but while I don’t have nearly the academic bona fides of the Rev’d Canon Dr. Seitz or the Rev’d Dr. Radner I think they’re a little slow on the uptake here.
[URL=http://drewcollinsplus.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-i-will-no-longer-sign-charleston.html] “Why I Will No Longer Sign Charleston County Marriage Licenses” [/url]
A practical question:
For older people on social security and poor singles with children getting married in the government’s eye’s (what we are calling Civil marriage) comes with a significant cost in the loss of benefits. It would seem that Pastors removing themselves from the system of performing Civil Marriages would create a very welcome opportunity for people to have a Christian marriage without the ensuing loss of benefits. I am not a lawyer so I don’t know the legalities of this. However would people doing this be married by pastors under this pledge ie if they know that the couple has no intention of also getting a civil marriage. Seems to me “conservatives” are taking a very positive, progressive approach to solving this problem.
Paul PA: See my blog post at my previous comment — I thought about doing just that but I cannot do so where I am currently canonically resident.
This strikes me as capitulation and retreat not making a stand. Help me understand why this is laudable in any way at all.
Here is the question. If state civil unions (marriage) are nothing more than a befefit delivery device why should the state even have civil unions in the first place? If any relationship that anyone can think of can be recognized as a state sanction civil union why have it?
As I have so often said same sex marriage does not expand marriage, it ends it. If the state must marry everyone they will ultimately marry no one.
#10 (and all who remain in TEC) If I were a betting man I would bet the ranch that GC WILL change the marriage canons, but not in the way you are suggesting. There is no way the lefties who head up TEC will allow you to marry only, without a marriage license from the state. They will also not allow you to define marriage. Eventually, if not in 2016, then probably in 2019, TEC will require priests to marry same sex couples or be deposed.
I think Br. Michael (15) is right. One of these days someone will win a lawsuit based on equal protection that ends all the “benefits” married people have over single people. As an income tax volunteer last year I learned of some of the complications of married filing jointly – which hurt some married working couples – and married filing separately – which hurt some separated couples. College educated people continue to marry; non-college folks are increasingly living together without marriage – and losing out on the spiritual benefits God offers in Christian marriage. We need some reform of the laws – marriage and tax laws.
OK, I’m missing something here. What does this accomplish? No Catholic priest is required to marry anybody whatsoever that he considers not qualified to receive the sacrament. [And BTW, don’t the 39 Articles expressly state that marriage is NOT a sacrament? But I digress.]
The reason you have to have a civil marriage certificate to be married in the Church is to ensure that 1) you are not engaging in some kind of fraud (for example, you are already married but you didn’t quite mention that to your would-be spouse) and 2) you fully intend to comply with all the legal requirements of marriage.
I seem to recall Matt Kennedy some time ago asserting quite vigorously that he would not marry a couple with a pre-nuptial agreement since that showed a bad intent from the get-go (and I generally agree with him, except for certain special circumstances where a pre-nup might be required for some specific legal reason). So if you marry someone *without* a marriage certificate you are basically giving both of them the world’s greatest pre-nup –namely that they’re not legally married and all and have zero legal obligations to one another. Why on earth would anyone do that?
” So if you marry someone *without* a marriage certificate you are basically giving both of them the world’s greatest pre-nup”
I think you mean “marriage license”. As I noted above, in Mississippi the marriage license as a legal document has already been compromised.
But more fundamentally, we as the Church do not report the administration of Sacraments to the State; baptisms, Eucharistic Sacraments, Confirmations, ordinations.
So, now that the State is not going to conform to the moral imperatives obvious in Holy Scripture, it is time to end the relationship of being an agent of the State where the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is concerned.
For this to work, most Churches are going to have to get very, very serious about pre-marital counseling and investigation of the backgrounds of those seeking the Sacrament. I can tell you in our parish that meeting the Provincial and diocesan canons only means you get to sit down with me. We go through a biblically based discussion of marriage and expectations. If I am not satisfied that the couple before me is ready to the receive the Sacrament, I refer them elsewhere.
We have let “marriage” become an entitlement to benefits and a certain social status. We need to return to the Holy institution it really is.
Yes, I meant marriage license. But I don’t see an answer to my questions. Why would you marry someone who had no intention of entering a legal marriage contract? How would you know they were not already married? (Are you going to marry in the Church someone who has a legal civil marriage to another person? ) Why would this not simply allow them to essentially be in a relationship in which they could legally take all their marbles and walk away from anytime they wished? And what would this accomplish anyway since the state could care less one way or the other?
Also — again, there is mention of the “Sacrament of Marriage.” But the 39 Articles expressly state that marriage is NOT a sacrament but merely “a state of life allowed in the Scriptures.” So theoretically there is no reason the state could not administer it. Or actually that it needs to administered at all except for good order and legal clarity.
Catholics cannot live together on the basis of a civil marriage because the Church teaches that Christians can only live together when they have been joined in Christian marriage which IS a sacrament (although interestingly it is not a sacrament administered by a priest but administered by the couple themselves — consequently in certain circumstances a marriage could be validly contracted without the presence of a priest just as a person could be validly baptized by a layperson).
Again — I see massive pitfalls to a clergyperson marrying a couple who had not entered into a legal marriage and no actual advantage, so I must be missing something.
Say there are two individuals – male and female – in their 70’s whose previous spouses have passed away. They would like to get married. They probably won’t have more children (ok – Abraham and Sarah did and they were older) and they want their assets to pass to the children they already have. They don’t want to subject the other “spouse” to having their assets subject to forced usage for their future medical care. Another example of an issue is that if they have a civil marriage their social security benefits will drop. Given all that goes into late life planning it wouldn’t be hard to come up with a host of other reasons. As usual the pastor would need to meet with them to see if marriage was appropriate but it could make a lot of sense for them to have a Christian Marriage but not a Civil one.
This Marriage Pledge appears to be the height of folly — pushing young people into a “Charles and Camilla” ceremony simply so that a cadre of clergy intellectuals can exercise some fairly obscure protest — it has dreadful pastoral implications. I’m with Catholic Mom and Fr. Tom. I have posted longer objections over on SFIF and on FB.
I read TEC canons to provide that clergy performing marriages must comply with state law, and would suggest a reasonable interpretation of that canon is that officiating clergy must duly sign the marriage license; I would also suggest that the bishop or the disciplinary board may take that interpretation.
How is this news? Gene Robinson proposed this over five years ago…
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/04/gay-episcopal-bishop-says-civil-and-religious-marriage-should-be-separate.html
Paul PA:
Say there is a couple in their 30’s one of whom has a disabled spouse in a nursing home. The disabled spouse will lose the insurance necessary to pay for their care if their spouse divorces them. So the spouse chooses not to legally divorce them notwithstanding they intend to marry someone else. Or the spouse chooses not to divorce them because they wish to maintain legal control over their estate. Or the spouse chooses not to divorce them because they want to be able to continue to legally direct their care (actually, pretty much the entire Terry Schiavo case). So the spouse forgoes a civil divorce and a civil marriage and gets a “church” wedding instead. Why could this not happen? Are you really going to have people who have a civil marriage with spouse A and a church marriage with spouse B ?? Seriously ??
Or my other scenario where a legally married person simply lies about it to their new future “spouse” and gives them some run-around about why they don’t want a civil marriage and will just go with a new-improved “all religious” (hold the marriage license) ceremony? Or how about my other scenario where neither of the potential spouses is legally married to anybody else but one of them has substantial assets they want to protect from the other in case of divorce? (Exactly what a pre-nup does.) So they just skip the legal marriage and head for a clergyperson who has signed this pledge, leaving their “spouse” with zero legal rights?
The implications are simply dizzying.
That the cultural/legal context presupposed by the 1979 Blessing of a Civil Marriage no longer obtains is of course the working premise of the Pledge. Nothing prevents the clergy from using the main rite (p. 423), in lightly edited form if necessary, via the BCP provision of “An Order for Christian Marriage” (p. 435).
The escape velocity casuistry in which people mix and match civil and Christian oaths for selfish ends stands outside the parameters the Pledge itself presupposes.
Still no answer to my questions in #25. And I’m apparently not the only person who thinks this is a half-baked idea whose full ramifications have not been thought through. For this reason there’s no way it’s going to get off the ground. For starters, signatory or no signatory, there will be zero Catholic priests participating.
Or at least they won’t be Catholic priests after they participate — the Vatican does not make policy via online pledges and the whole issue of the relationship of Sacramental to civil marriage has been thought out quite well before this. For example, although civil marriage is not considered “marriage” by the Church, nonetheless Canon law requires that if you are civilly married and then wish to enter a Sacramental marriage with another person (which you are free to do, since the civil marriage is no marriage at all) you must obtain a civil divorce first. In other words, civil marriage (including the legal dissolution of any prior civil marriage) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for entering into Sacramental marriage except in very special circumstances.
Catholic Mom,
The Articles do not deny that marriage is a sacrament; they deny that it is a sacrament of the Gospel (a sacrament “generally necessary for salvation,” as the BCP catechism puts it) of which there are only two: baptism and Holy Communion. This isn’t a distinction that is unique to Anglicanism. Orthodox priest and scholar John Romanides similarly argued that a sharp distinction needs to be made between the two principle sacraments and all others, lest baptism and Communion become devalued.
The Orthodox have never specified how many sacraments there are, though the seven customarily cited are universally recognized. Most Orthodox however believe that there are many other sacraments. That said, Farstrider is correct. Not all sacraments (or Holy Mysteries) are equal and many are rarely performed and or reserved for select persons or groups.
Those other things are called sacramentals.
It cannot be that the 39 Articles were making a distinction between “sacraments necessary for salvation” and “other sacraments” when discussing marriage. [That is, that they were implying that marriage is a sacrament but not a “sacrament necessary for salvation.’] That would make no sense. Marriage, Holy Orders, and Confirmation have NEVER been “necessary for salvation” so it would be unnecessary (and meaningless) to refute that they are. It’s clear that the 39 Articles are simply saying that they are NOT sacraments and I believe that has been the teaching of evangelical Anglicans all along. Clearly the puritans didn’t think marriage was even particularly an ecclesiastic function.
One of the key definitional elements of a sacrament is that *through some action and some intention* the Holy Spirit unfailingly responds by supplying grace to effect some purpose. That is why we typically sing or recite “Veni Creator Spiritus” before certain sacraments are received.
For example:
Sacrament: Baptism
Action: water, words (with intention)
Response of the Holy Spirit: forgiveness of sins, adoption into the Body of Christ
Sacrament: Marriage
Action: Words of mutual lifelong commitment, blessing
Response of the Holy Spirit: grace to be faithful to and caring of one another unto death and to jointly share the burdens of life and of raising children.
You may recall that the disciples, when Jesus told them that marriage was for life, replied: “If this is so, it is better not to marry.” But with God, all things are possible. It is this special grace which is conferred by the sacrament of marriage (and obviously is not conferred by a civil magistrate — but COULD be conferred by the action of the couple themselves.)
It is completely clear that the 39 Articles do not suppose that a special action of the Holy Spirit takes place when a couple exchange vows and are blessed. Marriage is simply “a state of life allowed by the Scriptures.”
BTW, still no answer to my questions.
Perhaps I have been hanging around TEC too long, and have too long a memory. But too often I have seen clergy in effect pick up the Book of Common Prayer, and smash the laity with it, wielding their clerical powers and privileges for some broader, abstract — perhaps nobler — point. I see the same thing proposed here. For instance —
1. In the early 1970s, a local bishop refused to ordain anyone until and unless ordination of women was authorized.
2. Just a few years ago, a number of TEC clergy refused to marry anyone until and unless gay marriages were church-approved. I think one of them succeeded Bishop Gene in New Hampshire.
3. In my own church, clergy prayed every Sunday by name for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the prayers of the people, and then quit abruptly when Obama was elected president in November 2008.
It seems to me if you are ordained in TEC, and pledge to conform to the “doctrine, discipline and worship” of the church, then you should offer the sacraments and rites provided by the Book of Common Prayer and not weaponize the liturgy.
“It seems to me if you are ordained in TEC, and pledge to conform to the “doctrine, discipline and worship†of the church, then you should offer the sacraments and rites provided by the Book of Common Prayer” — makes sense to me.
The critical point in the pledge seems to be this language: “To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.” The proponents would conclude that execution of the marriage license would “intertwine” two separate concepts of marriage. But “Christian marriage” and “civil marriage” have been on different tracts for a long, long time.
Divorce laws have been fairly liberal for decades. Although we have “no fault” divorce today, 40 or 50 years ago divorce was common based on 6 months or 12 months separation — and so forth. BUT divorced folks could not (or could not easily) be remarried in the church. They certainly could be married civilly. So there were two different understandings of marriage and who can get married. (And the distinction still remains. So far as I know, for a TEC clergy to preside at the marriage of a divorced person, he/she still must have the explicit permission of the bishop.)
Hence, divorce laws long ago redefined who can get married. We may not have been happy with that definition, but the church and its clergy did not quit the marriage business, or extract the marriage rite from the prayer book, or refuse to execute marriage licenses. The church married the folks who were eligible for marriage consistent with church teachings, and refused to marry the folks were not eligible. That seemed a sound solution.
Catholic Mom,
RE: “then you should offer the sacraments and rites provided by the Book of Common Prayer . . . “
The sacrament of Holy Matrimony provided by the Book of Common Prayer does not necessitate the clergyman acting as an agent of the state to sign the little government marriage contract.
Seitz and Radner will be offering the sacrament of Holy Matrimony as provided by the Book of Common Prayer.
James W (32) suggests that states may take away from clergy their ability to solemnize marriages. My reading of the wedding announcements in the Sunday New York Times suggests that this is not likely. Many of the marriages reported in that paper are solemnized by “a friend of the bride licensed by the state to officiate.” More likely I think is social pressure in congregations and pressure from bishops. A parallel is the marriage of divorced persons for those of us with very long memories, or the acceptance of women’s ordinations or gay ordinations for those with shorter memories. I think someone less than demonstrably enthusiastic for women’s or gay rights would find it difficult to get through the ordination process. Biblical fidelity will be tested when the senior warden’s gay son or daughter comes to be married.
RE: “pushing young people into a “Charles and Camilla†ceremony” . . .
Nonsense — nothing of the sort is required at all by the clergy refusing to act as agents of the state by signing The Marriage Pledge.
RE: “. . . simply so that a cadre of clergy intellectuals can exercise some fairly obscure protest . . . ”
Judging by the numbers of laity that have signed The Marriage Pledge it doesn’t look all that “obscure” at all. Indeed — it has been accepted by 150+ in a matter of 48 hours. No, this isn’t “obscure” — it’s an idea that is being accepted heartily and thankfully as *finally* a way to properly register one’s refusal to enable the ridiculous faux definitions of marriage that the state is forcing us to pretend as if we accept. People are saying “nyet” to that — and I predict many many many more people will do so because it’s not obscure objection at all.
And they can’t possibly *all* be “clergy intellectuals” unless you’re postulating a degree of intellect that has been hitherto unknown in the vast majority of the ranks of clergy until now. ; > )
RE: “I read TEC canons to provide that clergy performing marriages must comply with state law” . . .
The canons state that clergy should be assured that the couples meet the legal requirements for marriage. One may do that handily without clergy being forced to sign the government marriage contract as a convenience to poor inconvenienced Sam and Sally.
RE: “and would suggest a reasonable interpretation of that canon is that officiating clergy must duly sign the marriage license . . . ”
Oh, *Episcopalians* might “suggest a reasonable interpretation” of canons or indeed Scripture meaning practically anything at all, as we’ve learned over the past ten years. But such a “reasonable interpretation” is actually merely a *convenient* interpretation because somebody doesn’t like the idea of a married couple having to go through the onerous travail of having to get a JP to sign their government marriage contract — as somebody had stated earlier in their difficulties with The Marriage Pledge before switching to other possible reasons.
Sarah, Here we go: TEC canons provide: “Every Member of the Clergy of this Church shall conform to the laws of the State governing the creation of the civil status of marriage, and also to the laws of this Church governing the solemnization of Holy Matrimony.†If TEC clergy conducts a marriage ceremony, he must comply with state law.
I live in Maryland. Section 2-409 of the Maryland Family Code requires that an official who performs the “marriage ceremony” shall sign the marriage certificate. And section 2-401 provides that no one may be married without a proper marriage license. I expect to find similar provisions in the statutes of the various other American states.
Hence, if TEC clergy perform a marriage ceremony, canon law requires that they conform with state law, and that state law requires that they execute the marriage certificate. Failure to do so places the TEC clergy in violation of canon law.
RE: “Section 2-409 of the Maryland Family Code requires that an official who performs the “marriage ceremony†shall sign the marriage certificate.”
Yup — the JP shall perform the government marriage ceremony and sign the marriage certificate.
The canon you quote does not require the priest to *sign the marriage certificate* Dick.
Of course — an angry revisionist bishop who’s mad at his orthodox clergyperson who signs The Marriage Pledge may certainly “deem” [heh] the canons to mean anything he or she pleases. We’ve certainly seen that before.
Perhaps you can send all the bishops in TEC proposed letters of inhibition and deposition for those who will so outrageously inconvenience Sally and Sam Couple by requiring them to get their government marriage contract signed by the JP.
Somehow I suspect that Radner and Seitz have reviewed canons and are fine with whatever cost of discipleship that a revisionist bishop or angry inconvenienced layperson may deem appropriate.
The good news is that any punitive actions will mean that this is probably a good step to take — it’s threatening to the status quo of approving of the government’s attempted redefinition of marriage.
Certainly some won’t like that one bit — as I pointed out at the very beginning of this 48 hours ago. Revisionists will be really mad.
#25, I take note of your various scenarios and subterfuges that people may try to perpetrate in order to have a priest [or deacon] administer the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
You feel I/we have not answered your questions. Let me try again.
1. Can/will people lie to a priest? Oh my gosh yes! When an adult comes for baptism, I ask if they have ever been baptized before. If they say no, I ask again; did someone baptize you with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If they say no again, I will offer to baptize them. If they are lying to me, if they lie during the liturgy, then God will have to sort that out with them.
2. Will people lie in order to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony? They can try. We require background checks. Those are not fool proof. But remember we are administrating a Sacrament. We are not providing any legally binding documents, contracts, etc. We are in effect solemnizing a relationship which God blesses. For all the civil legal remedies you speak about, people will have to obtain a civil contract [called a marriage]. That is their choice. In the process of pursuing that civil status, all the legalities I suspect will get fleshed out. But, there are stories of people being married multiple times in different places. So even the civil process is not without error. And again, people do lie, even to civil authorities!
Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has had an intertwined and flexible relationship with secular Governments. I have no doubt they will navigate these waters with skill. And I expect Government to tread carefully where the RC draws a line in the sand.
Not so for the rest of us. The city of Houston has recently showed that civil governments are getting bolder toward those religious institutions they think they can bully.
Sarah, you claim that the TEC canons do not require the officiant to sign the marriage license, but I do not understand your reasoning. The canons require that clergy comply with state law, and state law requires the clergy to sign the marriage license. The obvious alternative is to have the couple married ahead of time in the courthouse, but that is the Charles-and-Camilla-softshoe, and a very unattractive alternative.
My wife and I have been parents of the bride or groom on 5 separate occasions over the past 15 years. You need a venue, an officiant, caterer, the photographer, musician, florist, etc. Now you also need a lawyer.
Archbishop Chaput recently suggested the Catholic clergy take similar action as a form of “principled resistance.” Seitz and Radner are the sharp point of the spear on this.
Couple get marriage license. Oath and signature. (as usual) JP (et al) perform 2 minute ‘ceremony’. Record the fact. Couple have lavish wedding at Church of Our Savior. They use the main rite of the BCP, as allowed. What is different? A two minute JP event.
#41. It will be very interesting to follow how the RCC tracks the cultural changes, including one supposes lots of fussing about the role of ministers tout court.
Dr. Seitz, thanks for clarifying your proposal on this point. The Marriage Pledge itself was vague on this, and there have been a variety of alternatives suggested on this and other blog sites.
It is a bit more complex than you suggest. Here in my county in Maryland, you make application for a marriage license — there is a two-day waiting period, so there will be at least 2 trips to the courthouse. If you wish to have a civil marriage, it is to be scheduled at specific times, and by appointment only. Since you reserved Our Savior more than 6 months in advance, this appointment may get tricky, since the idea is to do the church service after the civil marriage.
Whether you confect a service based on the liturgy on BCP page 423, or use the Apache wedding prayer or extracts from the Princess Bride, the church service is a blessing of a civil marriage. I am sure that Camilla and Charles had a lovely service at St. George’s following their guildhall wedding, and I can find no distinction between their experience and your proposal.
RE: “state law requires the clergy to sign the marriage license . . . ”
No — it requires that “an official who performs the “marriage ceremony†shall sign the marriage certificate” . . . and that is the JP because there are obviously going to be two ceremonies — the real one, and the faux government contract one.
The process has been spelled out for you, Dick, multiple times, and no lawyer is required as any couple is more than capable of doing it all quite easily. You just don’t like that process, and wish to discover some kind of canonical issue with it, like Schori and other revisionist TEC bishops do with the things they don’t like.
Further, as has also been pointed out to you repeatedly, if a couple doesn’t want to have the blessing of a civil marriage, they need only acquire the license [unsigned, no ritual with JP], acquire the Holy Matrimony wedding [license demonstrates compliance with the law by the clergy], then acquire the JP faux government marriage ceremony.
The fact that you don’t like that process, and fear that your children or others wouldn’t have liked it is neither here nor there. It will be a process — along with a few other options depending on the needs of the couple — that will be performed all over the country now, thanks to The Marriage Pledge.
Were I to ever enjoy the happiness of discovering a spouse, I would be searching for clergy who had signed The Marriage Pledge and certainly inquiring of my rector or his clergy on staff — just as I enjoy searching for physicians who have been clear and public that they will not be performing abortions, for instance. Nobody *has* to sign either type of pledge to be good professionals — but I appreciate people who have taken clear public differentiating stands contrary to the zeitgeist of the prevailing culture and the lies of the state.
Some people don’t appreciate that — and that’s fine — to each his own, of course.
“Whether you confect a service based on the liturgy on BCP page 423, or use the Apache wedding prayer or extracts from the Princess Bride, the church service is a blessing of a civil marriage.”
The civil marriage has of course its own integrity, and increasingly, its own identity as ‘marriage.’
If people want that ‘marriage’ blessed, well of course a clergyman could undertake to do that.
But it is not required and it is not the logic upon which this particular understanding is predicated.
I can’t speak to the Apache Wedding prayer. Does it really require a civil undertaking first?
I have been thinking about this for several days, and I still have mixed feelings. At this point, clergy are still free to refuse to officiate at weddings for couples who do not meet the requirements of their religious organizations, for whatever reason. Especially for Anglicans and other clergy who are members of Churches, not just independent churches, shouldn’t there be some kind of diocesan or synodical discussion and approval for such a change?
From ++ Foley Beach today, in part:
[i]Some of our bishops and clergy have been in favor of signing this pledge, some are not in favor of signing the pledge, while others need more time to consider the consequences of making such a commitment.
It would be best for us to take counsel together before taking further action. Therefore I ask that you do not sign this pledge until as bishops, clergy, and lay leaders we have had more opportunities to pray about and discuss the legal, theological, and sociological ramifications of signing such a statement.
I ask us all to join together in prayer for the preservation of a biblical understanding of marriage in our society, in specific prayers for the courts in North America, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court as
these issues come before them. Even in the midst of different perspectives about the wisdom of signing the pledge, we can rejoice that all of this discussion is motivated by a strongly shared commitment to the sanctity of marriage as established by Our Lord in the Scriptures. It is often when the times seem darkest that God’s glory can be most clearly displayed.[/i]
#46–certainly for RC clergy, they will take their direction from the Bishops, who will be reviewing their own stance given the new terrain in the US.
And it appears from #47 that ACNA has reached no final determination, though we saw some early reaction to the contrary at SF.
Are you able to expand on “early reaction to the contrary at SF(?)?
SF is Stand Firm. You can chase it up there.
Luke, ACNA/CANA Bishop Julian Dobbs raised questions, both practical and pastoral, and his letter can be found over on Stand Firm at http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/31613.
Dr. Seitz – here is the Apache Wedding Blessing. If it were up to me, it would be limited to civil weddings (but it wasn’t). It may have been written in Hollywood for a movie, but it’s apparently popular today.
http://marriage.about.com/cs/blessings/a/apache.htm
#52–just do whatever grandmother wants! That appears to be the biggest consideration. Grace and peace.
RE: “just do whatever grandmother wants!”
It’s interesting. If the grandmothers are shallow enough to object based on trivial considerations it really explains once more why TEC ended up as it did.
Fortunately both my grandmothers would have grasped the import of The Marriage Pledge very quickly and neither would have had problems with any possible consequences that the catastrophizers might come up with . . .
#53 and 54 – yeah, I am still in TEC and I know that clergy not infrequently get demands from C and E folk, or non-attending children or grandchildren of members, demanding this or that as regards baptisms and weddings. It is up to the clergy to politely but firmly say “no, this is the policy that we follow here.” If grandmothers get to dictate how Holy Matrimony is conducted, then why not also how baptisms get done? And why only Dick Mitchell’s wife and/or grandmother? No, I think that this would take some adjustment, but thereafter I seriously doubt serious Christians would have any problem with it.
The text of the BCP main rite as such shows the officiant entirely in his/her main role–not a civil agent–but ordained official witnessing solemn vows before God. This could be a good time for all to read this historical text. I have my own commendation at http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org, undertaken for the annual gathering of the North American Lutheran Church.
One must get a marriage license at Town Hall already. If a 2-minute generic ‘marriage’ by a JP is needed for legality, it will hardly be the last and most important word. The Christian Marriage will be that.
(I do not know the ACNA rites/rubrics and cannot comment on that.)
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2014/09/the-ethics-of-sex-marriage-and-the-family/
I think things are getting rather confused. This whole question can be seen more clearly in England and the development of marriage. There are two distinct requirements:
1. Legal marriage – this is a creature of the state. It gives legal, fiscal and property rights and obligations. It draws no distinction now between religious and secular motives.
2. Religious marriage – this is an estate or blessing given by the church upon a couple seeking to become man and wife and is not restricted to Christian marriage.
All couples will want to be legally married, for the status of their children, inheritance, tax and property issues and as a declaration of their state to the world. Some will also want to be married in accordance with the rites of their faith.
Somewhat unusually, in England, the Church of England combined both distinct functions – the minister also had a state function in that he could complete the legal formalities including the signing of the registers in front of witnesses, and the issue of a marriage certificate. This dated back to the time when the Church had its own law and courts distinct from those of the state, something which over time parliament took over in relation to marriage. This legal function always has been and still is kept separate from the religious ceremony and usually takes place in a separate vestry room or a side annex of the church. The wedding party and minister make a distinct move from one place to another to perform the private legal formalities away from the congregation.
That was the original position with the Church of England, and probably how things started in the US before independence. In England all other Christian denominations including Catholics and Baptists and all other religions including Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and others had to contract a civil legal marriage usually before holding their own religious ceremony which of itself had no legal effect. This is the default position for religious marriage.
Over time in England, the right of a minister to perform some of the legal functions for the state was gradually extended to other Christian denominations and then to other religions. It was a gradual move which saw both functions performed by priests.
All that was well and good while the parties to and nature of marriage was compatible in legal and religious marriage. We are now in a position where the state having unilaterally redefined marriage, that that is no longer compatible with the definition of a marriage in many religions, including Christianity.
And so the question comes to whether a religious marriage is the same thing as a legal marriage. While religious marriage may also be a legal marriage, not all legal marriages fit the definition of a religious marriage according to a particular denomination or religion.
What to do? Drs Radner and Seitz have usefully drawn attention to the disconnect which is now growing up, although by no means uniform in the US, and have proposed that the distinction between the two definitions of marriage and their different natures now needs to be more clearly defined. For the minister to no longer perform the state function of marriage merely returns things to the situation which was the default [and which is the situation in many countries] where the legal and religious procedures are distinct. It merely disentangles, what had over time become a united function, although one where even in the Church of England the civil and religious parts of the ceremony are kept distinct.
That of course is a different question from any internal rules of a denomination or the position of a minister in a state church such as the Church of England under law, but in theory the default position is that the legal requirements and religious ones are distinct, and in most parts of the world remain so. From what I have read there is no compulsion on a TEC priest to agree to perform a particular marriage.
It is not depriving anyone of a legal marriage for a priest of whatever faith not to perform the legal function as well, it is just that those functions will be performed separately and invariably before the religious ceremony at a registry office or court house followed by a religious ceremony of whatever flavour the couple wish to follow according to their religion.
It is a mess, but that is what happens when minority rights including religious rights are over-ridden by the legislatures and a conflict develops between what is owed to Caesar and what is owed to God. It is an old situation faced back through St Thomas Moore, St Thomas a Becket, right back to the circuses of Rome, or so it seem to me.
Credit is due to Dr Radner and Seitz for drawing attention to the consequences of the situation which few have really drawn out before – what happens when people lose confidence in the State and find their religious beliefs at odds with it. I am grateful to them for making me think about it.
I’m working on a biographical directory of the 1500 or so clergy ordained in the Church of England who served in British America before 1785 when Bishop Seabury returned and began to ordain. As I understand it in England marriage was normally solemnized after the banns had been called for three weeks. Licenses were issued by the bishops for extraordinary circumstances – usually marriage out of the bride’s parish church. In Virginia and Maryland where the church was established by law marriages were registered in the parish register. In New England the Congregationalist Puritans denied marriage to be a sacrament and marriages were witnessed by a civil magistrate. In the middle colonies the royal governors exercised the royal ecclesiastical prerogative and collected the fees for marriages which could be solemnized by a magistrate or by a member of the clergy. One of the objections raised to an American Church of England episcopate was that a bishop could bring with him the English church courts and take from the royal governors the revenue from marriage licenses – and probate of wills. After the Revolution states required marriages to be registered with the Register of Deeds or other state official and generally required a state marriage license. Some court officials could legally witness a marriage. Clergy could also witness as could persons authorized by a Quaker meeting, etc. I have noticed recently in the Sunday New York Times that the officiant at some weddings is “a friend of the bride authorized by the state to officiate.” Others are “ministers of the Universal Life Church” and other people who qualify under the fairly elastic requirements to be a minister.
All Christian marriages that conform to the state’s requirements are civil marriages, and I decline to abandon the very old tradition that the Church witnesses and blesses Christian marriage. There are civil marriages that also conform to the state’s requirements, e.g., marriage between persons who have a living spouse, and recently marriages between persons of the same sex. The different churches have different rules about clergy officiating at some of these marriages. As I understand it the Episcopal Church requires the bishop’s permission for clergy to marry people who have a living spouse. The bishops I know give this permission freely for second marriages but impose conditions for third and subsequent marriages. In Western NC the bishop’s permission is required for clergy to officiate at marriages between people of the same sex.
Civil marriage since the 1790’s as required by France, Mexico, and other countries is an artifact of the godless French Revolution, and I am not about to give any support to that.
Fr. Tom, I think your historical review is quite correct. Many (most?) states now will issue an authorization to an individual to preside at a specific wedding, good for one day or one service, depending on state law. I can recall at least 3 weddings among our kids’ generation that fell into this category — sort of faux church service. One point I have insisted upon in this thread is that the canons of the Episcopal Church require that a TEC clergy performing a church wedding must comply with state law, and state law will require that the officiant sign and file the marriage license.
#59 Tom Righttmyer
You describe pre-1776 the situation which still applies in England – authorisation to get married by banns, read on three Sundays asking for any objections to the marriage to be given [under age, bigamy, marriage to a sibling etc] or alternatively by licence in various forms set out in the Marriage Act 1949, as amended quite recently. Wikipedia [which is always/mostly/sometimes right] has some of the history.
“…state law will require that the officiant sign and file the marriage license” — except that it won’t, if the Christian officiant has counseled the couple who want to be married by the state to have that undertaking done.
[blockquote]From what I have read there is no compulsion on a TEC priest to agree to perform a particular marriage. #58 [/blockquote]
As I have understood it, the priestly right to decline to officiate is a matter of pastoral discretion. For instance, if the priest concludes for some pastoral reason that the couple is not ready to marry, he could opt out as officiant. But I am not sure this right can apply to classes of people, e.g, if a priest declines to marry a mixed race couple [i]on that basis[/i]. Once TEC has established that same-sex couples have a right to marry, it is likely it will also pass legislation forbidding clergy to decline to officiate on purported grounds of conscience regarding ssm. Maybe they will include a grandfather clause, but if not, woe to any TEC clergy who have signed the Marriage Pledge.
“woe to any TEC clergy who have signed the Marriage Pledge” — this makes it sound like you are counseling people not to sign the pledge so they won’t get into trouble. TEC clergy who sign this would do so precisely to take a stand of conscience, not to calculate whether they’d get into some fresh iteration of TEC harassment.
A further thought. In states (or the whole USA) where same-sex marriage is legal, I wonder what the civil liability is for a priest who refuses to marry a same-sex couple. I can see that a church which has clearly stated its objection to ssm may offer some protection to its clergy in declining to marry under the First Amendment, but what about a church that has approved such a blessing. Would the refusal to marry on that basis open the priest to a civil suit?
Chris (#64). No, I am urging TEC clergy to consider the implications of signing down the road.
I am also arguing that it is preferable if entire church bodies can take this stance consensually (e.g., ACNA). Clearly within TEC this is impossible as a whole, but is it not possible for dioceses to enact canons to that effect? That of course will probably put the dioceses in the same place as individuals who go against the flow in TEC, but wouldn’t that be better than allowing them to pick off individual clergy?
A thoughtful anticipation is that TEC GC 2015 will pass something like a ssb Trial Rite. (Newspapers will not differentiate between marriage and ssb rites; so the public sphere’s gratuities). This will throw the TEC development into a category where the discretion of Bishops and Dioceses to say No is clouded. It will also presage a formal BCP rite of some kind in the years to come. It is for these reasons and more that clergy who believe the rite in the present BCP constitutes a genuine marriage rite vis-Ã -vis alternative confections (civil and religious) should see the matter clearly. Anyone who signs the Pledge is unlikely to be immediately punished in some way because the juggernaut of revision is simply too grand. But the issue is far more important than Pledge-signing alone for those who are standing for the Christian faith and witnessing to it, to culture and to church, within TEC.
#66. The Diocese of Dallas, e.g., has a clear marriage canon, as do others. But see #67. I do not know ACNA’s prayer book rites and canons so cannot comment on that. I gather you believe ACNA will make some kind of wide-scale decision.
Individual TEC clergy who sign the pledge know what they are in for. They are likely in that group who see what is coming down the road. Not signing pledges will change nothing on that score.
#65–these musings seem to us on target, re: civil realities. My defense of the BCP presentation of marriage in its integrity can be seen at #57. I also speculate about the realties coming soon in TEC national church developments, and elsewhere (ELCA).
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/11/what-are-the-objections-to-the-marriage-pledge-1
RE: #68, I do not speak for ACNA. I do think it is constituted in such a way that it can, with due deliberation, adopt a holistic marriage policy.
RE: #70, I agree with your distinction between the conscientious duty of clergy as officiants of same-sex civil law and that of laity seeking a civil marriage license prior to a Christian rite. It occurred to me that the latter situation might be a case of paying taxes to Caesar, whereas the former would be enlisted as a publican.
#71 — I made a similar point on the Dallas list-serve re: ‘render unto Caesar.’
Not knowing ACNA’s prayer book or canons it is difficult to know what may be required for a ‘holistic marriage policy’; the Pledge was developed–so long as Radner and I were concerned–with an eye toward TEC’s BCP and canons. The vast preponderance of signatories comes from a wider ecumenical mix.
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/to-rend-is-not-to-retreat
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-marriage
While I have made no decision to sign or not sign this pledge, I will say that Professors Seitz and Radner have given me something I must respond to. But as Professor Noll points out, any decision must be in a deliberative, consensual manner. Thank you all for pointing the way to concrete, faithful action in these increasingly murky days.
#75 — we wish you well and ACNA on how to handle this.
#76. I’m actually Rector at Christ Church, Accokeek, MD in the Diocese of Washington, TEC. Hence, the measured response and approach.
#77–my confusion. This sounded like what the ACNA has called for. One doubts that TEC will undertake a deliberative, consensual process vis-Ã -vis marriage pledge. Indeed, it is already actively trying to make marriage conform to the new cultural reality.
in #63 and #65 above Stephen Noll raises interesting questions about possible consequences for clergy who decline to officiate at any marriages between persons of the same sex. INAL – I am not a lawyer – but I expect a good defense could be made in the USA in civil court based on the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment. I think the pressure will be social and ecclesiastical pressure from bishops and congregations. I see a parallel in two changes in the practice of the Episcopal Church – the marriage of divorced people and the ordination of women. My guess is that anyone seeking ordination in any Episcopal church diocese who was opposed to either of these changes would not receive support from a bishop or in a Commission on Ministry. There may still be a few dioceses where less that enthusiastic support for the ordination of gay or lesbian candidates is not grounds for disqualification from the ordination process; I don’t know.
But as has been eloquently pointed out here and elsewhere, marriage is God’s creation, not the church, and not the state. The state provides some benefits and some penalties to people in a relationship the state defines as married. The church does the same.
As I understand it from my experience as interim rector in Smithfield, NC, the Roman Catholic church will baptize the children of those who have been married in church but will not baptize children of persons who have had a civil but not church marriage. A thriving Spanish speaking Episcopal congregation was formed when the Episcopal Church agreed to baptize anyone presented for baptism.
I don’t see any proposal in this conversation for us to adopt the Roman Catholic church’s baptismal discipline. Personally I find it inconsistent with the plain meaning of Holy Scripture. But for that and other reasons while I wish God’s blessing on my friends who have joined the Ordinariate I cannot in good conscience join them.
I think the Marriage Pledge is a mistake. The church needs to continue to witness for Christian Marriage. If the state wants to continue to regard the vows of Christian marriage as sufficient to establish the legal relationship of civil marriage that is the state’s business, not ours.
With all due respect to those who propose and support it, I have to regard the Marriage Pledge as, at best, unwise.
Several have requested the civil sphere be addressed. This from ACI’s legal expert, prepared for FT. A version will appear at our website.
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/a-legal-perspective-on-the-marriage-pledge
“It provides tax benefits to many couples and opens up useful strategies for maximizing Social Security benefits. It is often necessary in private commerce for securing benefits such as health insurance.” In other words civil marriage is a benefit delivery device. There is no inherant reason why the Church should care what benes the secular state provides or to whom.