From the Times-Union:
The conservative-led Episcopal Diocese of Albany staked out a firm defense of traditional marriage on Saturday, a move that comes as gay unions have gained new ground in California and New York.
The hundreds of clergy and lay delegates who converged for their annual convention in this lakeside Adirondack community resoundingly approved a resolution that lays down this rule: Only heterosexual marriages can be celebrated in the diocese.
....
In a brief interview after convention business wrapped up, Albany Bishop William Love said the resolutions were "not intended to be divisive."
"The main reasons the resolutions were presented were to provide clarity during a time of great confusion both within the church and society at large," Love said.
"The important thing that everyone needs to know is that God loves all people, regardless of where they might be in their life. That doesn't necessarily mean he approves of all of our behaviors."
You're right about that, Bishop Love. I doubt that God approves of launching unjust wars and killing hundreds of thousands of people, torture, disregard for the poor, despoiling the fragile planet, and other behaviors that do actual harm to others, behaviors that violate Jesus' commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Fr. Brad Jones, rector of Christ Church in Schenectady, said that he was "formerly consumed by homosexual desires", but he is now married and the father of seven children. "If the Episcopal Church had proclaimed to me then that God would bless my lustful passions and desires, I would likely not be standing here alive today," said Jones. "I would certainly be dead in my sins."
But for the saving love-in-action of Jesus, we would all be dead in our sins. And another thing: why is the stereotype of gays "consumed by homosexual desires" so widespread? Where are the studies that show gay men focused on sex more than straight folks or lesbians? I haven't seen any. They go about their business of living their lives, working at their jobs, taking care of their homes, and caring for their children just like the rest of us. That gay men have sex on their minds 24/7 is simply not the reality.
The passing of this resolution really doesn't change anything in the diocese, because only heterosexual marriages are celebrated at the present time. Although Bishop Love says the intention in passing the resolution was not to be divisive, the end result will be just that.
I'd like to see the churches get out of the marriage business altogether. Leave it to the civil authorities. Then, after a period of discernment, the couple may ask for the blessing of their Christian community.
Mrs Brad Jones has paid a positively Victorian price - seven kids - to prove her husband's heterosexuality, hasn't she, poor woman?
ReplyDeleteYes, Brad wants his quiver full.
ReplyDeleteI think of Mrs Paul Moore with 9.
I'm with you, Mimi, on getting the church out of the marriage business. Faith communities can celebrate and bless faithful life-giving relationships after discernment, equal rules for all.
ReplyDeleteAnd, frankly, though sometimes one rejoices in the couple, marriages are a huge pain you know where for clergy - lots of effort, lots of headache, and rarely is it being approached as a sacrament. I'll bury anyone but if I never do another wedding I won't miss it. Perhaps it's just as well I am semi-retired.
Why are they so afraid of people who commit to love? Truly weird.
ReplyDeleteAnd just because the only literate folks in the "Dark Ages" were priests who could keep track of inheritance/marriage issues, WHY is the church still involved in the part of this all that deals with legal issues? Assuming there is a sacramental aspect let's leave that to the church (whichever church) and separate it from all the legal/tax/inheritance stuff.
Actually, I'd do it the other way around. I'd like the government to get out of the sacrament business. The guv'mint only needs to know who's cohabitating for tax purposes and for inheritance purposes should there be issue from the union. Let the churches make their own rules about "marriage". The problem is that the word "marriage", a religious word, has been co-opted by the common vernacular of the government, and that is a hard pattern to change.
ReplyDeleteFor centuries, the church was not in the marriage business, and now seems a good time for the church to bow out of the legalities. Let the blessing of the pair who are already wed be the sacrament.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that struck me when I read the article here in my hometown paper was that the usual imposition of lust over gender rules.
ReplyDeleteGay? Must be sex crazed.
Oh please, that is killing me.
And while we are on the topic, sex- if it is to be about the business of creation, means that it must be done.
And not just in the one way that these folks have in mind.
Of course, my own church... oh never mind.
Mimi, I'm glad such resolutions have not yet passed (or even been proposed) in our diocese. But I suppose it's just a matter of time.
ReplyDeleteGay? Must be sex crazed.
ReplyDeleteOh please, that is killing me.
Fran, me too.
I suppose it's just a matter of time.
Ormonde, I hope not, but you may be right.
I am consumed by the desire to smack a few supercilious and self- congratulatory faces.
ReplyDeleteBut I am a member of an ex-smacking arse-holes ministry.
So, DP, you went through the anti-smacking-arse-holes de-programming, did you? We'll see if it sticks, or if you will soon be back to your evil ways.
ReplyDeleteMimi said: That gay men have sex on their minds 24/7 is simply not the reality.
ReplyDeleteBut, Mimi, I thought this was true of all men, not just the gay ones.
Please advise.
Lapin said: Mrs Brad Jones has paid a positively Victorian price - seven kids - to prove her husband's heterosexuality, hasn't she, poor woman?
ReplyDeleteHmmm ... Why did Matt Kennedy suddenly spring to mind?
Lisa, and what about women? Are we chopped liver?
ReplyDeleteMatt, the manly man? Surely, not.