In the beginning of his talk on BBC Radio 4, Fraser lists the purposes of marriage in the liturgy from the 17th century Book of Common Prayer.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
The second and third purposes seem to present no barrier to same-sex marriages. Fraser follows with commentary on the first purpose of marriage - procreation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rightly recognised that celibacy is a vocation to which many gay people are simply not called. Which is why, it strikes me, the church ought to be offering gay people a basis for monogamous relationships that are permanent, faithful and stable. So that leaves the whole question of procreation. And clearly a gay couple cannot make babies biologically. But then neither can those who marry much later in life. Many couples, for a whole range of reasons, find they cannot conceive children - or, simply, don't choose to. Is marriage to be denied them? Of course not. For these reasons - and also after contraception became fully accepted in the Church of England - the modern marriage service shifted the emphasis away from procreation. The weight in today's wedding liturgy is on the creation of loving and stable relationships. For me, this is something in which gay Christians have a perfect right to participate. I know many people of good will are bound to disagree with me on this. But gay marriage isn't about culture wars or church politics; it's fundamentally about one person loving another. The fact that two gay men have proclaimed this love in the presence of God, before friends and family and in the context of prayerful reflection is something I believe the church should welcome. It's not as if there's so much real love in the world that we can afford to be dismissive of what little we do find. Which is why my view is we ought to celebrate real love however and wherever we find it.
In the event that you wonder about my extensive posting on actions and opinions in the Church of England, it is because I have been stung by Archbishop Rowan Williams critical statements about the Episcopal Church going its own way in consecrating Gene Robinson, a partnered gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire. He has singled out the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada for particular criticism. Now that he must deal with similar departures from traditional practices in his home church, I hope that he may cast a more kindly gaze upon the actions of his brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada.
Episcopalians in New Hampshire are left without representation at the Lambeth gathering of the bishops of the Anglican Communion this summer by the non-invitation of Bishop Robinson. Diocesan leaders in New Hampshire sent a letter to Archbishop Williams in protest that Bishop Robinson is barred from the conference. I'd like to have signed the letter in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in New Hampshire, because, as a member of the Episcopal Church, I take his non-invitation somewhat personally.
From BBC Radio 4 via The Lead at the Episcopal Café.
My husband and I could not have children. We are no less married because of that. But the anti-gay-marriage folks aren't really interested in applying logic to their arguments. It's all about an emotional reaction and trying to find support for that.
ReplyDeleteMy husband and I could not have children. We are no less married because of that.
ReplyDeleteExactly, Ruth.
And there is the example of one person coming to the marriage with a dependent child, though unable to procreate further, as in my marriage. Or it may be that each comes with a child(ren), and it unable or unwilling to have more.
ReplyDeleteTobias eliminated "procreation" in the biological sense some time back; you may be sure it was thoroughly done.
As to the procreation canard, note that the last census figures for the U.S. record one-quarter of same-sex households as having one or more children under 18. They may not be able to beget them on their own (and what unmarried heterosexuals need a license for that?) but they are certainly raising them.
ReplyDeleteAs for Abp. Williams, he would do well to study a sermon by American priest Gray Temple, The Biblical Case in Favor of Gene Robinson's Election, Confirmation, and Consecration, now available through Louis Crew's website.
Mimi, this is somewhat of a tangent, but I think you will appreciate the implications of this country by country poll on the subject of trusting GWBush's foreign policy:
ReplyDeletehttp://vernondent.blogspot.com/2008/06/interesting-graph.html
The only country (and this includes the use) in which more than 50% of the people trust Bush is--
Nigeria, at 60%
The next closest is India (45%), then Azerbaijan (42%--should be more, since the US is backing them fairly strongly in their current semi-war), the US (also 42%), China (41%), Thailand (34%), and Spain and South Korea (both 30%). Everyone else was under 30%. The only Moslem country not in the single digits was Indonesia (23%). Palestinians were the lowest of all--(3%--if anything, that sounds too high)
Thanks for the link, Paul. It's time to eat Grandpère's gumbo. I'll read it later. Tobias demolished the procreation argument, too. I did a quick search for the post at his blog and didn't find it, but I know it's there.
ReplyDeleteKishnevi, I'll check your link later, too. Not too many surprises, except that he's more popular in some countries than I would have expected.
Here is Tobias' "Pro-creation" post.
ReplyDeletePaul (A), that is an extraordinary sermon by Gray. Thanks so much for the link. I'm saving it so I can get back to it.
ReplyDelete"It's not as if there's so much real love in the world that we can afford to be dismissive of what little we do find."
ReplyDeleteI think this is an important point and I've said something similar in one of my posts once.
The positive value of gay marriage is that with fewer people choosing marriage, the more people who want to stand up and pledge to stick with each other, the better.
I mean, can the institution of marriage really afford to turn potential customers away?
I see it that gay marriage actually strengthens marriage by adding to it's popularity.
The point Fraser makes about love is quite important, Boaz, and IMHO, gay marriages strengthen our whole society.
ReplyDeleteI have always been stressed about the huge catch 22 our same sex partnered "brethren and sisteren" have had placed before them...
ReplyDeleteIt goes like this: "You gay folk have a rep for having casual sexual encounters. But if you decide to partner up in a committed relationship, we won't let you have that recognized legally or in the church. Have a nice life."
That just irks me to no end. It reeks of "just go pretend to be straight, it's easier on me that way b/c then I don't have to ask myself any hard questions." It's sooooo convenient to hide behind, "Hey, I didn't say it, God did. I'm just following the rules." Moralistic cowards, the whole lot of 'em.
Kishnevi, I finally looked at the graph. No surprise that Bush is not popular in other parts of the world. What I can't figure is that most polls within the US show Bush's favorability rating at 29% to the low 30s. I wonder how that survey arrived at 42%.
ReplyDeleteI am a founder member of the Giles Fraser fan club. I aspire to BE Giles Fraser.
ReplyDeleteKirk, odd twists and turns of so-called reasoning are necessary to arrive at the, "No marriage for you!" stance.
ReplyDeleteDP, what's the dues for the club? I'd like to join.