Comments on: Bishop demands that gays get married

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:03:36 +0000

Alex,

I guess you are more familiar with the religious-rule-loving, dissapproving-of-nasty-sinners Jesus. I don’t think I can find that one in Scripture, but he certainly is popular with some people who call themselves Christian.

The one in the Bible didn’t seem to spend a whole lot of time on who was or was’t holy. In fact the only time he ever criticized anyone at all, they were church people.

By: Alex6500

Alex6500 — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:56:54 +0000

I am Episcopal.What a mess.I think Jesus does not like homosexuality.I did not come up with this doctrine.Against s
exual misconduct is in all the bible.No i do not think gay marriage marriage is holy.

By: Amicus

Amicus — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:31:28 +0000

Priests into “bond-age”?

Tie the knot?

I’m sensing a pattern here. Buy rope.

By: Rob in San Diego

Rob in San Diego — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:19:00 +0000

Finally some decent people exist.

By: Russ Manley

Russ Manley — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:59:43 +0000

Of course. And the Bp was right to do what he did – what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Now it will be very interesting to see whether the ECUSA goes ahead and approves a fully inclusive marriage rite at next year’s general convention.

By: Paul J. Stein

Paul J. Stein — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:22:31 +0000

In other words…”Put Up Or Shut Up ! Sounds like a reasonable request of his employees.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:38:19 +0000

Russ, I agree with you. But from the Bishop’s point of view his concern is with church marriage. As it should be.

By: Russ Manley

Russ Manley — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:09:20 +0000

I’d like to offer a correction: religious marriage belongs to the church; civil marriage belongs to the civil authorities. Google Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” which was THE legal textbook for more than a century in both Britain and America: “Our law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract.” When you get married in church here, you are getting both kinds of marriage, civil and religious, at the same time.

Of course, nobody has to get married in church, a courthouse wedding is just as good. The church does not “own” marriage, and did not invent it, even though lots of people are very confused on this point.

In France, the distinction is made much clearer: everybody first gets married at the town hall by the mayor, and then goes to the church for a religious wedding. Which wouldn’t be a bad idea over here, either.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:44:00 +0000

And I love this sentence: “No one is entitled to have his or her marriage blessed by a priest of the Church, unless he or she is willing to profess to holding true the teachings of the Church regarding marriage.”

Bishop Larry isn’t worried about the gender of the applicants, but he’s not “redefining marriage” or “attacking marriage” or “throwing out the meaning of marriage”. No, he’s insistent that you hold true that which truly defines marriage for an Episcopalian: teachings of the church.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:35:07 +0000

tjdan,

Thanks for that link. The Bishop’s statement included a paragraph that is perhaps the best explanation of the distinction between religious and civil marriage:

In many, if not all states, the ordained person acts also (and sometimes more exclusively) as an agent of the State preparing the legal documents to be signed to insure the legal arrangement of the civil agreement that is a by-product of marriage – little of which is the Church’s real concern or impinges on the sacramental nature of the marriage.

Those screaming about “marriage belongs to the church” need to read this. The Bishop agrees that, yes, marriage belongs to the church which is why he doesn’t get all hot and bothered about what the politicians do with “the civil agreement that is a by-product of marriage”.