When it comes to same-sex couples living together, with (or without) sex, New England has a reputation for being just a little bit more innovative than the rest of the country. Not for nothing was such an arrangement in the 19th century termed a “Boston marriage.”
Now, as Boston Globe reporter Michael Paulson writes, Episcopal bishops in New England find themselves in the fascinating situation of having the denomination’s tacit O.K. to gay blessings — but not having its permission to allow their clergy to officiate at gay marriages (yet).
Episcopal bishops in New England and Iowa, the only parts of the nation where same-sex marriage is legal, are preparing for a wave of requests to allow priests to oversee the ceremonies as the result of a decision last week by the Episcopal Church that opens the door to church weddings for gay couples.
In interviews yesterday, none of several bishops interviewed said they were immediately prepared to allow priests to officiate at same-sex weddings, which remain prohibited by the canons of the Episcopal Church.
But, citing the denomination’s decision Friday to allow bishops in states where same-sex marriage is legal to “provide generous pastoral response” to same-sex couples, the bishops indicated that they are looking for ways to allow priests to at least celebrate, if not perform, gay nuptials in church.
Note the use of the word “immediately” in the second paragraph. Don’t you get a sense of immanence?
The fact is that many diocesan bishops including Thomas Shaw of Massachusets (as Paulson notes), have already been allowing for blessing of gay unions. Paulson doesn’t have quotes indicating that some bishops are considering allowing their clergy to officiate at gay marriages — but given that the denomination has authorized members to gather materials for same-sex marriage, it’s got to be in the back of of some of their minds. Maybe that’s what Bishop Lane means by “flexibility” and “good pastoral judgements.”
Paulson, a very able writer sitting in the midst of progressive ground zero, has a rather unusual opportunity to ask the bishops some pointed questions. One question that I’d like answered — what is the effective difference between offering a blessing on a relationship and celebrating a marriage? Is the only difference a piece of paper needed by the state?
OR is there a theological difference? Isn’t this flap really about asking God’s blessing? Funny the way those quoted seldom mention the one who is supposed to be the chief actor.
In the meantime, there is some real news here — that the bishops are trying to come up with a united response to the expected hordes of requests to officiate at gay marriages. The other striking aspect of the article, at least to me, was New Hampshire bishop Gene Robinson’s desire to wall off civil marriage from church ceremonies.
“My feeling is that it’s time to separate the civil action from the religious action for all couples, and my guess is that we will continue that practice, which is to say we will ask clergy to get out of the civil marriage business and continue to offer the church’s blessings of civil unions and of same-gender marriages,” said Robinson. As a practical matter, that means marriages are solemnized by justices of the peace, who sign the legal documents, and then blessed by clergy.
Who exactly is the “we” here? The local bishops? The Episcopal Church? Bishops Gene Robinson and Tom Shaw? Seriously, having ministers stop officiating at marriages is a very big step, one that hasn’t gotten a huge amount of media attention. Let’s see if it gets more.
I’ve heard the argument both ways — get churches out of the marriage biz, or get the state out of approving marriages. Frankly, I can’t see either happening any time soon — but I’m glad to see Paulson publicize the dilemmas that loom for bishops in a geographic region where the state has actually gotten out ahead of the Episcopal Church. It’s hard to tell if a coordinated response will even be possible.
I imagine that it’s almost as exciting being a New England journalist as it is being one in, say, California. You never know, until later, if you are in the vanguard, or on the fringe.
 | Posted at 2:55 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (12) |
July 22, 2009, at 5:30 pm
“Funny the way those quoted seldom mention the one who is supposed to be the chief actor.”
Tragic for certain, but not necessarily funny or surprising. We’re talking New England, diocese of Bishop Spong, the most liberal bastion of an increasingly (not exclusively) liberal denomination. Mention of a Biblical, transcendent “God” is increasingly optional if not irrelevant.
July 22, 2009, at 11:03 pm
July 22, 2009, at 11:03 pm
Yeah, yeah, I know: messed up the blockquote tag.
July 22, 2009, at 11:07 pm
Fr. Greg, I am happy to be corrected, and I will fix my mistake.
How’s that for a gracious response? (grin)
July 23, 2009, at 9:22 am
Some Unitarian Universalist ministers have stopped officiating at any weddings until gay marriage is a reality. And it has gotten virtually no media attention.
As someone who was married by a UU minister (a lesbian one, at that) I am reminded of a cartoon I saw in the Sixties. A young man is asking a young woman, “Explain to me again how you not sleeping with me any more will end the war?”
July 23, 2009, at 11:57 am
I would point out, danr, that Spong was bishop of Newark, NJ.
As for the article, I would point to this passage further along:
July 24, 2009, at 11:07 am
Help me out here. Celebrate vs. perform. What does he mean?
July 25, 2009, at 11:52 am
To Undergroundpewster: the Book of Common Prayer has a liturgy for the “blessing of a civil marriage.” I believe that’s what the article meant by “celebrate”, as opposed to “perform,” i.e., the priest actually officiating as an agent of the state at a religious wedding.
I’m inclined to agree with Bishop Robinson that the church (by which I mean any denomination) should get out of the marriage-license business. The French have the right idea: regardless of the couple’s religious beliefs, the only legal marriage in France is the one that takes place at the mairie (City Hall).
July 25, 2009, at 3:51 pm
I don’t believe that the church is in the marriage-license business. That’s generally taken care of at the tax office. Frankly, all this talk of getting out of the marriage business seems to me a red herring. The difference between officiating at a wedding and celebrating a wedding is some verbiage, some vows, and a pronunciation. But the blessing is intact in both, so that whether a priest officiates at a full rite of matrimony, or simply celebrates what has already been declared official, matters not one bit; the key act of the clergy in this is the blessing of a covenant between two people and God, something only ordained clergy can do (and not a justice of the peace), and something that is simply beyond the pale in both scripture and the canons of The Episcopal Church. So, in my opinion, either do gay marriages or don’t, but all this equivocating is just plain ugly. Either believe and obey the Bible and the church canons, or don’t. Splitting hairs for the sake of remaining in the communion doesn’t serve anyone well.
July 25, 2009, at 7:14 pm
I don’t think any church should be forced to celebrate any rite that violates its core beliefs (assuming it has any, which is in some question where the Episcopal Church is concerned). You may have heard that Gov. Lynch of New Hampshire refused to sign that state’s marriage-equality bill unless it included a provision that protected religious organizations from having to conduct wedding ceremonies that violated their beliefs. Not that any religious group was ever going to be forced to do any weddings.
The issue here is that gay people feel that without an authorized option in the Church to recognize and bless their civil unions, they are not fully integrated into Church life. The point is a valid one, but if a religious ceremony had no legal standing (as is the case in France), it might not be nearly so emotional an issue on both sides.
July 26, 2009, at 8:56 am
So the game the Episcopalians are officially playing for now (so they don’t lose more people?) is their priests can’t do a gay marriage service (which they obviously want to do and are one jump away from) but can bless a gay civil marriage like a straight one?
I say get the state out of the marriage biz and leave it to the couples and religions.
July 28, 2009, at 9:15 am
Can anybody tell me why bishop Robinson gets so much favorable press and is so lionized by reporters, most notably Michael Paulson of the Globe?
The “bishop” abandoned his 2 kids and his wife for another man and I presume, for gay sex. This is a leader of a religion? Whatever your views, under any standard for a religious leader, leaving your family is a dark stain.
Paulson won numerous awards from liberal organizations
for reporting on the priest scandal. Priests who raped children for gay sex and yet the “bishop” abandons his family for gay sex continues to get good coverage and a voice for his agenda in the Globe.
In no way do I equate homosexuals who rape boys with homosexuals who leave their families for consensual gay sex, the former being heinous, the later merely scandalous and for a bishop and a leader of a church who is lionized by Mr. Paulson, also Orwellian.
Does Mr. Paulson really have any credibility outside the liberal media when he ignores the bishop’s charactor because the bishop has the right agenda?