Does the act of making public vows change people, or not?

I suppose the truest answer is that it depends on the integrity one brings to the making and keeping of vows.

But making vows in public, in front of God 'n' everybody, changed me in confirmation, commissioning and marriage; and it certainly changed every priest and deacon, bishop and monk I know. Even just witnessing others' vows, and being asked to support them in their keeping, changed me. When my friends finally got divorced I felt like I'd failed too.

Helping people make and keep vows is pretty much the business we're in as the Church. I don't see that we have much choice about who is making the promises, if they meet the qualifications. Does GM care if a Lesbian buys a Pontiac? Is there any less rejoicing over the sale?

Congratulations, Julian and Deidre. We're praying for you, and please drive safely.

Wonderful news.

Your marriage is recognised in New Mexico. The Diocese of Rio Grande is another story.

All the best,

Martha Blacklock

Brilliant piece. I am so, so happy for you! Many blessings on your continued lives together.

Thank you for the generous tone. It's painful and angering how our 'civil' society has politicized the issue of same-sex marriage.

I love this that you said,

"Our marriage is a commitment to be accountable to all those persons who have participated in and supported marriage - whoever they are, whether or not they are willing to support our marriage. They've got our commitment and our participation, those who value it and those who would reject it."

When I was in parish work we had a couples group that brought heterosexual and same-sex couples together to talk about the spirituality and discoveries of committed relationship and offer one another intentional support and friendship. Individuals and couples found the deepest friendship and best support in ways that were wonderfully unpredictable. The unfolding saga of San Francisco's City Hall marriages, court order stopping them, State Supreme Court Decision supporting them, now Prop 8 and good friends working together to strategize for 8's repeal or court nullification has been a roller coaster ride emotionally for this group of friends. So many same-sex married partners have told old friends, 'I thought we were making a political statement - but it was so much more.' 'I got choked up and couldn't speak.' 'It was so joyful for us.'

In a culture where commitments are increasingly fragile, our hopes here ARE as you say for the support of committed relationship and the network of support people in committed relationships can offer one another.

Thank you!

Ah, another thing I really valued in what you wrote is this:

"We both have this old fashioned ideal of the church as parochial in the original sense of the word, the place where we are, not the place we go to hear the sermons we prefer to hear. But for some of us, our church has not yet decided to be where we are."

For many of us and in so many ways, 'parochial' with it's mid-nineteenth century connotation of confined, narrow, and short-sighted isn't at all our experience. The old Greek etymology with its hints of companions traveling together and neighbors points to where the church does its hardest and often its best work.

love,
donald

A totally beautiful definition of what marriage is and I believe should be for all.

I especially liked the"old ideal of church..." too. Thank you.

(CLB we need you to sign your name on your posts in the future.)

Being married (Montreal 2005) didn't make a big difference to US, but we discovered that it made a difference to family and friends. People "get" Marriage, where they find labels like Domestic Partners, Significant Others, Civil Unions rather abstract. My husband's mother and sister, always accepting and friendly, seemed to take us more seriously (they attended our ceremony). Friends at the local parish gave us a party and a cookbook (after our 23 years together)! The message we've been sending for years is that gays are social units, not sexual practices (a concept the righteous right strenuously resists). Marriage makes it plain.

(BTW, congrats, Deidre!)

Murdoch Matthew

I, Gary Paul Gilbert, am helping my spouse post this comment, hoping it will get through.

The Connecticut Supreme Court said civil unions fail an equal protection test because they relegate same-same couples to an inferior status.

The United Kingdom does not recognize marriages of same-sex couples but treats them as civil partnerships. There was a case of a lesbian couple who tried to have their Canadian marriage recognized in England. Instead they were treated as having a civil partnership.

Also, the following sentence got garbled and logically should say that the Connecticut Supreme Court had to intervene once it determined that gays are a quasi-suspect class and thus the legislature was unlikely to guarantee that gays be treated equally by Connecticut laws: "Second, the decision addressed the issue of whether such a ruling should be made by the courts or by the legislature by determining the status of homosexuals as a "quasi-suspect" class requiring legal intervention to achieve parity because judicial processes were unlikely to provide equal rights." This should have said "because legislative processes were unlikely to provide equal rights."

Interestingly, Lambda Legal says that same-sex couples should consider getting both civil unions or domestic partnerships (such as California's domestic partnership, which can be filed in the mail even by nonresidents for 35 dollars) and marriage to be sure they are recognized as a couple. A couple traveling in Vermont or New Hampshire would not have their relationship recognized unless they also had a civil union or state domestic partnership.

Murdoch and I have both a California domestic partnership and a Canadian marriage.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Congratulations - Frankie and I wish you and Julian all good things. We are still savoring your words from the ECW retreat three years. Your sisters at Church of the Holy Comforter.

I write this knowing I know far less than others about the recent thinking and debate about the church getting out of the marriage business altogether:

Those zealots the Pilgrims saw marriage as a civil ceremony. On the subject of the state v. the church role in marriage and in wikipedia (for what it's worth) it says, "Marriage was considered a civil, rather than religious ceremony. Such an arrangement may have been a habit that had developed during the Leiden years, as civil marriage was common in the Netherlands. However, the Pilgrims saw this arrangement as Biblical, there being no evidence from Scripture that a minister should preside over a wedding."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Colony

In Mayflower, Nathaniel Philbrick adds a bit more. The Pilgrims traveled to America with "Strangers" -- non Pilgrims. Philbrick writes,

"In Holland, they had enjoyed the benefits of a society in which the division of church and state had been, for the most part, rigorously maintained. ... marriage in Holland was a civil ceremony, and so it would be -- much to the dismay of English authorities -- in Plymouth Colony. ... [W]ith so many Strangers in their midst, [t]hey must [in the words of Pastor John Robinson] 'become a body politic, using amongst yourselves civil government.'"