And then we wonder why people are leaving the church/not coming to church. It is one thing to allow different perspectives on issues. It is another to have different rules for marriage in Scarsdale, Syosset, and Schnectady. Whatever their theology, I suspect most people are not looking for a confused church.

Bill Bonwitt

Well, this is a dilemma isn't it? What should be bishops do? they should do the work of the church and not the law. They should reconcile everything to God through Christ and to one another. It's this last part that says we don't judge, we don't exclude, we don't deny, we support all loving relationships we care for one another, love one another, and we bless all relationships, whenever asked, we thank God that love is seen in all relationship. We support, propagate, live, cherish grace, and do all things in love. Anything that doesn't do this is more worried about the weeds than they are about the wheat!

What is the Bishop of New York thinking? +Mark New York won't let clergy 'officiate' at weddings of same gender couples though it is the state that permits them to do so. He even warns them against totally unnecessary end runs like becoming justices of the peace to do what the state already permits. He sets himself, not along side, but above the State of New York.

However, he then exercises his jurisdiction to say his clergy can bless civil marriages, something already provided for by the Book of Common Prayer. Is this confusion or just bishop babble to give the appearance of being nuanced or to please all sides?

Meanwhile +Lawrence Long Island orders his partnered gay clergy to hie themselves to the altar of respectability within 90 days with no acknowledgment of the difficulties this may pose in a country where DOMA is the national law, and states refuse to recognize each other's marriage laws. What is marriage in NY is civil union in NJ and neither in VA.

To those who were once purified by fire, then told that respectability, i.e., no scandal, first meant being in the closet, then being celibate and are now told to rush to the altar this is not pastoral, but just more of the same old condescension straits heap on gays.

I have to say that until the bishops get their own houses in order on this matter, telling lgbt persons, including their clergy, what to do in relation to changes in one state, not nationally, reveals a terrible heterosexism on their part because they do not seem to understand the civil law complexities faced by lgbt persons in same gender relationships, to which they now add the ecclesial law as well as whim?--meaning their personal opinions or understanding of care, complexities.

I could express exasperation about the "differences" from diocese to diocese in TEC in this matter, but the last GC was quite vague (and intentionally so) about what would be allowed by bishops in these cases. It should come as no surprise that the allowance of a "generous pastoral response" could cover actions from marriage right now today to exercising the pastoral role of bishop to discourage LGBT persons from engaging in an action contrary to divine intent. Hence the mess in NY. Should we have expected otherwise?

In the bigger context, this type of diocesan difference has become the rule rather than the exception in TEC. Think back to ordination of women as priests. Some have criticized TEC (maybe rightly) of always getting the "cart before the horse" on these matters. ELCA did their big theological study that was discussed and adopted before taking "the vote" on LGBT partnered clergy ordinations. We've done the usual Episcopal thing and done it the other way round. In some ways, it allows us to move faster and keeps us from doing the somewhat un-Anglican thing of having lots of theological documents "officially in force." It leaves us open, however, for these sorts of inequalities. Perhaps we should "spin" it as a virtue. It could be part of our "openness" to "diversity?" (Albeit considering that bigotry may not be a "virtue" to which we should be "open.")

Is anyone familiar with the Diocese of New York and Mr. Sisk surprised at his lukewarm embrace of same-sex couples? I enjoy the irony that the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, which usually trails New York and Newark (the most liberal of the three dioceses in the metropolitan region), is now ahead of New York in that it will allow priests to officiate at civil weddings in church as well as bless them in church. Larry Provenzano, Bishop of Long Island, is just starting out, which may explain why he is more modern. He has told his clergy in same-sex relationships they must marry within 9 monhts, not 90 days. Bishop Sisk has always been less than exciting. This latest step of forbidding priests to preside at civil weddings of same-sex couples is unacceptable unless he forbids them from presiding at any civil weddings. Integrity New York is supposed to lobby for LGBT rights,not do damage control for a bishop and a diocese trying to play catchup with a civil law which is light years ahead of church law. I also don't remember Sisk doing much to help us win marriage equality in New York State. He wrote a letter to the editor of The New York Times this year saying he supported Governor Cuomo's marriage equality bill but he never used the words "gay," "lesbian," or "LGBT." He referred to the bill as "the bill," so as to prevent his being quoted out of context. Six years ago when Murdoch and I got involved in the marriage equality movement in New York State, we did not see many people from the Diocese of New York. There were lots of Reform Jews, Unitarians, Quakers, United Church of Christ, and some Episcopalians. This is my subjective impression. I also remember Union Theological Seminary came out officially for civil marriage equality, while General Theological Seminary was unable to support the cause officially. General did gives us some prominent activists, however.

The bigger problem is that the so-called generous response resolution, C056, is ambiguous and cedes authority to the bishops on whether and how to recognize same-sex couples in jurisdictions where civil law provides some form of recognition. For years now New York State has recognized Murdoch and me as married but only this year has the Diocese of New York begun to recognize civilly married same-sex couples.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. I didn't expect much from New York, certainly under Mr. Sisk. I am somewhat encouraged by Mr. Provenzano.

Gary Paul Gilbert

This latest step of forbidding priests to preside at civil weddings of same-sex couples is unacceptable unless he forbids them from presiding at any civil weddings.

Integrity New York is supposed to lobby for LGBT rights,not do damage control for a bishop and a diocese trying to play catchup with a civil law which is light years ahead of church law.

Amen.

Disappointed in Bp. Sisk. Disappointed in Integrity.

From the Times: "He and Father Crawley worship at St. Paul’s Chapel, which is part of Trinity Wall Street in Lower Manhattan. In keeping with the local bishop’s directive, Trinity’s priests will not officiate at same-sex marriages, and the parish has not decided whether to allow them to bless such unions."

I had no idea Trinity was so gutless about this. Very disappointing.

Jim, I am not surprised about Trinity Wall Street because it has an unelected board rather than a vestry. One might argue that a church with that much money would tend to be conservative but the Riverside Church has about the same amount of money and it has already moved on to full inclusion in marriage, both civil and religious, for same-sex couples. Having dealt with Trinity many times, Murdoch and I are not disappointed because we never expected Trinity would be the first to move on LGBT issues. Like the larger Episcopal Church, it waits for other people to do the wait. At least it is not the last to embrace justice.

Murdoch and I read the Episcopal canons on marriage as a joke, given we were together twenty-two years before we married at the Montreal Court House in 2005. I suppose we would need a lot of premarital ghostly counsel to marry in the Episcopal Church. Mary O'Shaughnessy's citing of a thirty day waiting period for same-sex couples who have been denied marriage equality for decades makes no sense for us older couples. If we had waited for the denomination to discern how to respond to the world around us we never would have done anything. Thirty days is not going to make much difference for couples who have been together forever and who have already merged their finances and their lives. The church should probably get out of the marriage business completely. I tend to agree with Luther that the church got into the marriage business to control people's lives.

"Thirty days' advance notice has been provided to the cleric. (The canons state this can be waived for a serious reason. Since there is no reason at this point to expect that the right to marriage in New York is going to be revoked soon, there would need to be a more weighty reason than a strong desire to be among the first married under the new law.)"

Gary Paul Gilbert

All of this is a REALLY good argument for getting organized in Indianapolis and amending our canons to end marriage discrimination.

IMHO.

Susan Russell