I made it clear that we are not talking about “marriage,” which by definition in the Book of Common Prayer is between a man and a woman. Consequently, the Prayer Book’s marriage service may not be used or mimicked by simply editing it.

I repeat my call, based upon URGENT NEED, for prayer book revision (even as I understand that not all bishops may be as narrow-minded as I believe Bishop Johnston is being in this regard)

JC Fisher

Can the BCP not be amended? (Seems to me a full scale revision would take a long, long time). The ideal solution would be an additional rite of marriage or marriage blessing which is open to both straight and gay couples.

The worst outcome would be codifying a gay-specific ritual.

RIght now, in this time of transition, Bp. Johnston's solution is quite common. Because it is transitional, I think it's okay.

Kinda like realizing that civilly marrying one's same sex partner is not yet treated the same as a straight couple, yet marry we did, because at this point in time, claiming what we may is important. Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.

--susan forsburg

Unless and until both the marriage canons and the BCP rubrics are amended (the BCP can be amended without a wholesale revision) then Bishop Johnson is entirely correct. We'll see what General Convention 2012 does in this regard.

What part of 'common' do Virginians not understand? The COMMONwealth of Virginia keeps gay people second class by denying them civil marriage. Now the Episcopal bishop justifies this second class status with the Book of COMMON Prayer. Does not 'common' mean of, by, and for all?

Better the bishop had allowed these gratuitous blessings by simply pointing out that the state forbade same gender marriages so, of course, clergy can't officiate at and witness them.

I hope GLBT Virginia Episcopalians snub both the church and commonwealth rather than accept seats in the gallery. Ya'all come to New York. We'll treat you real good.

If any of this seems to be over the top, I reply by saying a change of this magnitude requires extraordinary considerations.

Not only does it seem "over the top," it seems remarkably un-pastoral.

Mr. Johnston may be a moderate for Virginia but to this New Yorker he sounds like a proponent of separate and equal, which never works. How lovely that a gay Anglican couple is not allowed to select and edit parts of the Book of Common Prayer! To me, that says same-sex couples are not really Anglican but foreign bodies which the larger body must view with suspicion. Different-sex couples are real whereas same-sex couples are merely mimicking the majority. What nonsense! Requiring a lengthy statement of theology seems incredibly stupid on his part. What is there to understand about the love between two persons? If city hall in New York now doesn't have a problem with treating same-sex couples like everybody else, the Episcopal Church should also move on as quickly as possible. This transition of providing blessings while crossing one's fingers communicates stigma and disapproval to LGBTs. Requiring that people read the clobber passages against same-sex activity sounds cruel. Rather than providing transitional blessings, why not move to get the denomination out of marriage, which is not a sacrament anyway?

City Hall at this point provides a better alternative and people can gather on their own and say whatever prayers they want from the Prayer Book if they choose to continue to identify as Anglican/Episcopal.

I understand blessings are a transitional strategy and that the denomination takes a long time to rewrite the Prayer Book and its canons, but Mr. Johnston's statement confirms my worst fears that the blessing business is yet another delaying tactic.

Marrying civilly in those jurisdictions which allow same-sex couples to marry makes more sense. The church can invite same-sex couples for church rites when it decides to treat everyone the same.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Actually, in San Diego it's not that different, with an explicit requirement that each parish examine the issue and go through a process, and the marriage liturgy "as is" out of bounds.

And that's not only because SSM is no longer legal in CA, it's a recognition that different congregations are in different places,and all are in the same diocese... and because TEC hasn't approved a liturgy, but approved "pastoral latitude". And the Bishops are working hard to keep their conflicted dioceses together.

And even as a married gay person (whose marriage was blessed in the church a few months ago), I don't see anything wrong with that. Yes, everyone would love it if the floodgates opened everywhere. I'd like my brothers and sisters in Alabama to be able to marry. But even so, progress is happening.

@Paul, The Episcopal Church is not marrying same sex couples in states where same sex marriage is illegal, which is over 30 states, including Virginia. For VA,to recognize anything about LGBT couples is amazing, since it is civilly a State of Hate. In the context of VA, this is a solid step forward.

As I commented above, (and have frequently discussed with my friend Paige), I'm a pragmatist. So I will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I want the perfect. But till I get there, I'll take the good.

-susan forsburg

Susan, It seems weird for a diocese to ignore the 18,000 same-sex couples who married when it was legal in the State of California. Offering a blessing sounds like too little, especially when one considers that in addition to these 18,000 couples who remain married because they married before the passage of Proposition 8 in 2008, same-sex couples such as Murdoch and me who married before 2008 are recognized as married by California when they visit or relocate to California. Developing a separate rite when marriage as an institution already exists seems like yet another way to deny full equality. In those states that do not allow same-sex couples to marry civilly perhaps the church should marry them religiously. The church would still be free, like the United Church of Christ, the Unitarians, and the Quakers to consider blessings of same-sex couples as full marriage for purposes of religion.

There are many options in the battle for equality because it is not clear which approach will work. Second-class may have a long shot of succeeding but it generally merely solidifies exclusion.

Gary Paul Gilbert

As I commented above, (and have frequently discussed with my friend Paige), I'm a pragmatist. So I will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I want the perfect. But till I get there, I'll take the good.

Susan--as a self-professed atheist, you have no reason to expect much from Christians at all, much less bishops of the church.

I, on the other hand, expect more...based largely on that whole "Do unto others thing" that the Lord we claim to follow instructed us to do.

At the very least, I expect bishops of this church to treat ALL the priests and parishioners of hir diocese--not just the ones with whom zie agrees--politely and pastorally. On that count, this letter is a big, fat FAIL.

It's funny . . . reading this, one of my reactions was: "Gosh, it'd be great if straight couples could write a statement of the theology of their marriage, including relevant passages of scripture." (I've been to several weddings where the couple did make their theological statements, either in their vows or, once, by turning and explicitly addressing the congregation!).

I don't dislike the process the bishop has set forth. Christian marriage does take place in community, and telling the story of the community seems to me more an opportunity for expression than a kneeling-before-judgment; I would hope an opportunity to go on-record is a positive way for us to build our story going forward. I also have hopes that calling for descriptions of processes that have been followed will help bring to light more broadly that those processes exist and can transform communities. I hope this will help each marriage celebrated in Viriginia be a part of the growth and transformation of the church into a fuller acceptance of the reality of God's gifts of grace for our relationships during our lives in creation. Sacrament is, after all, recognizing visibly what God has already been making real. It may take our imperfect human church some time to get there, but I trust that truth will continue to help us grow.

Is there a justice issue here, in that straight couples marrying don't have these restrictions? Sure. And I hope the clergy and laity in Virginia don't lay the whole burden of speaking to these three questions on the LGBT members of parishes. In the meanwhile, I appreciate that this is a significant step being taken, and sometimes it takes going through the motions of an imperfect solution to move towards a more gracious one.

As one of the three priests who has submitted an application to move forward in the blessing of same-sex couples, please know that at the meeting with Bishop Johnston where the guidelines were laid out, I did say that this was a fine first step, but that we would not rest until there was full marriage equality.

Just sayin'.

Meg Matters

Margaret, the point I keep trying to make here and elsewhere (apparently with little or no success) is that it seems to me that the meal's not done. This is just the start.

But to follow that metaphor, I also think it would be rude not to accept the initial offering. SO much can happen while, if you will, breaking bread together and talking. And it's guaranteed that none of it will happen, if you don't.

--susan forsburg