It's resolutions like this that, for gay Episcopalians, really enforce a sense of second class membership in their own church.

Expand the boundaries of marriage, change the pronouns and move on.

My goodness. This resolution looks like something drafted out of fear. Really now:(e)the appropriateness of advanced medical screening...is that required by the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia for heterosexual couples seeking to be married in a church?

In re 2(e), 'the appropriateness of advance medical screening, if any,' it appears that just two states require blood tests: Mississippi (both parties, for syphilis); Montana (woman [unless over 50], for rubella, unless a physician deems this unnecessary. Previously during this decade eight states required premarital blood testing (DC, GA, IN, MA, MI, MT, OK, NY).

(I did a quick look of the states and DC.)

James Mackay

Having studied the Gospels, one may come to the conclusion that this kind of legalism is, in large part, what Jesus protested against. That he lived and died and openly broke custom and the carefully crafted canon law of the Temple and defied the spiritual and political hegemony of Rome for radical inclusion of all into the Kingdom of God. (Especially those cast out and marginalized by custom and law...)

I often wonder what Jesus would say about our excessive emphasis on canon law and resolution making in place of bold and swift and even controversial action. (Like eating with tax collectors, speaking to sinful women at wells, or flipping over tables...)

Bold, foolish, dangerous love and justice are at the heart of the Gospel that made me a Christian. Not courts, lawyers, and resolutions.

And, Paul, I couldn't agree with you more. I'd feel like a second class citizen too if my Church had to go through all of this just to "be able to" treat me like an equal human being.

How Christ-like is THAT?

Adam Spencer

In the not-so-distant future, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia will have to own the shame it has brought on itself by this offensive resolution. It's just too bad that this ungracious and cowardly resolution will have done so much damage to individual LGBTs (and to those who support them), as well as to the witness of the church before that happens.

Move along, folks. There ain't no Gospel here...

Paige Baker

First of all, props to DioVA for being proactive in thinking about same-gender marriage. The first thing that popped out at me too was the advanced medical screening. That seems to set a bit of a really uncomfortable double standard. I did like to see that they are thinking about the possibility of using the potential liturgy for heterosexual couples. In the end, though, I'm inclined to just agree with Paul: change the pronouns and move on.

It's pungent legislation - withdrawn and offensive, without regard for personhood.

Will anyone dare rise and explain how this came to be?

Torey Lightcap

It is stunningly awful. It is discrimination in full bloom.

Torey --What is worse is that the Resolutions Committee took three separate Resolutions, all of them fairly constructive and non-legislative, and ditched them to write this.

I have not been speechless; I have been outraged, stunned and hurt to the core of my being.

Please pray for all of us in this Diocese, particularly those who designed and drove these nails home.

Margaret Watson

(a) Whether individual members of the clergy have the right, as a matter of theological principle, to decline to conduct any such service, without adverse disciplinary consequences or personnel action;

(b) Whether individual members of the clergy have the right to decline to conduct such a service for a particular same gender couple, without adverse disciplinary consequences or personnel action, similar to the current rule for clergy asked to conduct weddings;

These particularly puzzle me. When and where have local clergy ever been obligated to marry any couple? Why do these questions even need to be raised?

It's reminiscent of some of the canards floated by clerics uncomfortable with districts and states where same-sex marriages have been legalized.

There should be a review process for determining whether a priest may bless a relationship or perform Holy Matrimony. The review process should be the same for same- and opposite-sex couples. If the Diocese of Virginia believes that its review process for opposite sex couples is inadequate, an examination of the rules along the lines proposed in the resolution is in order. But, if the rules apply only to same-sex relationships (and they are different from those applying to opposite sex relationships), then they are not only offensive but perhaps open to challenge in the civil courts.

That said, I believe that no priest should be required to bless any relationship nor to preside at a service of Holy Matrimony unless that individual wishes to do so.

Bill Eadie

Bill,

I agree. The question of clergy presiding at any wedding has always struck me as a matter of permission from the ecclesiastical authority. . . never an obligation.

If it were obligatory, what a pastoral misery it could be for everyone involved!

Are these resolutions the Virginia diocese's idea of separate but equal? It is to weep. The resolutions are demeaning and insulting.

Margaret, yes. We must pray for the Diocese of Virginia and for all who are hurt by this set of odious resolutions.

Sorry, I forgot to sign my name. That's my post up above.

June Butler

I'd say the fear of lawsuits has a lot to do with this list of possible rules--lawsuits both from gays whose requests might be refused (a,b,etc.) and lawsuits by conservatives against the services(o).

Chris Harwood [Name added by ed.]