I don't want their blessing ceremonies. I want marriage and nothing less.

Lord, this Church is aggravating…

I agree with Josh. This is ridiculous. The church should stop withholding the Sacrament of Marriage.

Josh and Cynthia, I agree with you. Ironically, they say they don't want to reinvent the wheel but that is precisely what they have done by trying to develop a separate and unequal liturgy for same-sex couples. All that they need do is open religious marriage to all couples regardless of the legal sex of the spouses. In states where civil marriage is already open to same-sex couples they could simply bless civil marriages of same-sex couples or even do both the civil and church part.

In states which have yet to open civil marriage to all couples regardless of the legal sex of the spouses, they could still do the religious and call it marriage.

Having said that, some political work still needs to be done to prepare congregations for the idea that all couples, regardless of the legal sex of the spouses/partners, should be treated alike because they are in a similar situation.

More and more, it seems that the churches, along with the military, are the last bastions of homophobia.

Gary Paul Gilbert

It would be politically disastrous for the Standing Commission to exceed the mandate of resolution c056, a resolution which got our church out from under the shadow of the odious b033, and for which Integrity, the Chicago Consultation, Claiming the Blessing and other pro-LGBT organizations worked especially hard. The SCLM is led by Ruth Meyers, co-founder of the Chicago Consultation and one of its tasks groups is led by Susan Russell, past president of Integrity. This process definitely requires a certain patience, and I suppose one can argued that justice delayed is justice denied, but the work of this committee seems enormously important to me.

Yes, Jim, we know about the political "disasters" of "exceeding mandates" and all. I support Dr. Meyers, Susan Russell and all the consultations and claimings. Maybe it's all going exactly as planned, authorized, voted on and sanctified, while we tiptoe through the tulips instead of admitting the truth: this Church marries Gay people just like it marries Straight people, and has done so for a long time.

I hope, once the Standing Commission has compiled its voluminous materials and submitted its lengthy report, it ends with this recommendation:

Use the same dang thing we've already got printed in the Prayer Book, changing the pronouns as necessary, because marriage is marriage.

Jesus wasn't timid, he was bold.

I'm with Josh here. My marriage is legal in my state. Why not just the Blessing of a Civil Marriage from BCP? It should be an option for those of us who are legally married in our localities.

Joe Brewer

That's one available strategy, Joe. You should talk to your deputies and bishop about it. If I am not mistaken, it would require a change in the prayer book, and changes in the prayer book have to be ratified at two successive conventions. I could be wrong about that, though.

Jim, Your point is well taken. The denomination has to creep forward on marriage equality. That is standard procedure. But this is not some silly doctrinal issue but people's lives and how society treats them.

B033, which was never repealed, still casts its shadow on the weak C025, an attempt to catch up to the modern world, in particular jurisdictions where same-sex couples are granted rights, be it civil unions, domestic partnerships, or marriage.

I doubt I shall see the Episcopal Church accept same-sex couples as fully equal in my lifetime.

The delay contributes to a climate of gay bashing.

I am sorry I take this issue personally. It is all too little, too late.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I agree with Josh and Cynthia. The time has come to use the marriage rite for everyone who wants to be married and be done with it.

Continuing to discriminate against GLBT persons in the life of the Church is evangelical suicide. (It is also wrong but somehow that argument has not lent any urgency to the process.)

Colin Coward on the Changing Attitude blog has commented on the Church's ambivalence toward its LGBT members:

The Church may serve a purpose as a place where all this [sexuality] can be discussed, says the Bishop of Wakefield, Stephen Platten, though he admits it would need to bring people together to claim to be that place. ‘All this’ is discussed freely in pubs and bars and cafes, homes and offices across the country. It’s in the Church that people have the greatest difficulty discussing human sexuality freely and openly. In my own church, which in a comment on a previous post a member denies is homophobic, I am told that it’s better for me not to constantly talk about being gay but keep it quiet. It isn’t something I talk about or preach about, but simply being there with my partner is too much for some of the congregation -– that’s homophobia.

Coward writes from the UK, where gays have made greater progress toward social integration than we have in the US. Many parishes here are friendlier places than the community outside. But the acceptance contends with the fact that sexuality is absent from the tradition. A place must be made, and so far, it's been in a side chapel.

I wonder if all clergy who support marriage equality begin to use the BCP rites (although I would hope for a revision of the current one as most couples I see find it pretty silly) and did not wait - could they bring us all up on charges -- and would any charge stick?

Sure, use the Prayer Book rite, but the truth is there's hunks of it that aren't quite suited for same sex couples. Those would have to have written varia for same sex couples, which is not a big deal, just takes some research and some good liturgical writing. Just do it. Perhaps a whole other Rite is undesirable at best and officious at worst, but variations for the Prayer Book Rite, as well as other collects and prayers for the safety and security of the same sex couple in a difficult world, and other concerns I can't think of right now, wouldn't be a bad idea.

Does all this really feel like we're caving into the dominant culture? I think not. It wouldn't be this difficult and time consuming if that were the case.

I'm curious as to what, particularly, opposite-sex couples find odious about the Marriage Rite (other than that it excludes same-sex couples via its pronouns).

I'm for full-scale revision of the BCP, on principle (do it EVERY generation, or else it tends to create idolatry of the current version!).

However, I can't say I find the Marriage Rite any more ossified than the '79 as a whole (and I'm not a '79 hater---just a revise-every-generation fan!)

JC Fisher

Jim, thanks. I'm not waiting on that one, though.

If I had to guess, I imagine it's already being done and is an "unofficial" option...likely with the "unofficial" support of our bishops, which leads to Ann's question about whether mass "disobedience" (?) could lead to charges.

Joe Brewer

Although it will come far too late for me (I really cannot see having a blessing or marriage after 22 years together), there may be some hope that the work of the commission may, in time, be part of a larger "relook" at the whole concept of marriage/relationship/blessing in the church. I tend to suspect that we may eventually have a multiplicity of rites "equal" in status if not in content, perhaps even with a "Rite I" option for a traditional BCP-type marriage rite which has formed the basis for most other marriage rites in the English language. I, for one, would much rather see this done carefully than in a slap-dash way. So much of our "belief" in Anglicanism flows out of and into our prayerbook based liturgical experience that we need to be deliberative and collaborative in making changes. We have only to look and see what the 1979 "baptismal covenant" section of our baptismal rite has done to/for us to see how much that the change in the language of a rite can change/alter belief over time. That we promise to "respect the dignity of every human being" is no small part of why we are even considering "blessing" rites in the first place. I would say that we should be supportive of the commission's work and try to help them, not cut them down from the onset. That we are even doing such a thing, unknown in the history of English liturgy, is an amazing thing. As the prime crafters of English-language liturgy, we Episcopalian/Anglicans bear a special responsibility inasmuch as others are likely to imitate us (as has happened throughout the history of our vernacular liturgy and scriptural translation traditions). Let's take some time and "do it right."
In the meantime, I think that any creative liturgist could put together a "Rite III" type of service that would be acceptable for provisional use until the "final" rite is prepared and passes the conventions. These "local use" ad hoc trial liturgies will certainly help to form/inform the process as well.

Thank you, Dr. Shy. Interesting that Gary and I had been together 22 years when we married in Canada in 2005. Made little difference to us, but impressed our friends. (People from the parish threw us a party, and someone gave us a cookbook.) Even my (now) mother-in-law, always accepting (she and Gary's sister traveled from Maine to our wedding in Montreal), seemed to shift slightly from regarding me as "the man Gary lives with" to "family." As I said, the ceremony has made little difference to us, but as a political and social statement, it's had an effect. I would not contemplate a church service or blessing at this stage (not of life but of my belief), but a Rite in the Prayer Book would be a positive thing indeed.