Well, let me be the first to say here that ordination before marriage seems utterly bassackwards.

Of course, this is still good news to a certain extent. But allowing the ordination and not the marriage seems to further entrench the idea that same-sex relationships are 2nd class. It sort of says, "We don't think your relationship is wrong/sinful. But, we still don't think it's an equal relationship." I wouldn't want this, but it seems easier to deal with intellectually the belief that a relationship isn't equal because it IS thought to be sinful.

M'eh...I just think it's wacky. Still, better than nothing though.

Also, isn't TEC sort of at the same point? ELCA too, right?

Yes, it seems strange that you would allow the people who are the spiritual leaders of your churches to be involved in relationships that do not deserve blessing in your services. It definitely feels bass ackwards, but we are definitely in the same boat. I look forward to the day where this is all over. Fortunately for us here in the US, it is getting close. Unfortnately, much of the rest of the world is far behind (although there are also many parts who are far ahead).
Doug Spurlin

Yes, it's pretty much where TEC and ELCA are practically speaking "on the ground." I agree it's backwards -- blessing of unions should have come first. But we had all these gay clergy, some in relationships, some not, and so ordination became the pressing issue. Another example of TEC's "action/reflection" way of doing theology. We "do"it first and then "theologize" about it.
But don't be too sure about PCUSA It would not be the first time local presyteries have rejected progressive national action, thereby making the latter null and void.

They shouldn't be any homosexual clergy period unless they are celibate and those "relationships" aren't equal to a male-female relationship. So they're half right. The only reason I put up with staying in TEC is because I refuse to go to the EOC,RCC, and ANCA and those African "missionary Churches". Basically I'm just holding my nose at all of this like so many others.

I find this story confusing. Your first paragraph refers to "same-sex blessings," but the quoted AP story says "marriage." They are not necessarily the same. So do the Presbyterians allow blessings but not marriages, or what?

Richard, it's too late. You can continue to protest and be upset and hold your nose, but if you don't like it, then make sure and go to a parish employing the kind of priest you need to see at the altar. The rest of us will continue to support LGBT equality within the Church and think nothing of it if our duly qualified candidates have a same-sex partner in a committed relationship.

Hmmm, Mr. Jackson... It's ironic how readily we hold our noses over a mere whiff of the perceived sins of others, and yet so rarely hold them them it comes to the stench of our own sins. After all, our noses are closest to ourselves, so you think they'd pick up on the odor of our own sins first. I wonder what makes our sense of smell so much more sensitive to sins at a distance, and so weak when it comes to the sins right in our face and on our hands?

Gregory Orloff

FTW, Gregory! :-D

JC Fisher

Let's see if I get this straight. The Presbyterian General Synod is saying to gay folks, we'll ordain you but you have to live in sin. God bless the Presbyterians.