I don't think this will happen as clergy have a monetary interest in being agents of the state as do many churches (that cute church in the mountains, etc). If people don't come to us to get married by the state as well as the church - will we be able to ever speak to couples about faith?

My problem with congregations getting out of the civil marriage business is that while on the surface they would be protesting the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage it could also be read as meaning they want to continue that exclusion. It would appear they were running away from the issue so as to have a good conscience. The day the state allows same-sex couples to marry civilly the congregations would have an excuse not to marry them. Separating out civil from religious marriage is something that probably should have been done long ago but to do so simply because of same-sex couples is to continue discrimination. At the very least it is a response to discrimination and not something positive in and of itself. I think it is too late.

I would rather that congregations signed on to becoming safe havens for LGBTs and pledged their support for full civil and religious rights for LGBTs.

Gary Paul Gilbert

As Bishop Robinson points out in the interview (see the full text of the LA Times article), it's common in many European and other countries to separate the civil and religious aspects of marriage. Doing so would allow us to minister to those who truly want to ask God's blessing on and the support of the Christian community for their relationship.

I do appreciate Ann's concern about the loss of the evangelical opportunity when couples come to the church seeking marriage. Perhaps we need to be more effective in proclaiming the gospel in other ways.

Having an Anabaptist bent, I am inclined to agree with Bishop Robinson. Though probably not for precisely the same reasons (I am for example at least as concerned with secular culture's influence on the church as I am with the reverse). At St. Barnabas we do weddings for members (and near relatives of members). It's part of my job and there is no fee beyond that for the musician and sexton. Weddings are not money-makers. We are not a wedding chapel and I am not a chaplain. I do sign the wedding license so the state will recognize what we have done. But, I would not be distressed, and would actually prefer, if it became customary for that to be taken care of at the courthouse.

"Open" marriage, like "open" baptism, and - dare I say it - "open" communion, reflects a christendom mentality in which the church is society's chaplain. In that model, we are here to deliver religious services to the populace when and if it shows up. But the actual words, vows, and convictions we ask people to affirm in all of these only make sense within the context of a community of believers. Whatever evangelistic opportunities might be involved are undermined by the implicit message about what and who we are as the Church. We should look to other means of evangelism.

The entanglements between Church and State vis a vis marriage are thick indeed. The BCP of course asserts that entanglement where it requires that the Church only perform what would be legally recognized marriages. The desire to "purify" the sacraments from legal entanglements may indeed be a pious desire. However, there are other concerns that are usually unvoiced. Firstly, the Church no longer has the ability to protect anyone the way it used to do (however hamhandedly). If, for example, we were to bless a relationship and regard it as holy matrimony that did not also have secular recognition -- who would be there to protect the abandoned spouse and children? The Episcopal Church? Would we send wardens or ushers to require the deadbeat parent to pay spousal/child support? As well, if we no longer accept the State's extension of civil protection to those enjoined by us in the sacramental rite of Holy Matrimony, should we continue to accept the State's waiver of taxes? Likewise, should we continue to permit the State to recognize conscientious objection status based on faith -- should the draft ever return? I have to agree with Gary here and say we shouldn't be vacating the stage here, but rather advocating for marriage equality of all people (if that is really what this is all about, which, of course, it is.)

Greg Jones

As to the idea that this allows us to only focus on those who "truly want to ask God's blessing" -- that is simply untrue, and nonsensical to boot. If a priest is presented with a couple who are not looking for what the Book of Common Prayer offers (a solemn and public covenant in the presence of God) than that priest should not do the wedding, period. The priest's ability to sign the marriage license has no bearing on that decision. Secondly, those who say that they wish to have a 'church wedding' and meet the criteria of the parish priest, should be deemed to have exhibited that they "truly want to ask God's blessing." If priests are doing weddings for people who don't "truly want" God's blessing now, what's to stop them in the future? Nothing. What is troubling about this line of argument is that it bears within it the seed of our presuming to judge the state of an individual's inner motives beyond what they reasonably present themselves to be to us. What is more troubling is that the obvious result of all this is that certain persons whose faith is budding or nascent, will likely go elsewhere for their marital preparation and celebration, and a huge evangelistic opportunity lost. As to financial motivation, I ask nothing to perform a marriage. Most folks offer either a small gift to me or my parish - but I don't even suggest such a thing. Why? Because this is what parish priests are supposed to do.

[name added by ed. -- Greg Jones]

No one has bothered to respond to L. G. Marshall, who began this comment thread by supporting the "God-ordained institution of Marriage of 1 man & 1 woman that our great country used to hold so dear."

I hope that Mr. Marshall will think a bit more about the history of marriage. To begin, historically, it has been between 1 man and as many women as he could afford. Again, it has been about the transfer of property, with the bride as part of the property, being given by the male father to the male husband along with all her goods. Of late, marriage has become a formalizing of a relationship between two equal individuals for their mutual benefit. At this point, the gender of the parties becomes irrelevant. (As far as the state is concerned, it's another civil contract, which religious bodies are free to recognize, bless, or ignore as they see fit. Rome and divorce, e.g.)

And Mr. Marshall really hasn't considered the shambles heterosexuals have made of marriage in this great country, with impulsive weddings, frequent divorces, broken family life. Some of us feel that gays, choosing marriage thoughtfully and against many obstacles, are riding to the rescue of an imperiled institution.

Murdoch Matthew
husband of Gary Gilbert

(Let me also comment on "God-ordained." The Church took little notice of marriages until the 1100s or so. The writer of Genesis (who may or may not have been speaking for God) observed that it is not good for man to be alone. But, cheered on by various religious parties, I was married to a good woman for nearly two decades, and despite common faith and interests, we both were desperately alone because we lacked mutual attraction. After we gave up that failed attempt, I met Gary and for 26 years I have not been alone. We were heart and soul companions before we married in Montreal in 2005; now we are as legally married as anyone else. And we were grateful for the prayers offered for us in the Cathedral Church on the Sunday following our civil ceremony in the Palais de justice.)