The Lead

CNN reports on how everything has changed for same sex couples in Iowa.

Everything changed for this Iowa nurse on April 3, when the Midwestern state's Supreme Court unanimously ruled to overturn a ban on same-sex marriages. On that day, Pollard proposed to Gayla Snook, her partner of 10 years -- three times, just because she could. By lunchtime, the two women were busy planning their wedding, a big blowout scheduled for next summer.
Forty years after the Stonewall riots in New York -- the June 28, 1969, demonstrations that marked the beginning of the gay rights movement -- Iowa stands as one of six U.S. states to have legalized same-sex marriages. The others that currently, or will soon, perform such unions are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire.

Iowa Episcopal Churches offer blessings of civil marriages according to Diocesan Policy. Clergy may ask a state official to perform the vows followed by the blessing of the couple's marriage.

The Supreme Court’s ruling broadens the legal definition of marriage beyond that which is currently stated in the Canons of the Church or the Prayer Book which contains our authorized services. Further, the Prayer Book requires compliance with both the laws of the State and the canons of the Church. But the Church’s definition of the sacrament of marriage and the state’s definition of the legal form of marriage now differ. In spite of the good intentions many may have, I am unable to permit Episcopal clergy to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Couples wishing prayers and a blessing therefore must go first to the state to be married or a priest may ask a state official to provide for the vows and the signing of the license.

Read the Diocesan policy below:
A Pastoral Response
to the Iowa State Supreme Court Ruling on Equal Marriage
The Rt. Rev. Alan Scarfe, Bishop of Iowa

Introduction

I invite you to read the to the Iowa State Supreme Court Ruling on same sex marriage carefully and prayerfully. It is, I believe, the only position available to us according to the polity and custom of our Church. We stand four months away from a General Convention where the limited character of this position will be challenged by resolutions that will come before the Church in Council.

While I affirm the practice of pastoral local option, never repudiated even by the Windsor process, I am aware of the discrepancy, and discrimination in practice this response reveals. Some would seek that I unilaterally ignore the canons and assume the State’s broadened definition, others are caught by the inequity of treating heterosexual couples different than same sex couples. These become important insights for the upcoming debate given our different circumstances in Iowa. A short while ago there was not much energy around a Task Force on Marriage as asked for by General Convention. I would think that the urgency of that conversation has greatly increased, and I am glad for the reasoned and careful statements I have been receiving on that topic. I know emotions are running high, and they have to be expressed. But polemics do not get as much attention as engaging conversation.

We are being sought after by couples around the country, who want more than a civil ceremony. They truly are people of faith seeking their depository of faith, the Church, to celebrate with them. In the calls I receive, I am told of the church membership of the various callers. Being welcoming is vital, and I believe it can be done creatively and within our current canonical constraints by clergy able to engage a local option. For me “being welcoming” also includes support for the rights already afforded. This is a pastoral response, it is not a final answer. The issues have been made clearer. This is not a time to walk away from being part of the process as it reaches another critical point and we fear our differences. We need courage to keep talking and we continue to need patience which in such circumstance becomes itself a form of courage.

Tags:

Alan Scarfe

Comments (5)

I think that it's important for the Church to get out of the business of being the agent for civil marriages. While I support providing the sacrament of Holy Matrimony for all who qualify under the Church's guidelines, including same-sex couples, I believe that it is the blessing of the relationship that is most important. We should focus our efforts at General Convention on insuring that individual diocesan bishops can feel comfortable authorizing such blessings. Then, civil society can catch up to us, for once.

Posted by Bill Eadie | June 23, 2009 11:59 AM

I totally agree. At present, I am doing everything I can to push this issue. The church should not be an agent of the state. Addtionally, the controversy over same-sex marriage is somewhat cleared -- the civil law of marriage and the religious rite of holy matrimony. Makes perfect sense to me.

Posted by BJ Landen | June 23, 2009 12:22 PM

Because the Episcopal Church is in the marriage business, both civil and religious, it should treat all couples the same by giving same-sex couples access to civil and religious marriage.

It is too late to get out of working for the state because it would be clear that homophobia and/or ambivalence toward LGBTs is the primary motive. It would appear the intent is to discriminate against a particular class. It is time for the Episcopalians to get over their homophobia and join liberal faith groups in doing both religious and civil weddings.

To get out of working for the state right now would send the message that LGBTs are second-class members of the denomination. It would be to deny LGBTs the right to use the word "marriage" in church. A blessing sans the word "marriage" is like a civil union in that it communicates inferiority.

If church people want to invoke religious convictions for opting out of having to deal with same-sex couples, then why don't priests work for the state by presiding at a civil wedding at city hall and doing no religious wedding or second-class blessing until the Episcopalians figure out if they want same-sex couples in church. Why can't a priest work for the state in officiating at a legal marriage?

Who needs the church blessing until the church has the guts to treat all couples the same? Civil unions and domestic partnerships at least give some of the protections and rights of legal marriage, whereas a blessing gives no tangible benefits while stripping same-sex couples of their human dignity.

A blessing would have to do something for me to accept it as a compromise.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Posted by garydasein | June 23, 2009 4:16 PM

The problem is that the Episcopal Church cannot do both. It can allow same-sex marriages insofar as the church is concerned. It cannot “legally” marry same-sex couples – that is a legal issue, not a religious. Several European countries have situations where the church is not at all involved in marriage – marriage is a legal contract. If a couple chooses to receive the sacrament of their religion, they can do so, but the church does not do any of the legal aspects. That is a civil issue.
I agree the Episcopal Church needs to sanction and perform same-sex marriages, but, until the legal system catches up, that marriage in the church is a blessing of a union, not a legal contract. Don’t we want both?

Posted by BJ Landen | June 23, 2009 4:41 PM

BJ Landen, The legal system has caught up with same-sex couples. Civil marriage is the option. This denomination is backwards. Why can't a priest work for the state and officiate at a civil wedding for a same-sex couple? Just because a diocesan bishop is afraid that the precedent of using the word "marriage" for that couple will put pressure on the denomination to open the so-called sacrament of matrimony to same-sex couples? Getting out of working for the state simply makes it obvious that the church wishes to discriminate. This is not Europe, where there is a long tradition of separating the civil from the religious.

A blessing of a union is not good enough because it is not the blessing of a civil marriage. It is still separate and unequal. Until the church offers full equality, I would seek no blessing of my civil marriage. Even then I might decide that Murdoch and I have done without the silly blessing and don't need the institution to give us a minor sacrament.

The principle here is full equality for all members of the denomination.

Posted by garydasein | June 23, 2009 6:10 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations