Oh, I don't know. There probably should be study or two or a hundred, delaying and obfuscating our missional Incarnational presence on earth. We wouldn't want the church to take the lead in justice. Just wouldn't be proper.

(Editor: Feel free to delete my comment; I apologize for the sarcasm. Few things in Episcopal circles have made me as cynical as the existence of a sub-committee with members hidden in anonymity providing foot-dragging "study" as we corporately sacrifice doing what is right upon the altar of pseudo-unanimity. I have to believe we have a higher calling, but apparently difficult lessons of history are lost upon us. I have apparently set my expectations too high.)

Don't despair. It will all work out. Nobody said it would be easy or smooth, but it will work out. I believe that.

This resolution is so reasonable on its face I don't see how it can generate controversy (though of course it will). We have six states where the laws of civil marriage and the Canons and BCP don't agree. Surely this does create pastoral problems in those six states. How can General Convention oppose allowing the affected dioceses to make some adjustments?

The reporting requirement seems reasonable too: tell us what's happening and how it's working out.

Maybe we don't have to deal with the global issues of same-sex marriage; let's deal with the real pastoral issues in the affected states. Bishop Lane and colleagues have asked us for a reasonable response to changing laws, which affect their parishioners. How can we not give them one?

There is only one problem with this: it violates the Marriage Canons. Now, GC could change the marriage canons (as has been proposed at least once before) but using the marriage rite for same-sex unions would seem to violate the already existing canon. Not that we pay attention to canons we don't like anyway, witness the Communion of the Unbaptized....

"Problem," Tom? That's the REASON for this Resolution!

This has created unique pastoral challenges for The Episcopal Church because the definition of marriage held by these states and the language used in the Canons and the Book of Common Prayer of The Episcopal Church is not the same.

JC Fisher

Posted for Richard Nolan:

In the meantime, in those states one may be married now in a Christian Service led by clergy of another Church or a secular officiant. Our wedding (at age 72, after being a couple for 53 years) in the Trinity College Chapel on June 4th was perfect - for us - during our Trinity Class's 50th reunion. A UCC minister officiated in an adaptation of the Book of Common Prayer rite, and two Episcopal priests assisted. Some of our reasons for marrying at this time and the order of Service are accessible via the wedding rings icon at www.nolan-pingpank.com . A wonderfully supportive interfaith congregation of about 70 gathered - without invitations, a formal reception, etc. Candid pictures will eventually be posted on our website. For reasons of health, this will be our final trip north. (We live in West Palm Beach.) Canon Richard T. Nolan and Robert C. Pingpank
P.S. The New York Times included our wedding among the many others on June 7th - after their inquisition re data and their "facts verification" process.

The resolution would look better if it dropped the unfortunate "pastoral generosity" part, a phrase often associated with clergy looking the other way so as not to upset their congregations. It is a messy approach because a more direct way would be simply to change the canons on marriage. Although the text moves in the right direction by recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples is now a reality in many jurisdictions, it fails to justify why it is necessary to adapt either a Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage and The Blessing of a Civil Marriage." It sounds like more separate and unequal for same-sex couples from the Episcopal Church. Is an adaptation simply changing pronouns or does it require a radical rewrite lest one give the impression that the Episcopal Church really believes in full equality for all persons.

The necessity of the resolution is questionable because those same-sex couples who want a church wedding, both civil and religious, can go to United Church of Christ or Unitarian clergy and not have to endure an adaptation. Perhaps the real justification is to comfort those dioceses who feel morally compromised by not being allowed to give same-sex couples equal access to religious marriage.

The resolution is also unnecessary because a certain number of same-sex couples will see no need to submit to an Episcopal service after having married civilly. Murdoch and I, who married at the Montreal Courthouse in 2005, see no need for us to submit to an Episcopal appropriate adaptation. A canon from Christ Church Cathedral was at the court for us as a backup witness. The focus was civil.

Finally, it is odd that the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of New York has not bothered to cosponsor this resolution, given that same-sex couples who marry elsewhere are legally married in NY State.

I am ambivalent about this resolution but in general it is a step in the right direction depending on how much an adaptation it asks for.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary Paul,
After reading this piece I went and looked over the BCP rites, and found myself thinking that simply changing the pronouns wouldn't work. These rituals were designed for heterosexual marriage. To me it seems that using them and simply changing the pronouns would suggest that same-sex relationships can simply be assimilated into the dominant heterosexual paradigm, and I don't see that as especially affirming. Equality does not mean assimilation. I really don't know what the best short-term option is (the rite developed in New Westminster, Canada?), but in the long-term, I think the Church needs to come up with rites that reflect the distinctive characteristics of same-sex relationships. For example, there need to be different Scripture readings drawing on the tradition of passionate same-sex relationships found in the Bible (Ruth and Naomi; Jonathan and David).

William, I don't fear assimilation. For me, to be gay and married makes me both like everyone else and yet always slightly different because of the ongoing discrimination faced by LGBTs. The discrimination will not end anytime soon. Marriage, even for sex-discordant couples, is evolving. Actually, some have argued that same-sex couples, by starting out with an assumption of friendship rather than rigid gendered roles, have become a model for sex-discordant couples.

For many reasons I don't like the marriage rite in The Book of Common Prayer. Genesis is not my favorite book in the First Testament. Ruth and Naomi; Jonathan and David don't do anything for me either. I don't feel any need to go to the Bible to find a precedent for same-sex relationships. Postmodernism needn't use the Bible to justify the way people live today. I tend to like the pessimistic parts of the Second Testament such as Matthew 6: Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?" Kierkegaard said the birds will freeze and that Christianity is not a fun religion.

I would simply use the marriage rite because that is what everyone else gets. I want full equality. As it is I have found no need for a religious rite for Murdoch and me.

The UCC has a degendered marriage rite you might check out at
http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/issues/marriage-equality/

The Unitarians also have rites which can be called domestic partnerships/civil unions/marriage. Unitarians allow couples to choose pretty much what they want.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I agree with William, which is why we used an experimental rite in a Lutheran setting that reflected the distinctives, including a reading from Samuel, a reading from John on friendship, etc.

Mr Gilbert is correct. With very few exceptions, most of the couples seeking to be married at St. Mary's end up going some place else for their wedding. They see through the veil of separate but equal talk and the church never sees them again. The few that have jumped through the hoops in order to have an Episcopal priest pronounce a blessing upon their covenant are not only grateful but also gracious, by forgiving the church for participating in an act of injustice.

(Editor's note: Thanks Vicar. We need your name next time.)

Terry Pannell, Rector at St Mary of the Harbor

(Editor's note: Thanks, and quick besides.)

Gary Paul,
You wrote, "Postmodernism needn't use the Bible..., etc."

I wasn't myself arguing that the Bible needed to be used to justify anything. I was referring to the need for Scripture texts appropriate to the specified relationship, which might serve as models, sources of inspiration, means by which God could speak to the couple and their life together. Genesis 1-2, all about males and female, etc. would strike a very discordant note, as would many of the other texts listed in the BCP.

I also would note that most Christians don't think of "postmodernism" as determining their relationship to Scripture. I mostly lurk around here, and I've read most of your contributions, and I have been repeatedly struck by your invocations of 'postmodernism' as if it were some kind of accomplished hermeneutical fact to which the Church needs to submit. I find this problematic.

William Gilders

William, I went too fast in the invocation of postmodernism. But I seemed to detect essentialism in your invocation of Jonathan and David, as if one could take an ancient text and use it for gay liberation tout court. That would be a very anachronistic reading, as a Michel Foucault would say. Homosexuality was a nineteenth-century invention. Nobody before then could play a gay role. They would play other roles, such as the sodomite or the libertine. There are family resemblances but also differences.

For scipture readings for a wedding I would suggest the Song of Songs, which doesn't mention God at all and whose voices are not as clearly gendered as the tradition would like. The Song of Songs has been used for weddings for centuries and has citations from other culture's wedding ceremonies, so using it for a queer wedding would be very ironic and yet not ironic given the instability of the text. His fruit was sweet to my taste is a lovely line, for example.

My attitude toward scripture is that if myths support equality then I will gladly cite them but if they don't then dignity of all persons trumps the myths.

Postmodernism is not something one chooses but is the condition in which everybody lives today, a today in which all the grand narratives and notions of truth have collapsed.

While the notion of liberation has become a cruel joke, the capitalist or liberal democratic narrative has also collapsed. Postmodernity is an imperfect term for this crisis. There are many different responses to the collapse of authority.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary Paul,
I chose my original words fairly carefully to avoid an anchronistic identification of Jonathan/David and Ruth/Naomi as "gay," and I wasn't advocating the "use" of an ancient text "for gay liberation tout court." I was referring to texts the Church could select as vehicles for the Spirit to communicate with the community, and with the couple celebrating their union. However, as I am sure you well-know, most LGBT folk haven't embraced the critique of "essentialism" coming from a small elite minority. This is even more so of the vast majority of Christians in relation to the "postmodernist" assertion of the collapse of grand narratives (ironically, this assertion is itself a grand narrative!). I understand that you believe that you know that we're all living in the "condition" of postmodernism; but most of the world's 6 billion or so people either don't know this or actively reject the claim. I'm with them, because I actually believe that Christianity reflects Truth that exists prior to and beyond human contingency. Mock that if you wish.

I have to ask, if you are really anti-foundationalist, how do you know that "equality" and "dignity of all persons" should trump "myths" that don't support them? What says that those "myths" aren't equally valid?

For the record, I think the Song of Songs would provide fine resources for same-sex weddings. Again, the issue for me is selecting texts that provide a suitable vehicle for the Spirit to speak to the community.

Gary is out, gone to church (regular Friday Evening Prayer and rosary) then to support a friend running for NYCity Council. Probably unwise for me to chip in, as I'm only a retired editor and not a practicing post-modernist. But:

I actually believe that Christianity reflects Truth that exists prior to and beyond human contingency. Mock that if you wish.

Not to mock but ask: what's the evidence? Belief is an opinion, perhaps backed by tradition and authority, but by itself is simply an assertion. I believe differently -- and I can't prove myself right, or you wrong. I do reflect on the lack of consensus among those who believe they receive Truth from an outside source (the Spirit seems to speak variously to different people), but perhaps some of them are right. How to tell?

That's where we find ourselves, in a nutshell.

Murdoch Matthew
husband of Gary

Thank you, William, I am relieved to hear you are not using the Jonathan and David story as any justification or precedent for LGBT rights.

A critique of essentialism, would take some time and would inevitably reach its own aporias. This is not the place for that discussion. Suffice it to say that the word "homosexual" entered the English language in 1892, according to Merriam-Webster. Whatever existed prior to the nineteenth century, whether one believes there were gay people as such before then, the terms were quite different. That is a concrete example of my antiessentialism.

Likewise, "postmodern" would take a while to unpack. And, yes, it too collapses on its assumptions. To prove there are no foundations would still be to do metaphysics. Postfoundationalism simply doesn't care about that sort of question and prefers to deal with everyday reality, the surfaces of things rather than so-called depth. An example of postmodernism would be how, as the former Primus of Scotland, Richard Holloway, once said, some people now are able to bicycle off to the Brompton Oratory in London for a traditional Latin Mass and then come back to consumerism and popular culture in the very same day. And if they get sick they call on the latest technology. People mix and match the traditional with technology. It as if channel surfing had become the norm for everyday reality. People mix and match traditions from all over the planet.

The question for me in religion is which value one starts with. For me it is equality. The religious story is less important. Equality is not something that is proved or justified. I don't know that equality is better but simply express a preference for this way of doing things. It is an assumption that has worked well for the past few centuries. Kant would be a good start. There is no need or any kind of metaphysical foundation when there is logical consistency.

At least we agree on the Song of Songs, a great text.
It is a great text that disrupts many assumptions of what a religious text should sound like.

Gary Paul Gilbert