Episcopalians (US portion of Anglican Church) set to be first big U.S. church to bless gay marriage

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

In your face Lutherans! Push off Methodists. We're #1!
http://news.yahoo.com/episcopalians-set-first-big-u-church-bless-gay-015935075.html

Episcopalians set to be first big U.S. church to bless gay marriage
By David Dawson | Reuters – 12 hrs agoINDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - The U.S. Episcopal Church is poised to become the first major religious denomination in the United States to approve a rite for blessing gay marriages after its bishops overwhelmingly approved such a liturgy on Monday.

The proposed blessing was agreed by the church's Chamber of Bishops at a meeting in Indianapolis and is expected to receive final approval from its House of Deputies later this week, Ruth Meyers, a chair of the Episcopalians' Subcommittee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Church Music, told Reuters.

The decision would go into effect in December and make the Episcopal Church, an independent U.S.-based institution affiliated with global Anglicanism, the biggest U.S. church to allow a liturgy for same-sex marriages.

The Episcopal Church is the 14th-largest denomination in the United States with nearly 2 million adherents, according to the National Council of Churches.

The United Church of Christ, a mainstream Protestant denomination with about a million members, has gone further so far than any other U.S. church, voting in 2005 to support same sex marriage.

The new Episcopal same-sex liturgy, called "the Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant," would be a standard rite for same-sex marriage.

For the past three years, bishops have been able approve requests for the blessing of same-sex marriages and Jeffrey Lee, the Bishop of Chicago, said he had authorized such ceremonies using an earlier version of the liturgy.

Resistance to similar measures in the past has been strongest among bishops, but Monday's vote was 111 in favor to 41 opposed with three abstentions.

The convention also approved inclusion of transgender people among those who should not be discriminated against, either for ordination or as lay leaders.

"Today the Episcopal Church affirmed the human dignity of a deeply stigmatized population that is far too often victim to discrimination, bullying and abuse," the Reverend Lowell Grisham, a leader of the Chicago Consultation, a group that supports equality, said in a statement.

The Episcopal Church allowed gay priests 16 years ago and approved its first openly gay bishop nine years ago.

The decision by the bishops is the latest in a string of victories for gay-rights advocates in the United States. Gay marriage is legal in six states and the District of Columbia.

The legislatures of three states - New Jersey, Maryland and Washington state - approved gay marriage this year, although New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed it. Governors in the other two states signed the legislation but there are efforts to block it by referendum.

President Barack Obama endorsed gay marriage in May.

On Friday, the Presbyterian Church, the 10th-ranked U.S. denomination, narrowly rejected a proposal to redefine marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The global Anglican Communion groups independent national churches, which develop their own rules for ordination and other matters pertaining to membership and conduct.

(Reporting by David Dawson; Editing by Greg McCune and David Brunnstrom)

@yahoonews on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook Explore Related Content1 - 4 of 12prevnextGo to page 1
Go to page 2
Go to page 3
Google Wants to Legalize Same Sex Marriage …

The Atlantic Wire
Episcopal Church To Offer a New Blessing …

The Episcopal Church has approved a new liturgy that allows priests and bishops … Full Story »Episcopal Church To Offer a New Blessing for Gay Marriage
The Atlantic Wire (RSS)
Social Wire: Facebook adds gay marriage …

KITV - Honolulu Videos
Episcopal bishops OK trial

**Testify**

I have no idea who those guys are...

**Frazzled**

Testify wrote:I have no idea who those guys are...

US version of the Anglican Church.
Here's a hint, most US presidents have been one.

**Dreadwinter**

So does this officially debunk the Religion argument against Same Sex Marriage?

**Frazzled**

Dreadwinter wrote:So does this officially debunk the Religion argument against Same Sex Marriage?

Episcopal Church is just one sect of one religion (on the positive we're also one of the heaviest drinkers - show me four Episcopalians and I'll show you a fifth yea baby!). Not sure what "religion argument against Same Sex Marriage" you're referring to.

**mattyrm**

Its basically what the call the church of England in America.

Ah the good old church of England, the best of a bad lot. No doubt about it.

Good to see they finally got off the fence anyway!

**juraigamer**

One step in the right direction.

**LoneLictor**

Frazzled wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:So does this officially debunk the Religion argument against Same Sex Marriage?

Episcopal Church is just one sect of one religion (on the positive we're also one of the heaviest drinkers - show me four Episcopalians and I'll show you a fifth yea baby!). Not sure what "religion argument against Same Sex Marriage" you're referring to.

He's referring to all the religious figures who chose to stupidly oppose same-sex marriage.

**Frazzled**

As I said the E Church is just one sect of one religion.

**Aerethan**

Hey look, more "religions" bending to social trends.

I here that compromising your beliefs to fit in is the cool thing to do these days.

**Frazzled**

Aerethan wrote:Hey look, more "religions" bending to social trends.

I here that compromising your beliefs to fit in is the cool thing to do these days.

I hear the siren call of the hypocrite.

As an aside, please show me where JC even addressed the issue at all, much less condemned it. Not Leviticus, not Paul. I don't care what people said. I care what JC said.

**Jihadin**

I see the collection plate donation are getting bigger

**Frazzled**

smaller actually. But then again, chruches are declining in the US.

I blame the Clinton Administration. I'm not sure how though. Did Bill Clinton ever give a birth certificate? Did he prove he exhaled?

**Aerethan**

Frazzled wrote:
Aerethan wrote:Hey look, more "religions" bending to social trends.

I here that compromising your beliefs to fit in is the cool thing to do these days.

I hear the siren call of the hypocrite.

As an aside, please show me where JC even addressed the issue at all, much less condemned it. Not Leviticus, not Paul. I don't care what people said. I care what JC said.

I hear the 10 commandments aren't valid because JC didn't personally utter the words. Makes sense, if you don't really think about it.

**Jihadin**

Frazz...we're still wrapped on the cigar trick and it was Monica....Monica of all things...

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:Frazz...we're still wrapped on the cigar trick and it was Monica....Monica of all things...

You know thats what bugged me about the whole situation. I had much higher expectations in that area. Seriously?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aerethan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Aerethan wrote:Hey look, more "religions" bending to social trends.

I here that compromising your beliefs to fit in is the cool thing to do these days.

I hear the siren call of the hypocrite.

As an aside, please show me where JC even addressed the issue at all, much less condemned it. Not Leviticus, not Paul. I don't care what people said. I care what JC said.

I hear the 10 commandments aren't valid because JC didn't personally utter the words. Makes sense, if you don't really think about it.

Quit your smokescreen. Where did JC say it?
?
?
?
?
?

**Jihadin**

There was no memo from JC regarding the ten commandment. We also didn't get the memo for no more Casual Friday either

**Aerethan**

In that case, where did JC say not to rape children and kill old women?

Are we really basing faith off of what wasn't said?

**Frazzled**

Aerethan wrote:In that case, where did JC say not to rape children and kill old women?

Are we really basing faith off of what wasn't said?

He did actually. http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/do-i-need-obey-ten-commandments/
So in other words, JC didn't say anything about it. He did note the Golden Rule. So absent specific orders, General Order One applies. Who's bending their personal morality again?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:There was no memo from JC regarding the ten commandment. We also didn't get the memo for no more Casual Friday either

Actually there was (addressed above).

Casual Friday as well. Peter 15.37 "and The Lord God hath Commanded us to rest on the seventh day and party like New Orleans Mardi Gras on the Fifth. Yea God. Oh and speaking of fifths, pass that bottle over Thomas, you stingy basatard."

**Aerethan**

The "Golden Rules" are as follows:
1. Love God above all others.
2. Love others as God loves you.

God loves everyone, regardless of their sins. God does NOT love sin.
The Bible outlines that homosexuality is a sin.
Therefore, love homosexuals, but not their sin.

So while I harbor absolutely no hate towards anyone besides my mother(for many reasons), I cannot advocate conscious sinning.

I'm not saying that churches should be banning gay people from attending outright. But they shouldn't be advocating sin.

Also, I'm not really pushy about my own faith. You don't have to agree with me. I just think it is funny when a church that has carried the same beliefs for years and years suddenly decides that X no longer applies because of any random reason, be it political correctness or needing a boost in attendance.

**Frazzled**

Golden rule is specific: Matthew 7:12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

To the point: Again Where does it say JC said it?

It doesn't, does it now.
Unless you follow all the tenets of the Old Testament you can't quote Leviticus because you're just picking and choosing among sins you like an dislike.

**Testify**

If you banned homosexuals you'd also have to ban anyone who had sex outside of marriage, or anyone who'd coveted their neighbour's oxen (damn those sexy oxen).
Everyone has sin. Only God has love.

**CT GAMER**

Aerethan wrote:Hey look, more "religions" bending to social trends.

I here that compromising your beliefs to fit in is the cool thing to do these days.

So anybody who chooses to advance their beliefs beyond the dark ages is compromising?

**Aerethan**

Frazzled wrote:Golden rule is specific: Matthew 7:12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

To the point: Again Where does it say JC said it?

It doesn't, does it now.
Unless you follow all the tenets of the Old Testament you can't quote Leviticus because you're just picking and choosing among sins you like an dislike.

I'm not saying we should stone them to death. So what you are saying is that God said it was wrong, but Jesus retconned it? So at any given moment God could just up and decide to ignore everything in the Bible, and just nuke the universe? I suppose he COULD, in that he has the power to, but in doing so it would defeat the entire point of human existence and that whole sending his son to die for us.

I don't hate gay people. Some of my friends are gay. They know I don't approve of it, and we generally agree to stay away from the topic and get along just fine. I'm not out to tell them that they are going to burn in hell, that isn't for me to decide.

But since all you care about is specifically what JC said, and not what the Bible says, I can't really argue with you. That is tantamount to saying that the Bible in it's entirety isn't the word of God, even though He says it is, thus making God a liar.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:If you banned homosexuals you'd also have to ban anyone who had sex outside of marriage, or anyone who'd coveted their neighbour's oxen (damn those sexy oxen).
Everyone has sin. Only God has love.

there is a huge difference between banning people and not advocating their sins. To bless something is to celebrate it. Should churches start blessing the acts of murder and theft?

Now don't misread that as me saying that homosexuality is the same as murder. To me, they are both sin, but are not equal in severity. Victimless crimes are still crimes, victimless sin is still sin.

**Frazzled**

Testify wrote:If you banned homosexuals you'd also have to ban anyone who had sex outside of marriage, or anyone who'd coveted their neighbour's oxen (damn those sexy oxen).
Everyone has sin. Only God has love.

Well did you see how those oxen were dressed?

**Tye_Informer**

Frazzled wrote:
He did actually. http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/do-i-need-obey-ten-commandments/
So in other words, JC didn't say anything about it. He did note the Golden Rule. So absent specific orders, General Order One applies. Who's bending their personal morality again?

The commandment about adultery covers this.

The homosexual act is no worse a sin than looking at dirty pictures on the internet, but it's still a sin. In fact, according to Jesus, both sins are breaking the exact same commandment.

However, I'm not sure that a pastor/priest (even a non-ordained one) should be actively sinning, with no intent to stop, in any part of his life. If a church leader was actively seducing other people wives, admits it openly, and has no intention to stop, should we allow him/her to still be a leader? What if he/she wanted us to publicly acknowledge and bless the relationship he is having? Of course, the other spouse won't be invited to the ceremony, since we can't have a scene, but still want the party.

**Frazzled**

I'm not saying we should stone them to death.

No. I'm saying JC is primary authority. Son of God trumps some nameless guy in the revalation department (no offence to Jews, but we're not arguing that faith).

So at any given moment God could just up and decide to ignore everything in the Bible, and just nuke the universe? I suppose he COULD, in that he has the power to, but in doing so it would defeat the entire point of human existence and that whole sending his son to die for us.

What if God realized his mistake and decided to start over?

**d-usa**

I got that funny Church/political separation thing going on in my head.

From the religious side of things I think being gay is a sin and that before God only a man and a woman can get married. I don't think my church should officiate same-sex marriages because of that. But religion is complicated and other faiths and denominations (and even churches in the same denomination) may feel differently.

Politically speaking: religion has zero room in politics and should not be used to make law or dictate policy. As far as the state is concerned marriage is a social contract between two adults and nothing more, regardless of what the bible (insert your sacred text) says.

Legally my marriage is a contract between my wife and myself as well as the state. Spiritually it is a promise I made to my wife and to my God.

The spiritual aspect is personal and should not be taken into legal consideration IMO.

**youbedead**

d-usa wrote:I got that funny Church/political separation thing going on in my head.

From the religious side of things I think being gay is a sin and that before God only a man and a woman can get married. I don't think my church should officiate same-sex marriages because of that. But religion is complicated and other faiths and denominations (and even churches in the same denomination) may feel differently.

Politically speaking: religion has zero room in politics and should not be used to make law or dictate policy. As far as the state is concerned marriage is a social contract between two adults and nothing more, regardless of what the bible (insert your sacred text) says.

Legally my marriage is a contract between my wife and myself as well as the state. Spiritually it is a promise I made to my wife and to my God.

The spiritual aspect is personal and should not be taken into legal consideration IMO.

Yeah, I'm thinkin the same thing, as a gay guy organized churches do kinda piss me off, but they are fully in their right to practice their own religion as they see fit. However, the gov should not be making any laws respecting religion or laws that are religiously motivated. So I would argue that the federal government has the right to regulate marriage as it effects taxation and quite possibly could effect interstate trade, but they shouldn't be specifying what a marriage is. So 'marriage' remains the religious or spiritual connection while civil unions are what determines laws, taxes, etc.

**Jihadin**

Bit God forgives all right?.....right?