Question

[mark46]

In the US, the situation with regard to SSM is similar to that of inter-racial marriage 70 years ago. More and more states will accept until the vast majority have done so. At that point, the Supreme Court will declare that the right to marry cannot be denied to SSM by the states. The changes in the past 10 years have been dramatic, but it will take a generation for the politics to change in a significant number of red states.

Many will speak out against it as being disruptive to society and an abomination to all people and to God. They will be aghast as seeing a homosexual couple holding hands or kissing in the park as they were with regard to interracial couples 70 years ago. They will continue to fight against secular rights for those with whom they disagree, many of which have been married in Christian churches.

None of this needs to change the definition of marriage in various Christian churches. The Church does not need to change because society changes. The Church may very well state that it is maintaining the same requirements for marriage as it always has and that they will not change. And, of course, we know that this is all nonsense. The attitudes toward divorce and remarriage has changed. The attitudes toward inter-racial marriage have changed (note that Anglicans was relatively early in changing this). Even the attitudes toward fornication have changed. To suggest that the Church has not changed its attitudes or definitions for centuries is disingenuous at best.

We must understand what we have done. WE have decided to take on kind of sin and make it paramount in our ideas of Church, even splitting Churches over the definition of marriage. And we have pushed homosexuals further and further from Orthodox Christianity.

May God have Mercy on us all!

I'd be cautious about that conclusion. There are areas that are seeing the advance of homosexual relationships as a threat to their social order and so are reacting against it. Also, although there are more states and nations that will probably legalize it in the near future, there are also those that are unlikely to do so. IOW, some growth can be expected, but not a clean sweep by any means.


Not in TEC. It is too committed already to stop at anything short of what the gay lobby wants.

But in other churches, sure. What the government decrees is not in any way what the church is obligated to consider moral. Historically, the churches have often opposed government policy, so this wouldn't be any different.

 

[Albion]

In the US, the situation with regard to SSM is similar to that of inter-racial marriage 70 years ago. More and more states will accept until the vast majority have done so. At that point, the Supreme Court will declare that the right to marry cannot be denied to SSM by the states. The changes in the past 10 years have been dramatic, but it will take a generation for the politics to change in a significant number of red states.

Well, you never know what the Supreme Court will do, especially in light of the totally illogical ruling in this case. However, what you say is possible, especially if the Democrats are able to pack the court. But all of that is speculation and guessing. The more important question is about the likelihood of all or nearly all states adopting SSM. My guess about that is "not in the near future," nor does this seem at all like interracial marriage. I'd say it's more like Right to Work laws which have divided the states, about equally, for many years.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Well, in politics I think a major part of it is that many do not really understand the political system in any detail. And sometimes it is hard for people to know what is going on with things like that, as it tends not to make for exciting news. there may be similar issues in church politics.

I was about to bring up this very point. Intricate debates about bylaws, canons, etc go over the average layperson's head. All due respect to your average parishioner but most of them probably don't understand the intricacies of these things (which I think is a key factor in them happening). BS baffles brains.

I do not think it is unreasonable for people to be slow to make decisions to abandon the ecclesiastical body they belong to in such instances. Often things in the church look quite different in the long term than they do in the short term, and hasty decisions, which are perhaps what got the AC into its mess in the first place, do not pay off. In the end, people have to decide when they think things will not improve, or that they just cannot worship in the environment they are in with good faith.

It feels like a cheap shot to criticize someone leaving for a matter of conscience. Suppose they'd exited when, say, women began getting ordained. Would they have been criticized for running for the exit at the first sign of trouble? Shouldn't they have stuck around and tried to "work within the system"?

For that matter, exactly when is it permissible to leave TEC? Can we get a straight answer about that?

Well, you never know what the Supreme Court will do, especially in light of the totally illogical ruling in this case. However, what you say is possible, especially if the Democrats are able to pack the court. But all of that is speculation and guessing. The more important question is about the likelihood of all or nearly all states adopting SSM. My guess about that is "not in the near future," nor does this seem at all like interracial marriage. I'd say it's more like Right to Work laws which have divided the states, about equally, for many years.

It would probably take a SCOTUS ruling to legalize gay marriage in a lot of states because many have amended their constitutions to ban it. It wouldn't be as simple as simply passing a state law which legalizes it.

 

[mark46]

This is a 5-4 conservative Supreme Court.

I agree that the Democrats may be able to appoint a couple of more justices in the next few years and make a ruling mandating gay marriage more likely. BTW, given that it takes 60 Senate votes, it is really is NOT possible for the Democrats to pack the court.

With regard to Right To Work, you could be right. I don't think so. I think that this issue is much more foundational for both liberal Democrats and Tea Party Republicans. IMHO, as was was the case over the last century with regard to race, this issue will be decided by heated political votes. Is there a Democratic state left that doesn't allow SSM marriage or civil unions?

Well, you never know what the Supreme Court will do, especially in light of the totally illogical ruling in this case. However, what you say is possible, especially if the Democrats are able to pack the court. But all of that is speculation and guessing. The more important question is about the likelihood of all or nearly all states adopting SSM. My guess about that is "not in the near future," nor does this seem at all like interracial marriage. I'd say it's more like Right to Work laws which have divided the states, about equally, for many years.

 

[Albion]

With regard to Right To Work, you could be right. I don't think so. I think that this issue is much more foundational for both liberal Democrats and Tea Party Republicans. IMHO, as was was the case over the last century with regard to race, this issue will be decided by heated political votes. Is there a Democratic state left that doesn't allow SSM marriage or civil unions?

Pennsylvania? Michigan? Colorado? West Virginia? I'm guessing because I haven't checked in with the list of SSM/Civil Union states lately.

 

[rhartsc]

I think that there will be a great deal more of litigation and these cases will once again end up before the Supreme Court. Scalia's dissent touches upon this. The court will then need to address many of the constitutional questions they sidestepped in these cases. If the Supreme Court finds that marriage equality is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments than the State Constitutional amendments would be moot.
I was speaking of TEC specifically in my last post so I should have been more specific. I think the TEC should get rid of the blessing right and just start performing the marriage rite in all of its dioceses. For those states that currently have marriage great. It will be a legal marriage. In those red states where it is currently illegal it will be purely a religious ceremony. This will definitely take more time but public opinion has changed drastically and will continue to do so.

 

[Albion]

II was speaking of TEC specifically in my last post so I should have been more specific. I think the TEC should get rid of the blessing right and just start performing the marriage rite in all of its dioceses. For those states that currently have marriage great. It will be a legal marriage. In those red states where it is currently illegal it will be purely a religious ceremony.

You're proposing that the church declare married a couple that the church knows is not married in the eyes of society and the law? I don't put such a thing past TEC to do, particularly since some gay churches and other ultra-liberal churches have done just that, but it's a bigger step than it might seem at a glance.

 

[mark46]

1) Are you suggesting that societal acceptance should make a difference? If so, marriage, rather than SSB's, should be the preference is states where such secular marriage is legal.

2) I also would not put this past TEC. This would be a canonical change as has been the case with regard to female and homosexual ordination and participation in leadership.

You're proposing that the church declare married a couple that the church knows is not married in the eyes of society and the law? I don't put such a thing past TEC to do, particularly since some gay churches and other ultra-liberal churches have done just that, but it's a bigger step than it might seem at a glance.

 

[Albion]

marriage, rather than SSB's, should be the preference is states where such secular marriage is legal.

Of course. Why TEC wouldn't do that, I can't imagine. However, the question was about gay marriage in the church in states where it is not legal.

 

[rhartsc]

Here is an interesting article showing the the ripple effect of the rulings. Federal Judge Slaps Down Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder – Cites The DOMA Decision | The New Civil Rights Movement

Take it with a pinch of salt as the website is pro marriage equality. I will see if I can find any other sources.

Here is another link that has the pdf of the ruling http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-applies-doma-ruling-to-halt-michigan-ban-on-pa

 

[rhartsc]

You're proposing that the church declare married a couple that the church knows is not married in the eyes of society and the law? I don't put such a thing past TEC to do, particularly since some gay churches and other ultra-liberal churches have done just that, but it's a bigger step than it might seem at a glance.

Yes I am suggesting that though I think Society already accepts those marriages or else we wouldn't be having this debate.The law is merely playing catchup. Only the Church may pronounce someone married according to one of its rites. Personally, I would be fine with everyone needing to get married by the State as well as their own respective religious traditions. I have heard from many ministers from various denominations that they do not want to be an arm of the state.

 

[Albion]

Yes I am suggesting that though I think Society already accepts those marriages or else we wouldn't be having this debate.

Well, of course that is not the case. Only a handful of states out of the 50 legalize gay marriage, and popular opinion is divided just about down the middle.

 

[rhartsc]

Well, of course that is not the case. Only a handful of states out of the 50 legalize gay marriage, and popular opinion is divided just about down the middle.

I count 13 states plus the District of Columbia. That's alot more than a handful or even 2 handfuls. Thats over 25% of the States. And public opinion is currently a slight majority in favor of gay marriage and that number will only grow as it becomes more commonplace. There is no conceivable way that this country will regress on this issue. It will only move forward.

 

[mark46]

You understate the situation quite a bit. It is as if you were to say that the vast majority of states voted for Romney. While true, it is misleading.

The stats speak for themselves, but over 30% live in states that have homosexual marriage. Some also live in states that have same sex civil unions. By my reckoning, this is more than a handful.

States | Freedom to Marry

The civil rights of homosexuals are recognized in even more states.

The changes will continue to see in Democratic states. As you point out, PA and Michigan have not acted.

Well, of course that is not the case. Only a handful of states out of the 50 legalize gay marriage, and popular opinion is divided just about down the middle.

 

[Albion]

You understate the situation quite a bit. It is as if you were to say that the vast majority of states voted for Romney. While true, it is misleading. The stats speak for themselves, but over 30% live in states that have homosexual marriage. Some also live in states that have same sex civil unions. By my reckoning, this is more than a handful.

11 out of 50 counts as a handful in my book, Mark and rhart.









.

 

[rhartsc]

11 out of 50 counts as a handful in my book, Mark and rhart.

.

How many people live in those 11 (or 13 states)? 100 million or more? Just thinking of NY and CA and that is 60 million people right there.

 

[Cjwinnit]

I count 13 states plus the District of Columbia. That's alot more than a handful or even 2 handfuls. Thats over 25% of the States. And public opinion is currently a slight majority in favor of gay marriage and that number will only grow as it becomes more commonplace. There is no conceivable way that this country will regress on this issue. It will only move forward.

The Abortion issue has not gone away, neither will this.

 

[MKJ]

i do not see why the state allowing same-sex marriage should mean the church should also allow it.

Many states have in the past allowed polygamous unions, and some still do. Christian churches have never, on that basis, allowed polygamous marriages. The idea that they should is a bit odd. States allow all kinds of things that the Church does not find moral.

 

[ebia]

i do not see why the state allowing same-sex marriage should mean the church should also allow it.

Many states have in the past allowed polygamous unions, and some still do. Christian churches have never, on that basis, allowed polygamous marriages. The idea that they should is a bit odd. States allow all kinds of things that the Church does not find moral.

Indeed

 

[thecolorsblend]

i do not see why the state allowing same-sex marriage should mean the church should also allow it.

Many states have in the past allowed polygamous unions, and some still do. Christian churches have never, on that basis, allowed polygamous marriages. The idea that they should is a bit odd. States allow all kinds of things that the Church does not find moral.

Yeah, everybody knows that the left in America, especially lately, has been so good about respecting religious conscience. Except for that Catholic church/contraception mandate, that is.

I remain skeptical. Sooner or later (sooner, I think), someone will want a church to perform some kind of SSC and will sue when that church refuses. There's no way anybody can guarantee that it won't happen or that some kook judge won't gleefully use the opportunity to harass the church.