The California Supreme Court on May 15 declared unconstitutional two state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and supporters of same-sex marriage, including Bishop J. Jon Bruno of the Diocese of Los Angeles, were jubilant at the news.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision on same-gender relationships is important because it reflects our baptismal vow to ‘strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being’ and our commitment to justice and mercy for all people,” Bishop Bruno said.
“We will continue to advocate for equality in the future and will do so at the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, which will meet in Anaheim in 2009,” he continued. “I celebrate and give thanks for this decision of the court and look forward with joy and excitement to a future of justice and mercy for all people in the State of California and The Episcopal Church.”
The court’s decision will have “ecclesial implications” for Episcopalians, according to Bishop Marc Andrus of the Diocese of California.
“I intend to be in prayerful consultation with the people of the diocese to see how we can use this decision to strengthen our support of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers, and our witness to God’s inclusive love,” he said, promising a statement “in due course.”
The Rev. Susan Russell, president of the LGBT advocacy group Integrity and associate rector of All Saints’ Church, Pasadena, said Integrity will be working with its supporters to press General Convention to permit clergy to perform same-sex marriages when convention meets next year.
“Although same-gender blessings are permitted by The Episcopal Church and are performed in many dioceses and parishes, we believe the time has come for an official rite for blessing same-gender couples,” she said.
Same-sex marriages in California will become possible beginning June 16 unless the court delays implementation. Opponents of the ruling have collected enough signatures so that California voters will be able to consider an amendment to the state constitution in November which would prohibit same-sex marriages.
We invite your response to this article through a Letter to the Editor. Email your letter to tlc@livingchurch.org. Please include your name, city and state.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Click here to start your subscription.
1 Comment
My Webster's dictionary says that marriage is '(a) the state of being married and (b) legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.' Note the use of 'man and woman; husband and wife.'
I am not opposed to the blessing of same gender relationships in an official rite sanctioned by the church. I also take very seriously my Baptismal vows to 'strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being.'
My problem is one of terminology. I think we can all agree that automobiles and motorcycles are two modes of motorized ground transportation. But we know they are not the same.
I think the same is true of serious relationships in which vows are exchanged before witnesses in a legal and/or religious setting. In my view, marriage by definition involves two genders. Solemnized same gender relationships involve just the one and thus should be called something else -- the actual terminology I would leave to others who care the most about it.
My final point is that if and when such rites are developed and approved for use, clergy should not be forced by episcopal or other ecclesial authority to perform such ceremonies if their conscience precludes them from so doing. While my sense of discernment tells me the Spirit is moving in new and wonderful ways concerning same gender relationships -- many people whom I love and respect disagree. So I freely acknowledge that I could be wrong (but I don't think so).
Michael A. Foughty