|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Same-sex blessings
|
jlav12
Apprentice
# 17148
|
Posted
Since my last thread was closed...
This is not a discussion of the morality of same-sex relationships.
Could existing same-sex blessings rites be modified to be intended as services of blessing of relationships, with the implication of chastity and celibacy, so as to be blessed by the Church in good conscience?
Posts: 34 | From: Albany, New York | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
Since my last thread was closed...
This is not a discussion of the morality of same-sex relationships.
Could existing same-sex blessings rites be modified to be intended as services of blessing of relationships, with the implication of chastity and celibacy, so as to be blessed by the Church in good conscience?
Simply put yes - I've just been writting an essay on this topic and some of the writtings of the Church Fathers could be usefully used to point Churches in this direction. The bit htat the Churches get majorly hung up on is the sex bit and that colours all other things. There is no piece of Scripture that I can think of that coul be used to justify why the Church could not bless a same-sex relationship as long as it is attached with the caveates of abstaining from sex.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
As far as I understand it there is a case to be made for civil partnerships that don't involve a sexual relationship, but my understanding was that these are of a legal nature, so I don't really understand why the church would need to issue a blessing.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As far as I understand it there is a case to be made for civil partnerships that don't involve a sexual relationship, but my understanding was that these are of a legal nature, so I don't really understand why the church would need to issue a blessing.
Apart from shouting loud and clear "we do indeed care what you do with your wang."
Which might rather be the point of the OP.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
John Boswell's interesting study about the adelphia blessings, which has been taken by many to provide justification for SSBs, may really be referring to celibate unions, of the sort to which the poster refers. A bibliography can be found here, for those interested in the discussion. The rites which Boswell quotes in his are really far better than most of the blessing rites which are floating around liturgy committees and bishops' offices-- indeed the authors of these latter-day texts should be embarrassed by the poverty of their productions (IMHO--- your kilometrage might vary).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Karl, I was thinking of special circumstances to grant legal rights to someone who isn't family whereby a will may be otherwise contested. In such a circumstance, someone's 'wang' wouldn't come into it at all (pardon the crude unintended pun). However, I don't know enough about the legal side of it, so it may be that civil partnerships do not cover such an eventually or such legal application.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
In Canada, it depends on the province. However, civil unions have become very rare in the wake of SSMs-- a Québec lawyer friend tells me that they are in her practice most common among Jews and RCs who, for religious reasons, will not marry, but who wish the legal protection (and tax-free retirement savings plan transfers on the death of one of them).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
John Boswell's interesting study about the adelphia blessings, which has been taken by many to provide justification for SSBs, may really be referring to celibate unions, of the sort to which the poster refers. A bibliography can be found here, for those interested in the discussion. The rites which Boswell quotes in his are really far better than most of the blessing rites which are floating around liturgy committees and bishops' offices-- indeed the authors of these latter-day texts should be embarrassed by the poverty of their productions (IMHO--- your kilometrage might vary).
I don't know - I quite like some of the ones that came out of the Diocese of New Westminster last decade.
The problem that modern liturgists face with finding an apporpriate form of blessing is to strike the right balance between doing what it is to say on the tin and to avoid causing unneccesary confusion, or alienating swathes of the membership.
If you tell someone you are having a Church service of blessing for your same-sex relationship then the natural insinuation is to attach the word marriage to it (and progressing from that an insinuation you are talking about a sexual relationship) and so any modern liturgy of blessing that seeks to bless a sex-less relationship will tend to err on the side of a legalistic nature to ensure there is no confusion.
There is also the point that liturgy develops over time. The beauty of current Eucharistic prayers, marriage services etc. comes from the years of them becoming imbued with cultural references and poetic license to achieve the right effect... it will take time for services of blessing on same-sex relationships to achieve the same.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The New Westminster texts were the ones I had in mind but, as I said, your kilometrage may vary.
However, Sergius-Melli has focussed in clearly and directly on the key challenge with these rites, and one which has caused much difficulty in this discussion (see dead horses passim)- what's a union and what's a marriage, and what is it we are doing.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The New Westminster texts were the ones I had in mind but, as I said, your kilometrage may vary.
Each to their own I guess - I know of some liturgists who have designed (and thankfully never published) some of the most flambouyant (as far as you can with any liturgy) affairs that are down-right grotesque! I prefer a simple, slimmed down service that emphasises those aspects of the relationship that should be blessed (love, relational being and the strength to be gained in mutual support) whilst covering the 'legalistic' nature of some aspects as briefly and quietly as possible (since they distract!)
The one other thing to mention - if we celebrate same-sex relationships (with the caveates as mentioned up thread) then we are in a position where we also celebrate the single people in the Church and the religious life. The emphasis placed on heterosexual marriage by the Church doesn't just alienate (I must say that this is IMO) gay couples but also those who have chosen (or found themselves in) the single life. By embracing other forms of being in relationship with our fellow humanity and with God we rejoice in all those forms rather than denegrate any of them.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As far as I understand it there is a case to be made for civil partnerships that don't involve a sexual relationship, but my understanding was that these are of a legal nature, so I don't really understand why the church would need to issue a blessing.
"Need" is not quite the right word, but would most Christians not naturally seek to have a new stage of their life blessed?
I understand jlav12 here to be referring to a loving relationship, intended to be permanent, between two men or women. In other words, exactly what we would call a "gay marriage" but with the added rider that the couple want to publicly commit themselves to living in accordance with the "traditional" Church teachings on sex.
We bless people's new homes, we bless our children at the start of the school year, we bless our youth when they leave for college, we bless people who leave our community because they are moving elsewhere, or are choosing to worship in a different church. If two men are setting up home together, why wouldn't they want a blessing?
Celibate gay men seeking a chaste marriage with a similarly-situated man are probably rare, but probably not quite non-existent, and if two such men wish to have their relationship blessed whilst publicly affirming that they're keeping it in their pants, I see no particular difficulty.
In fact, if you examine "The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant," which I assume is the rite to which you refer, there's no explicit mention of sex at all. Those vows could be made in good conscience by two men who intended to remain continent.
But my sense is that that's not what you want. The natural assumption would be that two men who exchanged those vows were having sex, and you would like to make it explicit that sex is not involved.
I don't think an extra prayer, along the lines of "N and N have committed to live together in accordance with their understanding of your holy law, which is pants on. Give them strength etc." would be against the rules.
The pastoral implications are interesting, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"N and N have committed to live together in accordance with their understanding of your holy law, which is pants on. Give them strength etc."
That would be an interesting prayer, especially if solemnly chanted
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Celibate gay men seeking a chaste marriage with a similarly-situated man are probably rare, but probably not quite non-existent, and if two such men wish to have their relationship blessed whilst publicly affirming that they're keeping it in their pants, I see no particular difficulty.
They are as you say rare but I can think of a few couples it could apply to...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But my sense is that that's not what you want. The natural assumption would be that two men who exchanged those vows were having sex, and you would like to make it explicit that sex is not involved.
Celibate marriages were not unknown in the early church, as I understand it. I don't know if any additional declaration to that effect was made at such marriages (or to what extent marriage would have been a church event at all at this point). If there was, it could be adapted; if not, there's no need to insert one.
A potential wrinkle is that, in some traditions (I'm thinking of RC canon law in particular), publicly declaring intention not to consummate the marriage would invalidate it. It may be the practice of some gay married couples - as dj notes there are those who have scruples on the subject - but I would think that like the adoption of any ascetic discipline, this would be a matter between the spouses and their respective confessors, and I wonder what purpose would be served by publicly categorizing marriages into celibate and Original Recipe slots.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
After our civil partnership, we were blessed in church in the course of the Sunday eucharist. I adapted the blessing prayer from the C of E's prayer blessing a marriage after a civil wedding, omitting the reference to having children and adding a reference to receiving communion together.
I can post it here if you like.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Thanks Venbede. Please do post it. I for one would like to see it.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Blessing of rings (already on hands)
Heavenly Father, by your blessing
let these rings be to N and N
a symbol of unending love and faithfulness
and of the promises they have made to each other;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
Blessing of couple (Nuptial blessing)
Blessed are you, O Lord our God,
for you have created joy and gladness,
pleasure and delight, love, peace and fellowship.
Pour out the abundance of your blessing
upon X and Y in their life together.
They have shared in the sacrament of your Son’s body and blood
and taken part in the eternal offering of the Son to the Father.
Let their love for each other be a seal upon their hearts
and a crown upon their heads.
Bless them in their work and in their companionship;
awake and asleep,
in joy and in sorrow,
in life and in death.
Finally, in your mercy, bring them to that banquet
where your saints feast for ever in your heavenly home.
We ask this through Jesus Christ your Son, our Lord,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever. Amen
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
And may I just say what a horrid sinking feeling I've felt when I found my ring is not on my finger. Fortunately, I've always found it.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
As I recall, the exchange of rings was one of the elements expressly excluded from the New West rite.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
We exchanged rings at the civil ceremony - that is why they were blessed when on our fingers.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fabula rasa
Shipmate
# 11436
|
Posted
I have never really thought before of the significance of rings being blessed on or off. Out of interest, do you feel that blessing them when they were already on was in any way different from doing it the other way around?
Posts: 465 | From: scepter'd isle | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
We exchanged rings at the civil service, so they were already on our fingers. We were not having a "church wedding" in addition to a civil service - just blessing that which had already taken place, in the context of the Sunday eucharist.
The model of the "C of E church wedding" strikes me as highly questionable even when not over sentimental and extravagant, and me and my mate wouldn't want to follow it.
The whole question touches me deeply, as you can imagine, and I don't want to join in on Dead Horse threads to be hurt or hurt.
I hope I have avoided touching on Dead Horse issues and just answered the liturgical question.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fabula rasa
Shipmate
# 11436
|
Posted
Well, thank you for sharing your experience with us here.
Posts: 465 | From: scepter'd isle | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The model of the "C of E church wedding" strikes me as highly questionable even when not over sentimental and extravagant, and me and my mate wouldn't want to follow it.
The whole question touches me deeply
Good for you. Me too. LGBT's vocation is to model something different, IMO.
Can I ask why (both of) you think this? Leaving aside the absurd extravagances, white poufy dresses etc., what do you find questionable in the "C of E church wedding"?
(We're getting close to the edge of the Dead Horse issue, but I hope we can manage to keep the ponies out of that particular paddock. Perhaps I should ask whether you think the "C of E church wedding" has defects in and of itself, of whether it's just it's application to gay couples that you think is a poor fit?)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Most weddings I've been to have been rather moving - in the middle of all the silliness are the toughness and reality of the vows: "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, forsaking all other".
A lump in my throat. And I'm so grateful to God that despite all the opposition I've known the same. And if one party is a regular churchgoer, I would hate to deny it.
However, it is patriarchal (who gives this woman?), matriarchal (the bride's special day), establishment (clergy acting as state officers giving the couple permission to have sex), unrealistic nowadays (in that probably most couples are living together in intimacy already), sentimental (in that it is covering up through its extravagance what is at heart the entering into a legal contract), narcissistic (look how much we've spent) and so on.
I wish all couples a long, faithful and loving life together.
PS The 39 articles deny matrimony is a sacrament. The sacramental aspect of the BCP solemnization of marriage is the strong recommendation that the couple receive communion together.
PPS As a clergyman opposed to marrying divorced persons said to me "As you know marriages don't take place in church..." ie. they take place in the bedroom.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Perhaps I should ask whether you think the "C of E church wedding" has defects in and of itself, of whether it's just it's application to gay couples that you think is a poor fit?)
Since the BCP states matrimony was "first instituted for the procreation of children" the service is impossible for same sex couples. It says "procreation" not "nuture". Further C of E rites have toned this aspect down, but always alluded to it.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
1662 explains more or less Crystal clear the historical Christian understanding of holy Matrimony. The sanction from God, nature and purpose of marriage and its being an icon of Christ's relationship to the Church is clear.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
the BCP states matrimony was "first instituted for the procreation of children"
So I guess infertile couples can't get married in the church, then, eh?
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Back to the thread topic and being well shut of the stench of deceased equines, I shall be attending the wedding of two dear friends on 4/6 at the local cathedral, both of whom are in various types of Holy Orders and just my kind of liturgy nerd*. As marriage between the two of them isn't legal according to civil law in this state, I shall make notes on the OoS and report back.
*And no, I'm not asking them beforehand because, hello! Holy Week! Two weeks until the wedding! They're busy!
[ 22. March 2013, 17:26: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
the BCP states matrimony was "first instituted for the procreation of children"
So I guess infertile couples can't get married in the church, then, eh?
Or simply older couples, one presumes!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Yet the Prayer Book, by rubric, clearly contemplates the situation of marriage when the woman is past child-bearing age. So although it considers the procreation of children to be one of the purposes for which marriage was ordained, it doesn't see it as essential to every marriage.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
the BCP states matrimony was "first instituted for the procreation of children"
So I guess infertile couples can't get married in the church, then, eh?
One could argue, with reference to Abraham and Sarah, that being "infertile" isn't so much of an impediment if God has other ideas.
Spiffy: please do take notes and report back. Curiously, the last wedding I attended was also of two friends in Holy Orders. Having the couple themselves distribute the sacraments was a nice touch, although the stars of the show were probably the groom's collection of nephews, in matching morning dress in decreasing sizes, following each other like a family of penguins.
[ 22. March 2013, 18:07: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The model of the "C of E church wedding" strikes me as highly questionable even when not over sentimental and extravagant, and me and my mate wouldn't want to follow it.
The whole question touches me deeply
Good for you. Me too. LGBT's vocation is to model something different, IMO.
Can I ask why (both of) you think this? Leaving aside the absurd extravagances, white poufy dresses etc., what do you find questionable in the "C of E church wedding"?
Exactly what venBede said.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Back to the thread topic and being well shut of the stench of deceased equines, I shall be attending the wedding of two dear friends on 4/6 at the local cathedral, both of whom are in various types of Holy Orders and just my kind of liturgy nerd*.
Which reminds me, speaking of the liturgical side of this, an Anglo-Catholic parish in Chicago has a couple of "decently habited" Masses of holy union on YouTube.
I would be remiss too not to note the propers for the Mass Timete dominum for "the celebration of commitment to a life together" in the Anglican Gradual & Sacramentary (pdf),
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
You could get yourself sterilized and it would not make a blind bit of difference if God intends you to have children.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I might note that among my acquaintances are a married couple, both female, and one is pregnant. This would seem to suggest that, pace venbede, procreation can still be part of a SSM. As noted, the the BCP states matrimony was "first instituted for the procreation of children" but then refers to other Good Things which sequentially follow.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
You could get yourself sterilized and it would not make a blind bit of difference if God intends you to have children.
I suspect if that if God felt that strongly, it would not make a blind bit of difference if the couple were of the same sex. After if you believe the Biblical account Joseph did not need to be male for Mary to give birth to Jesus.
Jengie
[ 22. March 2013, 21:58: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
If y'all get this locked for Dead Horseplay before N and J's wedding I shall be quite displeased!
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
However, it is patriarchal (who gives this woman?), matriarchal (the bride's special day), establishment (clergy acting as state officers giving the couple permission to have sex), unrealistic nowadays (in that probably most couples are living together in intimacy already), sentimental (in that it is covering up through its extravagance what is at heart the entering into a legal contract), narcissistic (look how much we've spent) and so on.
Yes, those are fair criticisms. In defense, I would argue that the "Who gives this woman" bit is a historical artifact, and easily omittable (I am certain we didn't use it).
The "bride's special day" nonsense and the "look at our expensive party" thing are cultural fluff, and in my experience tend to be more observed at the secular end of things (aka we want to marry in your church because it'll look pretty in the photos). I don't think this detracts from the rite itself, any more than the practice of non-religious parents having their babies baptized to keep Grandma happy detracts from baptism.
I agree with you that the "toughness and reality of the vows" are the thing. Everything else is window-dressing. I would dispute your use of the word "legal" above - whilst a marriage is a legal arrangement, I think if you're primarily thinking of it in those terms, you're doing it wrong.
quote:
PPS As a clergyman opposed to marrying divorced persons said to me "As you know marriages don't take place in church..." ie. they take place in the bedroom.
and re your "unrealistic" comment above, lots of people get the order wrong. I don't consider that a grave problem.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
I believe that 'who gives this woman' was omitted from the wedding service with the advent of CW.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Just to say, I hope spiffy and her friends have a lovely day and that they know and will continue to know a loving and supportive life together.
Whatever we call it, that's the main thing.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
The Telegraph online link here seems to suggest today that there are several churches conducting same sex blessings (or some such ceremonies) in the Church of England. There is a hesitancy about the use of the term blessing.
The article doesn't indicate whether they differ from weddings.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
PPS As a clergyman opposed to marrying divorced persons said to me "As you know marriages don't take place in church..." ie. they take place in the bedroom.
Do you think that's really what he meant? I'd take it as meaning that marriage is not made by a ceremony in church or in a registry office, or by having sex, but a combination of love, support, living alongside each other, compromise, mutual deference, etc, over a period of time.
Nen - wondering whether she's missed an important part of the discussion somehow.
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
PPS As a clergyman opposed to marrying divorced persons said to me "As you know marriages don't take place in church..." ie. they take place in the bedroom.
Do you think that's really what he meant? I'd take it as meaning that marriage is not made by a ceremony in church or in a registry office, or by having sex, but a combination of love, support, living alongside each other, compromise, mutual deference, etc, over a period of time.
Nen - wondering whether she's missed an important part of the discussion somehow.
He meant sex and the consummation of the marriage. A marriage or civil partnership is made by entering into a legal contract, and in the case of a marriage hitherto in the UK, by subsequent sexual consummation. (Couple who never have sex, have a permanent ground for annulment.)
All the other things can exist without marriage, and often don't exist within many unhappy marriages.
The reason you're missing part of the debate is because the policy here is that gay marriage can only be fully discussed on the Dead Horses thread.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The model of the "C of E church wedding" strikes me as highly questionable even when not over sentimental and extravagant, and me and my mate wouldn't want to follow it.
[...]
Most weddings I've been to have been rather moving - in the middle of all the silliness are the toughness and reality of the vows: "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, forsaking all other".
A lump in my throat. And I'm so grateful to God that despite all the opposition I've known the same. And if one party is a regular churchgoer, I would hate to deny it.
However, it is patriarchal (who gives this woman?), matriarchal (the bride's special day), establishment (clergy acting as state officers giving the couple permission to have sex), unrealistic nowadays (in that probably most couples are living together in intimacy already), sentimental (in that it is covering up through its extravagance what is at heart the entering into a legal contract), narcissistic (look how much we've spent) and so on.
You're almost saying that a gay church blessing is purer and more authentic than a straight church wedding, because it cuts out the dubious stuff and leaves the important stuff in. I've never come across that perspective before. Very interesting! One to remember.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
UCCLynn
Apprentice
# 16633
|
Posted
This conversation is interesting, esp in light of the Supreme Ct of the USA hearing arguments this week on gay marriage.
I find it interesting that the op lives in a US state that allows gay marriage and asks about a rite that would allow a blessing for celibate same-sex unions in order to comply with "Church" doctrine.
I guess the big question is "which church?" If you are in TEC, they would allow the union whether celibate or not (my understanding). If you are in many other protestant denominations that tend to post on this board, the union would also be eligible to be blessed, whether celibate or not, whether "marriage" or "civil union."
In my denomination, the United Church of Christ, we support the right of churches and clergy to bless whatever unions they feel appropriate. That means that some of us will perform GLBT ceremonies and some won't.
I live in a civil union state but am not allowed to be married (although my partner and I did a civil union in the courthouse). I have performed several blessings of same sex relationships, signing the civil union certificates, etc.
My comment that I make in each such ceremony is that you are married in the eyes of the church, if not the state.
That stmt conforms to church doctrine. (But prob not to the op's church doctrine.)
Posts: 27 | From: Central Illinois, USA | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I believe that 'who gives this woman' was omitted from the wedding service with the advent of CW.
It wasn't in the ASB either.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
