It is interesting to consider how passage in New York State of the Marriage Equality Act changes the threat perceived by the Diocese of Albany to its policies of sacramental discrimination.
Diocesan Convention passed resolutions in 2008 that distanced the DoA from the emerging consensus of the Episcopal Church on the rights of homosexual persons. Resulting revisions to Diocesan Canon 16 prevent clergy in the diocese from blessing same gender relationships, regardless of the allowed practice in other ecclesiastical jurisdictions. The intent then, in 2008, was to prevent church blessings of couples who were not at that time even eligible for a civil wedding. Since the wedding of same gender couples was not a legal option, the role of the clergy as officers of the State in a marriage ceremony was not an issue.
A sharp distinction must therefore be made between civil marriage and Church sacrament. Section 16.1 of the Canon states that:
Clergy...shall neither officiate at, nor facilitate, nor participate in...the Celebration or Blessing of a Marriage...other than those of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony.
Marriage is a civil matter. Clergy who witness marriages are acting on behalf of the State. Holy Matrimony is the blessing of a marriage. When revised in 2008, Canon 16 implicitly recognizes the distinction. The blessing, a Church prerogative, shall not be offered to any couple not married -- in other words, not in a civil union.
Two years later, the Marriage Equality Act was passed in New York, insuring that:
A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex.
However, the Act recognized that a crisis of conscience might result if clergy were required to act as civil officers at a wedding when the Church banned a blessing of the union. Therefore a religious exemption clause was included which provides that:
A religious corporation...shall not be required to provide accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges related to the solemnization of a marriage.
Translated from legaleze, clergy will not be required by the Act to bless a marriage. But again, and implicitly, the Act reaffirms that marriage is a civil matter. Blessing, solemnization, Holy Matrimony -- these are Church prerogatives, about which the State is silent.
This, then, is the law that Bishop Love asserts “redefines” marriage. That it definitely does not do. It expands the definition of who shall be eligible for marriage, yes. But the Act is clear that marriage, which has always been a civil matter, remains such. The position of the diocese on who is eligible for the blessing of a marriage -- Holy Matrimony -- also remains consistent. But now, by standing in opposition to the Marriage Equality Act, the Bishop and diocese are clearly taking a wrong side in a wider culture war. The Act is perceived as an additional threat to the authority of the Bishop, who again asserts the right to practice discrimination. The difference is that the discrimination is now not only one of sacramental exclusion, but of rejecting the right of parishioners -- and citizens -- their legal access to civil marriage. That, regardless of exclusions built into the Marriage Act, is a violation of civil rights.
Just noticing that Watertown is not so far from Montauk as Niagara Falls.
Posted by: William F. Hammond | July 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM
Bishop Sisk's statement is more nuanced, more guarded, than those of Bps. Provenzano, Adams, Singh, and Franklin. His position is, however, as far from that of our Bp. Love as Montauk Point is from Watertown.
What's your point, Fr. Michael?
Posted by: Robert T Dodd | July 22, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Are you aware that Bishop Sisk of NYC has allowed blessing of same sex couples but not marriage ceremonies? His logic is that the BCP has no language for a same gender marriage.
Posted by: Father Mike Waverly-Shank | July 21, 2011 at 05:57 AM
As to the title "... A Threat?", I'm beginning to think that there could be an undermining of the canon on standards for clergy passed in 2008.
It hinges on the understanding of the phrase 'covenant of marriage' in Canon 11.8. Consider, for example, the hypothetical case of man married in 1980 to a Quaker woman in a Quaker ceremony and in 1990 ordained priest in this Diocese. They certainly live in the covenant of marriage (in the traditional sense) though not having had the Church's ceremony of "holy matrimony" and probably not, depending on one's viewpoint, living under the somewhat dubious concept of "Christian marriage" -- dubious because it has no specific provenance in the New Testament even though marriage is certainly part of the given background in the books of the New Testament.
I think it's a very thin line that separates that couple from a similar hypothetical couple married civilly in 1980 with the man ordained priest in this Diocese in 1990.
Posted by: William F. Hammond | July 12, 2011 at 06:05 PM
It is, to be sure, difficult to support and be joined to a Diocese that so loosely admits that LGBT people even exist with its borders and parishes. There are many here in the DoA both LGBT and supportive others who have found places to worship and serve Christ- though those places be few and far between. Our Albany Integrity group, which is small and low-key serves as a networking and connection place in small ways.
Posted by: Richard Angelo | July 12, 2011 at 09:13 AM
I was a member of that parish and I can count one those interested in Albany Via Media. I think being so far removed from Albany area does not help our situation. And maybe someone coming to the north country may help.
Marsha, Colton
Posted by: Marsha Colt | July 11, 2011 at 09:22 PM
Michael, I can guarantee that you're not alone. Luckily, I get away from this diocese for several months, and in my new diocese I am able to grow spiritually. But it is so sad to come back to the place where I first joined the Episcopal Church and see what it has become here. Sad, indeed!
Good luck!
Posted by: Tom Ham | July 11, 2011 at 05:51 PM
To Michael S. from Potsdam. You and your partner would be most welcome at Luke's in Saranac Lake.
Posted by: Mary Lawthers | July 11, 2011 at 01:25 PM
Michael S.: "I certainly will not commit support to a diocese and parish where my acceptance is ambiguous at best, and where clearly my 17-year relationship with my partner earns only contempt."
Or join that parish and Albany Via Media and then find recruits for Albany Via Media in that parish.
Posted by: William F. Hammond | July 11, 2011 at 12:41 AM
At a minimum, the bishop's "pastoral" letter following the enactment of marriage equality in New York has convinced this Episcopalian, who moved to the diocese in 2009 and has been biding his time before deciding whether or not it was prudent to commit to the local parish he has attended sporadically since then, that it is unwise to do so; while unsurprising, the bishop's missive confirms that homosexuals are unwelcome in the diocese, and that committed same-sex relationships are not respected in the least. In some ways I am grateful that the bishop's letter has provided this moment of clarity. I certainly will not commit support to a diocese and parish where my acceptance is ambiguous at best, and where clearly my 17-year relationship with my partner earns only contempt. I will continue to be a loyal Episcopalian, and will seek communion with the Church outside this diocese, but not within, until there is a substantial change. I very much doubt that I am alone.
Posted by: Michael S., Potsdam | July 10, 2011 at 09:52 PM
In other words, the Bishop's prior actions concerning Canon 16 may come back to bite him?
Posted by: Dave DiSisto | July 10, 2011 at 04:23 PM