The Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Massachusetts, The Rt. Rev. M. Thomas Shaw, SSJE, issued a statement on Sunday announcing that clergy in the diocese may now "solemnize marriages for all eligible couples."
And by "all eligible couples," he means all couples regardless of gender distribution.
The decision follows from discussions at the church's General Convention in July calling for "generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members."
It is, in my opinion, an eloquent and generous statement; you may read it in its entirety at the link above. Join me over the jump for more details and discussion.
Disclaimer: I know that religious topics are unpleasant for many folks here; I hope the religious language in this post will be understood within its context. I have zero interest in proselytizing or arguing with anyone's beliefs, with the exception of this one precept.
Bishop Shaw begins his statement as follows (emphasis added):
Christian marriage is a sacramental rite that has evolved in the church, and while it is not necessary for all, it must be open to all as a means of grace and sustenance to our Christian hope.
I believe this because the truth of it is in our midst, revealed again and again by the many marriages—of women and men, and of persons of the same gender—that are characterized, just as our church expects, by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, and the holy love which enables spouses to see in one another the image of God.
He goes on to discuss how the legalization of gay marriage in the civil sphere, which occurred in Massachusetts in 2004, raised concerns among the equality-friendly in the Episcopal Church, who were uncomfortable living with a contradiction between civil law and what the church allowed. Clergy were allowed to bless same-gender marriages after the fact (as they can do for any marriage not performed in the church for whatever reason), but they could not officiate at weddings as they could for opposite-gender couples.
I find this part of the Bishop's statement very interesting, for several reasons. It seems to me that only in the Episcopal Church, with its stereotypical politeness and propriety, would you find people worrying about discrepancies between civil and canon (i.e. church) law. I would expect most Christian denominations, regardless of their position on the issue of marriage equality, to be entirely unconcerned with such a state of affairs, in keeping with the whole "render unto Caesar" concept.
As a sort-of Episcopalian (Buddhapalian Universalist is how I officially identify myself), I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm both proud of and amused by the church's desire to be "with it." I find it very moving, actually; whatever the church's flaws and shortcomings -- and it has many -- in my observation, its leadership really does strive, in a variety of ways, to create the church as "a house of prayer for all people."
On the other hand, I personally would have liked to see the church lead on this issue rather than follow. Anti-equality fear-mongering notwithstanding, churches are now and always have been free to decide who they will and won't marry; the Episcopal Church could have given this permission at any time, even if it meant that the same-gender weddings it performed were valid under canon law only and not civil law. Other denominations have done this.
By the way, while we're on the topic of a church's discretion in performing weddings, Bishop Shaw's statement is not an edict; he acknowledges that differences of opinion still exist among clergy on this issue. "This provision," he writes, "is an allowance and not a requirement; any member of the clergy may decline to solemnize any marriage."
Again, I have mixed feelings; the church's emphasis on unity and the inclusion of a wide spectrum of viewpoints can lead to what looks an awful lot like wishy-washiness on the part of leadership. And of course, it doesn't always work, as the parishes and dioceses that have decided to take their toys and leave home demonstrate. My preference would be for the church to say to its reactionary wing, "God be with you as you go on your way," which, by the way, is Episcopalian for "Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya." But I have to admire the seriousness of their commitment to all of their members, even the ones who are mean and nasty.
As an aside, I would note that couples who wish to marry in the church are subject to some requirements beyond those for civil marriage -- ones unrelated to gender or orientation. For example, I know someone who is twice-divorced and desired to marry in the church; he had to obtain permission from the local Bishop after writing a letter attesting to his sincere intention to make the third time a charm. And it had better be, because he learned that the church doesn't do fourth weddings.
But back to the issue at hand.
I skimmed through a document on ministering to same-gender couples that Bishop Shaw references in his statement (download the PDF here). And by "skimmed through," I really mean, "read this paragraph then stopped and got all verklempt":
We recognize that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are already important and committed members of many of our parishes in the Province of New England. They are serving on church vestries as wardens and vestry members, on altar and flower guilds, on building committees, finance committees, religious education committees, and countless others. They are also serving as clergy and staff in many parishes throughout the Province. In short, they are vital participants in our holy family here in Province One. The steadfast and devoted presence, love, and participation of this group of people make the provision of a pastoral resource to support their loving committed relationships even more important.
I'm a woman married to a man, so why do I care? Well, in addition to being an ally (imperfect at it though I may be) and a hemophiliac liberal, I am also a church musician. It's hard to tell from the paragraph above, but the reference to "staff in many parishes" includes church organists and choir directors (and I'm surprised that "singing in the choir" wasn't in the list of service roles). And I'm here to tell you that if it weren't for teh ghey, one of two things would happen in Episcopal churches across this great land of ours of a Sunday morning: either a depressing and stony silence would reign, or sub-par caterwauling would torture those nice polite "frozen chosen". The same holds true for a number of other denominations. (And this would provide precious little competitive advantage to hetero organists like me -- I can only be at once church at a time, after all.)
These gay church musicians aren't kidding around, either -- they're not in it just for the money. I mean, there are church musicians who view the work as just a gig, who discreetly read the paper during the sermon, etc. I've been in that head space, myself, at times; I've subbed at moderate-to-conservative churches where I had to just go to my happy place during the sermon, to avoid being pained by the verbal horse manure that would sometimes issue from the pulpit.
But there are many, many gay church musicians -- I would venture to say the majority -- who are, in fact, devout. They love their churches, and have stayed in them even in the face of the longstanding and personally painful lack of progress -- the past, and in some cases ongoing, refusal to acknowledge them as faithful church members who deserve the same pastoral care, recognition and standing as members who happen to be attracted to the opposite sex.
For their sake, I rejoice at this news.