Why we passed A095 and A167
Here's why.
'Buried on Page 195 of Jonathan Rauch's new book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, is this insight into why the government's stamp of approval isn't actually the one that matters most in the battle over gay marriage: "The full social benefits of gay marriage will come when religions as well as governments customarily bless it: when women marry women in big church ceremonies as parents weep and ministers, solemnly smiling, intone the vows," observes Rauch, a writer in residence at the Brookings Institution.'
'In other words, forget courthouses and city halls; the fight for legitimacy for gay couples will be won under a roof topped by a cross and a steeple. About three-quarters of Americans choose to be married by a member of the clergy. When it comes to weddings, if not regular worship, we remain a country of steadfast churchgoers.'
'It's a point grasped by both proponents and opponents of same-sex unions: Marriage is a threshold, a life-changing event because of its distinct combination of legal, social, and religious significance. For many of us, the importance of the institution is rooted more deeply in joint blessings than in joint tax returns.'
From an April 2004 article in Slate magazine.
Here is the final text of A095 and A167.
1 Comments:
Dear Lydia:
Thanks for your "background" on these two resolutions. If there arer theological concerns re: homosexual persons and their behavior, it would follow that such concerns would also apply to society as a whole. In this case, the Church would need to take an apologetic stance re: the negative consequences of homosexual behavior for the betterment of the homosexual person as well as society in general. This would be my concern re: the passage of these two resolutions. Another would be the inherent political nature of the process by which these resolutions were passed. Any questions about the theological relationship and apologetic witness of Church to society? The theological underpinnings of these resolutions? My sense is that these were primarily political statements, not theological ones. As such, ECUSA continues to reveal that it cannot think or act theologically, nor does it want to.
The political process of "nit-picking" and wearing participants down to "vote-by-exhaustion" has proven to be a sorry way of defining the Body of Christ.
Thanks again for your faithful leadership. - Marc Robertson
Post a Comment
<< Home