Presbyterian Church to Allow Gay Marriage?

[LadyTevar]

Link

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) committee recommends allowing same-sex marriage

The Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) would become the largest denomination in the nation to allow same-sex marriage if it follows a recommendation made Tuesday by a church legislative committee.

And another church committee, gathering for the church's weeklong legislative General Assembly in Minneapolis, recommended the church begin ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians.

The assembly's committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues voted 34-18 to change the definition of marriage in the church constitution to describe marriage as a covenant between "two people" rather than between "a man and a woman."

This "would recognize committed, lifelong relationships that are already being lived out by our members," said a committee statement.

Both measures would require passage by the full General Assembly later this week, but their passage by strong majorities in committee shows they have strong prospects.

Since they would involve changes to the church constitution, however, the measures would face a tough ratification vote among regional presbyteries in the coming year. Those bodies have repeatedly rejected gay-ordination proposals since the mid-1990s, but the margin of defeat narrowed in the most recent round of voting ending in 2008.

Since 2000, the denomination has allowed Presbyterian ministers and churches to bless same-sex relationships as long as the ceremonies aren't described or structured as weddings. The denomination also has officially endorsed state civil unions for same-sex couples since 2004.

With five states recognizing same-sex marriages and numerous others banning them, Presbyterian pastors and elders "are faced with complex decisions," the committee statement said. "... Broadening the language to offer marriage to any two people removes the religious barriers faced by ministers, (elders), church members, and other Christians while continuing to honor the laws of each state."

Meanwhile, the Church Orders and Ministry committee voted 36-16 to lift the ban on ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians to the offices of pastor, elder or deacon. Instead, each church or presbytery would have the option of deciding whether such candidates meet the qualifications for office.

Committee members opposed to the change planned a minority report after the committee rejected another proposal that sought to affirm the ban. Supporters of the ban say the Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful, and defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The denomination has just over 2 million members. The Episcopal Church, at roughly equal size, and the larger Evangelical Lutheran Church in America allow the ordination of gay clergy and the blessings of same-sex relationships, but not as marriage rites.

Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, United Methodist, Mormon and other larger denominations allow neither, saying homosexual activity is sinful.

On Monday, other Presbyterian committees recommended a halt to U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan and a letter of protest to an American supplier of heavy equipment to Israel.

The Middle East Study Committee deliberated into Tuesday evening on a controversial recommendation that the U.S. halt aid to Israel until it stops expanding settlements into occupied Palestinian territories.

That committee on Monday endorsed passage of a statement that "strongly denounces" Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc. for profiting from the sale of heavy equipment for Israel's use in occupied territories. The statement says they are for "clearly non-peaceful purposes."

Advocates for Israel say such measures are one-sided and don't account for Israel's security concerns.

On Afghanistan, the church's Peacemaking and International Issues Committee voted 49-2 to call on the U.S. to "cease direct combat operations, except those to protect coalition troops remaining, Afghani security force troops, and humanitarian efforts."

[Kanastrous]

Is there any reason to hope that this could provoke a schism with other sects sufficient to do Christianity in the US some real damage? Or is that foolish optimism?

[Simon_Jester]

Kanastrous, Christian sects schism all the time. Protestantism is perfectly capable of schisming without being substantially weakened. Even if a schism would weaken it, Presbyterianism (and the other sects liberal enough to seriously consider allowing gay marriage) aren't a problem for the political system, or not a critical one. The real problem are the fundamentalist and evangelical churches, the ones with active political agendas and no respect for the separation of church and state.

And they're not going to start splitting up over gay marriage, because anyone in their churches willing to leave over that issue would have already left.

The most likely schism to result from this is a split between conservative and liberal members of the Presbyterian Church. But the organization considering this idea, formally named the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is (wait for it...) not the only Presbyterian denomination in the US! There is also, for example, the Presbyterian Church in America.

So what's most likely is that if this passes muster with the PC(USA), conservative members of the PC(USA) will splinter off to other Presbyterian denominations that are bigoted enough for their taste. This will not substantially weaken "Christianity in America," but it will at least serve to create another relatively open and benevolent Christian denomination, with better policies, that can serve as a cultural haven for people who would otherwise be persecuted by conservative denominations.

So much better than nothing in my eyes, but not what you want to see.

[Molyneux]

An encouraging sign, one that I hope is echoed further and further in the years to come. I don't have much use for religion, but it's nice to see peoples' views changing.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Is there any reason to hope that this could provoke a schism with other sects sufficient to do Christianity in the US some real damage? Or is that foolish optimism?

Any particular reason you want to 'damage' Christian denominations at a time when large groups are coming around to accepting homosexual marriage?

[Eleas]

Is there any reason to hope that this could provoke a schism with other sects sufficient to do Christianity in the US some real damage? Or is that foolish optimism?

Any particular reason you want to 'damage' Christian denominations at a time when large groups are coming around to accepting homosexual marriage?

He did not speak of damaging denominations, but the sanctity of Christianity in the US as a whole. If he means what I think he's referring to, I am in complete agreement: that institutionalized and all-but-mandatory support for Christianity in the United States has become a root cause of stagnancy.

[Kanastrous]

I don't want to 'wipe out' Christianity* - it's ethically problematic and besides, there are better things to do than go tilting at windmills - but I hope that it's reasonable to look forward to the arrangement proposed by WS Burroughs, where Christianity is out of its position of primacy and takes its place as merely one of many protected forms of faith and observance.

Also, homosexual marriage isn't the only matter where the faithful - considered as a bloc - do damage. Not even where they do the most damage. Even if and when every Christian sect signs off on same-sex marriages, they'll still be doing as much harm as ever on other fronts.



* although admittedly my rhetoric gets away from me sometimes...

[Eleas]

Oh, I apologize if I put words in your mouth. I interpreted your statement to mean that you wanted to rob the Church of its (IMHO undeserved) paragon status in the public sphere, not that you wanted to behead the institution itself.

[Kanastrous]

No, I think you got my intent just about exactly right. Better than I expressed it myself, even.

[sirocco]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't marriage a holy union of 2 people in the name of a God that specifically deemed homosexuality asunnatural and unholy?

I do understand that 2 people wants their love to be respected and acknowledged by the society. But I see Gay religious marriage as some kind of immense "F**k You" to the church for all those years of persecution. And it can only mean trouble for them.

[Kanastrous]

For my own part I've never wanted to force religious institutions to marry anyone whom those institutions don't want to marry.

I want the government to extend that coverage to gay couples, so that they're equal before the law. I can't speak for anyone else but whether or not any particular religious denomination chooses to endorse the practice is really pretty much their own business.

I mean, do we really want to play along with the faithful's crazy, and act as though their religious practices have meaning? It's fine if individuals choose to think so but I sure don't want a government to do anything to suggest it.

Oh, and no, it's not that a God deemed homosexuality one thing, or another. It's that some number of people choose to believe (a) in the existence of said God (b) said God's general interest in human beings and (c) said God's degree of obsession over which bits of which humans get juxtaposed with which bits on which other humans...

[Simon_Jester]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't marriage a holy union of 2 people in the name of a God that specifically deemed homosexuality asunnatural and unholy?

I do understand that 2 people wants their love to be respected and acknowledged by the society. But I see Gay religious marriage as some kind of immense "F**k You" to the church for all those years of persecution. And it can only mean trouble for them.

Thing is, if gays are going to get a religious marriage, it has to be because they found a religious figure willing to officiate... and therefore a sympathetic church.

If my church is willing to marry gays, it's hardly an immense "Fuck You" to my church when gays marry in it. It may be a "Fuck You" to some other church but... eh, fuck 'em, they're heretics. Churches have been doing this sort of thing to each other for thousands of years; one religion's sacred rite is another's abomination.

[Kanastrous]

Well, it might be construed as an f you to congregants within that church who disagree...but then of course they're free to find another congregation they find more agreeable.

[Serafina]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't marriage a holy union of 2 people in the name of a God that specifically deemed homosexuality as unnatural and unholy?

I do understand that 2 people wants their love to be respected and acknowledged by the society. But I see Gay religious marriage as some kind of immense "F**k You" to the church for all those years of persecution. And it can only mean trouble for them.

That's YOUR version of Christianity.
Marriage is NOT a christian institution, you can find it all over the world (with the exception of some tribal cultures).

Besides, how is being accepted by more people trouble for anyone?
I hate that old "they must stay separate/different for their own good" argument - it is pure intolerance. Giving someone equal treatment and rights is NOT a bad thing, it does NOT cause more intolerance.

[sirocco]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't marriage a holy union of 2 people in the name of a God that specifically deemed homosexuality as unnatural and unholy?

I do understand that 2 people wants their love to be respected and acknowledged by the society. But I see Gay religious marriage as some kind of immense "F**k You" to the church for all those years of persecution. And it can only mean trouble for them.

That's YOUR version of Christianity.
Marriage is NOT a christian institution, you can find it all over the world (with the exception of some tribal cultures).

Besides, how is being accepted by more people trouble for anyone?
I hate that old "they must stay separate/different for their own good" argument - it is pure intolerance. Giving someone equal treatment and rights is NOT a bad thing, it does NOT cause more intolerance.

1- I think you got me wrong: I see civil union as a right while religious marriage is an act of faith (some may say a duty towards your god ).
It's like saying that you have the right to enter a nightclub while the bouncer says that he specifically doesn't want you in because you don't fit in.

2- Marriage is not a christian institution but a religious institution right? What are the religions that consider homosexuality as being a perfectly natural thing?

3- Unfortunately, it's a pipe dream to consider that giving equal rights and treatments reduce intolerance. People have understood that gay people are humans and citizens too but when you ask them how they would deal with a gay friend or child, there is still some lingering uneasiness. They won't tell you that they are against it (because well it makes them look bad) but be sure they won't like it (and may try finding solutions).

[Kanastrous]

Marriage is both a civil matter and - for people who choose to see it that way - a religious sacrament. But it's the civil aspect that's important, in a modern society...

While of course I'd prefer that people in general grow the fuck up, whether or not any specified citizen is happy about his gay fellow citizens enjoying their due rights is really not particularly important, any more than whether or not some random white guy likes the idea of black people sharing the same legal protections that he has.

[Serafina]

1- I think you got me wrong: I see civil union as a right while religious marriage is an act of faith (some may say a duty towards your god ).
It's like saying that you have the right to enter a nightclub while the bouncer says that he specifically doesn't want you in because you don't fit in.

And marriage is NOT a Christian OR religious institution. It was not invented by Christians, it is practiced all over the world and an atheist couple is just as married as a christian one.

2- Marriage is not a christian institution but a religious institution right? What are the religions that consider homosexuality as being a perfectly natural thing?

That religion for example. Most european churches don't make that much of a fuzz about it as well. Our protestant (who are the most moderate ones generally) churches the least, i could actually imagine such as step from them. Actually, they have gay and lesbian priests (german site), and IIRC they are even allowed to enter gay relationships without penalty - and they might even count as marriage.

3- Unfortunately, it's a pipe dream to consider that giving equal rights and treatments reduce intolerance. People have understood that gay people are humans and citizens too but when you ask them how they would deal with a gay friend or child, there is still some lingering uneasiness. They won't tell you that they are against it (because well it makes them look bad) but be sure they won't like it (and may try finding solutions).

In the people you know perhaps. Not in the people i know, or at least they can all work it out of their system within weeks.
You seem to think that an anti-gay opinion is natural. While it is normal in our society, it is not there from birth but rather caused by social prejudice. Either way, it does not have to stay.
And equal rights might not be a magic miracle - but they certainly help. A lot. Unequal rights stop tolerance - after all, they justify prejudices.

[Simon_Jester]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't marriage a holy union of 2 people in the name of a God that specifically deemed homosexuality as unnatural and unholy?

I do understand that 2 people wants their love to be respected and acknowledged by the society. But I see Gay religious marriage as some kind of immense "F**k You" to the church for all those years of persecution. And it can only mean trouble for them.

That's YOUR version of Christianity.
Marriage is NOT a christian institution, you can find it all over the world (with the exception of some tribal cultures).

Besides, how is being accepted by more people trouble for anyone?
I hate that old "they must stay separate/different for their own good" argument - it is pure intolerance. Giving someone equal treatment and rights is NOT a bad thing, it does NOT cause more intolerance.

...Charitably, I think what's at issue here is the old complaint "but churches will be forced to marry people their scripture forbids them from marrying!"

Which is, of course, foolish. People already go church-shopping for places more to their liking, certainly in any Protestant country. Nothing stops religious people who are afraid of divine wrath in response to gay marriages from forming their own congregations that refuse to perform the ceremony, while other churches do so.

1- I think you got me wrong: I see civil union as a right while religious marriage is an act of faith (some may say a duty towards your god ).

That said, the legal tradition in the West does not distinguish between "civil unions" and "marriages." You don't have to find a church willing to marry you to be married in they eyes of the law. In the US, justices of the peace marry couples all the time, and no one complains and say they aren't real marriages because they aren't a religious ceremony. Nor does anyone claim that judges have to be religious officials because of their power to officiate over a lawful marriage. Not "civil union," marriage.

So why on Earth should this policy suddenly change when we run into a new category? Why can't judges marry gay couples who don't want or can't find a church to hold the ceremony, just as they do straight couples, and call it a marriage?

And if a church agrees to hold the ceremony (as it looks like the Presbyterians might do here), then how is that a problem for any other church? What business of yours is it that they interpret their doctrine as allowing them to do that, even if your interpretation forbids it?

[sirocco]

1- I think you got me wrong: I see civil union as a right while religious marriage is an act of faith (some may say a duty towards your god ).
It's like saying that you have the right to enter a nightclub while the bouncer says that he specifically doesn't want you in because you don't fit in.

And marriage is NOT a Christian OR religious institution. It was not invented by Christians, it is practiced all over the world and an atheist couple is just as married as a christian one.

2- Marriage is not a christian institution but a religious institution right? What are the religions that consider homosexuality as being a perfectly natural thing?

That religion for example. Most european churches don't make that much of a fuzz about it as well. Our protestant (who are the most moderate ones generally) churches the least, i could actually imagine such as step from them. Actually, they have gay and lesbian priests (german site), and IIRC they are even allowed to enter gay relationships without penalty - and they might even count as marriage.

Well initially marriage was celebrated by priests or the kings themselves (who were or will become religious figures). Now Marriage can either be a civil union or a religious matter (and even both). And this is also why I wonder why it's so important to be religiously married when you have alternatives.

And as Simon_Jester said, you could always go church-shopping . And I see that as some "You didn't want us to get married? Well we found someone to do it anyway!" which is just another way to say "F**k you".

3- Unfortunately, it's a pipe dream to consider that giving equal rights and treatments reduce intolerance. People have understood that gay people are humans and citizens too but when you ask them how they would deal with a gay friend or child, there is still some lingering uneasiness. They won't tell you that they are against it (because well it makes them look bad) but be sure they won't like it (and may try finding solutions).

In the people you know perhaps. Not in the people i know, or at least they can all work it out of their system within weeks.
You seem to think that an anti-gay opinion is natural. While it is normal in our society, it is not there from birth but rather caused by social prejudice. Either way, it does not have to stay.

Unfortunately, biases are a fundamental part of a society. The same way Values tell you who you are, Biases tell you who you don't want to be. I wish we could love each other for who we really are but I doubt that it will ever be possible.

And equal rights might not be a magic miracle - but they certainly help. A lot. Unequal rights stop tolerance - after all, they justify prejudices.

Yeah. That's the world we live in.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Well initially marriage was celebrated by priests or the kings themselves (who were or will become religious figures). Now Marriage can either be a civil union or a religious matter (and even both). And this is also why I wonder why it's so important to be religiously married when you have alternatives.

Marriage cannot either be a "civil union" or a "religious matter". Do you know what a civil union even is, you dumbass? It's a "union similar to marriage", and religion does not and never has had sole exclusive rights to marriage. Marriage is the domain of the law. It is a legally binding agreement between two people. It started that way, and was later claimed by religion, but it is, today, the domain of the law. To call non-religious weddings civil unions is false. Civil unions are what gay people have to settle for because bigots won't allow them to legally be married.

Unfortunately, biases are a fundamental part of a society. The same way Values tell you who you are, Biases tell you who you don't want to be. I wish we could love each other for who we really are but I doubt that it will ever be possible.

"I don't think it's possible to remove bias, therefor we shouldn't try"? Is that what you're saying? Descrimination against non-whites has dropped remarkably after we stopped treating them like animals and gave them the same rights as everyone else certainly helped reduce the amount of descrimination against them.

EDIT: Fixed broken quotes tags.

[Serafina]

Well initially marriage was celebrated by priests or the kings themselves (who were or will become religious figures). Now Marriage can either be a civil union or a religious matter (and even both). And this is also why I wonder why it's so important to be religiously married when you have alternatives.

That's a fallacy (appealing to someones origin) - and of course completely irrelevant.
And believe it or not - there are gay Christians who would like to get married in a church.

And as Simon_Jester said, you could always go church-shopping . And I see that as some "You didn't want us to get married? Well we found someone to do it anyway!" which is just another way to say "F**k you".

Only if there are churches which allow it. Which is why this is good news.

Unfortunately, biases are a fundamental part of a society. The same way Values tell you who you are, Biases tell you who you don't want to be. I wish we could love each other for who we really are but I doubt that it will ever be possible.

Yeah, yeah, prejudice is a normal human reaction.
Got any evidence that this has necessarily to be the case with homosexuality?

Yeah. That's the world we live in.

Hence, giving people rights and opportunities that are as equal as possible (and reasonable) is a good thing.

[Hillary]

I see Gay religious marriage as some kind of immense "F**k You" to the church for all those years of persecution.

No more so than wearing mixed-fabric clothes to church is. There are a lot of arcane rules in the bible that are rightly ignored these days. There's no reason why the anti-gay ones shouldn't be ignored as well.

[sirocco]

Unfortunately, biases are a fundamental part of a society. The same way Values tell you who you are, Biases tell you who you don't want to be. I wish we could love each other for who we really are but I doubt that it will ever be possible.

Yeah, yeah, prejudice is a normal human reaction.
Got any evidence that this has necessarily to be the case with homosexuality?

Aren't you the one that said earlier that anti-gay opinion was caused by social prejudice?

Except that, it's a good thing to give people rights and opportunities as equal as possible. Though I think religious matters are an entirely different realm where people will stick to their beliefs as much as possible. Social changes may nevertheless modify their perception of the world and what is or is not meant to be.

Well initially marriage was celebrated by priests or the kings themselves (who were or will become religious figures). Now Marriage can either be a civil union or a religious matter (and even both). And this is also why I wonder why it's so important to be religiously married when you have alternatives.

Marriage cannot either be a "civil union" or a "religious matter". Do you know what a civil union even is, you dumbass? It's a "union similar to marriage", and religion does not and never has had sole exclusive rights to marriage. Marriage is the domain of the law. It is a legally binding agreement between two people. It started that way, and was later claimed by religion, but it is, today, the domain of the law. To call non-religious weddings civil unions is false. Civil unions are what gay people have to settle for because bigots won't allow them to legally be married.

So back to the question that I asked earlier : If legal marriage is as good as religious marriage then why is it so important to perform the second one?
If you love someone does it really matters to be married in a church when you just can get married full stop?

Unfortunately, biases are a fundamental part of a society. The same way Values tell you who you are, Biases tell you who you don't want to be. I wish we could love each other for who we really are but I doubt that it will ever be possible.

"I don't think it's possible to remove bias, therefor we shouldn't try"? Is that what you're saying? Descrimination against non-whites has dropped remarkably after we stopped treating them like animals and gave them the same rights as everyone else certainly helped reduce the amount of descrimination against them.

What I am saying is that you can't have a society without any bias. It's like saying that people will stop having an opinion about other people. That just can't be.
And you said it very well : we cannot eradicate discrimination but we can reduce the amount of discrimination against people directly affected.

[Hillary]

So back to the question that I asked earlier : If legal marriage is as good as religious marriage then why is it so important to perform the second one?
If you love someone does it really matters to be married in a church when you just can get married full stop?

If they are religious, of course it matters. You wouldn't even consider asking that of a heterosexual couple, would you? They want to be married in the house of God; why should that not be possible?

[sirocco]

So back to the question that I asked earlier : If legal marriage is as good as religious marriage then why is it so important to perform the second one?
If you love someone does it really matters to be married in a church when you just can get married full stop?

If they are religious, of course it matters. You wouldn't even consider asking that of a heterosexual couple, would you? They want to be married in the house of God; why should that not be possible?

We wouldn't have that thread discussion if it was about a heterosexual couple but that doesn't make it less important.

I recall that in various religions, gay people are accepted but the sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex is still seen as being sinful.

This is a slippery slope since you're telling that you respect their orientations but don't want to know that they are actively putting them in practice. And all that makes me think that religious gay marriage is just for the show. And it pains me to see that because religions are also a cultural product. I'm looking at Christians and just can't tell anymore what brought all those people together.

And now the priests just seemed to fathom some half-a** solution to conciliate their religion with today's social changes and make everyone think that they are "cool".

I am questioning the beliefs of people in the legitimacy of religious gay marriage not the legitimacy of gay marriage itself.