Why the to-do about marriage?

Marriage has usually been about property. Where I am now, a marriage license is issued by the same clerks who handle "documents of writing affecting real property or personal property" in the Finance Divsion of the county government, along with the Assessor and the Collector. The State licenses autos and drivers, the municipalities license pets, marriage is for the County.

Government (composed mainly of clerks) register marriages for the convenience of clerks. Laws give certain rights and duties -- about transmission of property and paying off debts, for example -- to married people, and it is easier to see to it that these are honored if you have a list of names of those whom they apply. There are also public health concerns: knowing who a carrier lives with helps to follow and check the spread of a contagion, And there is the general concern for stability in society, that things stay as much as possible as they are -- and marriage (and the difficulty of getting out of it) help this in at least one area.

Given all this, it is clear that governments would like to see to it that more people are married, especially people who are living together or have children together. And, indeed, there are occasional drives to get cohabitors to marry (though, because unsuccessful, not so many as formerly).

But why then the fuss about homosexual marriages? Surely, it is to the government's advantage to have the information. Given the context in which the government puts marriage, the answer must be that homosexual marriages will cost the government too much. And, indeed, there have been comments -- on the fourth page of the Business section usually -- about how small-business owners will be hurt by increased retirement and health care liabilities, and similar claims about Social Security. But people who claim to be able to predict these things say that these inbalances will quickly be corrected -- as they would be if more cohabitors married or, indeed, if just more employees did. So this does not seem to be a very powerful objection. Nor is it ever treated as one; as noted, it is never the headline. The headlines reveal that the objection stems from something barely mentioned in the government's interest in marriage: sex acts. About all the government says about that topic is a threat of unpleasant consequences to the person in a marriage who has sex with someone outside it (it can create all kinds of paperwork in an inheritance trial, for example). Given that existing homosexual unions seem to be about as monogamous as heterosexual marriages, this does not appear to be much of a problem -- and the routine to deal with it is already well-oiled by current marriages.

Ah, but (significantly) homosexual sex acts are icky (homophobia is coprophobia by proxy?). But most people, those who watch porn on their computers, know that some folks find this act stimulating and that heterosexual couples engage in it (at least, the law says, the right people are doing it together). Nor do all homosexuals do it all the time -- indeed, some don't ever. So, the mere possibility of icky acts (we are not -- any longer at least -- going to check) does not seem a valid reason for preventing homosexual marriages. We allow others where that -- and probably far worse -- sex acts occur. And in the broad range of activities covered by even this small area of government, much ickier things happen and, indeed, are ordered to happen (had your septic tank pumped lately?).

But this icky act is a sin! So is divorce (and more explicitly than any sex act) and much pawnbroking, both of which are carried out or licensed by the government. And, of course, talk of sin has no play in discussion of government activities.

But this would be blessing sin in a sacred institution. And here we have it! The opponent of homosexual marriage has confused a civil marriage -- two people's deed to one another -- with some religious -- or at least spiritual -- entity. Or even two: a ceremony and a state of life. Of course, using the same word for all of them aids the confusion. But a civil marriage is quite independent the others as they are of one another: you can have one without the other any way you want.

How this confusion comes about -- and is exploited by various people (to what purpose I can't quite figure out) -- is the next topic (forthcoming)

Axiom and action

Axiom
A consensual committed life-long mutual relationship between two people of the same sex is the moral equivalent of a heterosexual marriage.

Corollary
Being in such a relation is not a bar to any role in this church.

Action

TEC implicitly accepted these propositions at GC2003 when it accepted V. Gene Robinson's election as Bishop of New Hampshire.

It has never explicitly accepted either of them.

Not at GC03.
ABC was said to have muttered that we did the right thing but in the wrong order (or so it was interpreted by those used to reading the enigmatic oracles -- he probably said "hysteron proteron"). I suppose this bass-ackwards approach was taken because it was clear that accepting the election would pass ("Vicky Gene is such a nice guy" as, indeed , he is) while the general principle might not. And maybe it was thought (by whomever was doing the thinking) that the general principle would even further strain the bonds of the Communion. It is not clear that it could have, given what has happened since -- little or any of it actually about lgbt people.

Not at GC06
I suppose that, along with B033, this nonaction was taken in the hope of mollifying the situation and giving the new PB some space in which to operate in the Communion. And we know how well that turned out. Collaborating with Others on a display issue while continuing not to give all power to those who are Absolutely Right, will not win a favorable response from the latter.

Not at GC09
HOB has announced (implicitly, of course -- the via media "Do it, but don't say so"?) that no action will be taken on same-sex unions: "We have to wait for our secret committee's reports". As if there was an argument that had not been worked to death already, or a new piece of information to explore (except, of course, the stories of happily united faithful across the demographics -- which "will be given all due consideration"). Of course, the GC does have some control over the budget and in these times cut must be made ... . As if!

Not GC12
Sorry, but the report was negative. Nearly a half of lgbt unions end in separation, and in a very large number cases at least one partner has sexual liaisons outside the union. So, it cannot be morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage.


By the way, you might want to gussy the axiom up with more adjectives: "self-giving," "caring," "loving," and so on. And add "blessed and registered as much as the law allows." This will not change many of the facts on the ground, alas.

First things.

I am setting up this blog to discuss things Episcopalian, at the moment mainly same sex marriage in its various guises and the pusillanimity of GC in dealing with this issue. I hope that this issue will go away and then certainly I will get on to other issues -- and I may before then even.

I have been an Episcopalian for slightly less than half my life, having dropped in accidentally in the course of getting married one time. Prior to that I was an accidental Fundamentalist (it was the only church in town and everybody went to church there and then), an interdenominationalist (the school church), a Lutheran (LCA - another wedding) and mainly a nothing -- but "spiritual." Once in, I found I liked it a lot and dove in to the activities of my parish (laid-back Anglo-Catholic:fancy dresses, candles, incense but sneakers or Jerusalem ground grippers -- and liberal to radical politics): lector, vestry, altar party, diocesan delegate, etc. and graduated from the diocesan School for Ministry (even got married *in the church* once). My parish has usually (since I've been here) had a woman as rector or at least assistant and is an Oasis parish: advertising as friendly to lgbt people, who, indeed, make up a significant part of the congregation and the leadership.

Lately I have gotten a little disgruntled at the slow pace of progress and the political hanky-panky in at least the national church and the World Wide Anglican Communion led by the ABC. So now and here is my opportunity to vent to someone besides my long-suffering wife and my inattentive cat.