ground and because we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had God on its side."


Late to the party there, champs

The Episcopal Church is subject to the laws of the states about marriage. As each state made it legal, the Episcopal Church in that state started marrying same-sex individuals.

Now because the Supreme Court has ratified same-sex marriage, we can enact things on a church-wide basis, because the decision covers the entire country.

doing this for decades.

This was a great general convention.

Always tending to be a little ahead of the curve and, imo, one of the most GLBT welcoming christian groups around.

I know it's a formality, but it's an important one.

Please don’t misrepresent your church by pretending it’s more progressive than it is as a whole, because no, 'Episcopal Churches' as an entire whole haven't been doing it for a year, let alone "decades".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches#Episcopal_Church_of_the_USA

If you add the word 'some' to your claim, then it would be true.

Subset != Superset.

Something to be gained from that false characterization?

In 2012 Episcopal Church didn't officially yet allow priests to sign off on SSM certificates.

That makes the claim of 'decades' ring a bit false, no?

Real life experience and i know a lot of clergy.

And i edited to say some.

Uh... anecdotal evidence is worthless....


....because, (are you sitting?) the world is not just like your back yard!

The fact is some Episcopal churvhes have been doing this for decades.

I might not have said anything, being that various E churches have just gone ahead and done it, but the org's official stance just three years ago was quite incompatible with the claim, even though today the change may indeed be a formality.

Crediting it with 'decades' seemed a bit disingenuous.

No it was not offical policy but bishops have been allowing it for decades.

That might sound like nuance, but with a background in engineering and security, implicit versus explicit permissions and whether those permissions are enforced or even audited have very important implications.

In 2012, the explicit permission for a priest in the EP church to officiate such a wedding in the capacity of signing the certificate, was explicitly denied. It appears that permission was neither enforced not audited, so that results in an implicit allow, but it was still up to the individual priest to decide.


On a personal note, This approach to handling social change is alien to me. It appears to have been engineered to support progress while entertaining the fears and dislikes of regressive members of the church.

I do not understand a desire to cater to such people until they give up. Does that make them better people, when they finally roll over and relent? Maybe. I wouldn't bank on it though.

When I approach a problem, if there is an underlying principle to guide a consistent outcome, I go with that. If the world is not with me, that is their problem. Not mine. I do not accommodate things like, in this case, discrimination. I forge ahead, alone if need be. Why pretend to accept or tolerate their position? Does this not lend credence to their position, or to the possibility of their position co-existing with mine?

Ever hear of Bishop Spong? He broke the rules all thd time and God bless him for it.

There is precedent in our church for this. In the 70's several bishops ordained women beforethe church allowed it.



You won't get an argument from me that the church was slow on this. Being active in the church has always been a learning experience. Politics and cowards have always been problems for us.

If you have a rule that says 'Not Allowed' for any process, but you deliberately choose not to enforce the rule, AND refuse to gather audit data that might allow later enforcement of the rule, you are implicitly allowing the action that process claims to Deny.

This happens a lot in the physical and software security world for liability/legal reasons.

In your church's case it appears to be engineered to placate the aforementioned audience while allowing people to get married.

B6t i am glad we got our avt together.

So the law allows it.
Your church, a splinter faction of the RCC that shares heritage and source material with the RCC, allows it.

There has never been a better time to recruit from the population of members of the RCC. They poll largely in favor of this, but the heirarchy is resistant to changing it.

It would pay dividends in orther issues where the EP church is more progressive, like contraception, abortion, etc. The EP church is against abortion from a moral stance but explicitly refuses to interfere in the right to access it. That's a position I can coexist with. The RCC actively lobbies, campaigns and sues to block, limit and restrict it.

Anything you can do to shrink the RCC population is a material boost to many progressive issues, and being sourced and similar to the RCC, your church is in a uniquely credible position to accomplish it.

Exactly for the reasons you stated.

The Anglican church in England, however, is more conservative than the government is on this issue, and won't perform same-sex marriages, despite the fact they are legal in Great Britain.