It is expected that our Washington state legislators will very soon, perhaps even tomorrow begin floor deliberations on HB2516 & SB6239 with the Senate to begin. Passage of these bills or a version of them would make same sex marriage law in our state. Our Episcopal Church, after a long discussion about this over the years is poised to do roughly the same this summer at our General Convention.
While I am careful about wading into our legislator’s business, I would say this is the church’s business too. I have been asked by many about my feelings on it, and I have decided to share them. The ideas are not new, I have shared them openly in the walk-abouts before becoming your bishop and in many venues before and since.
Christianity has held, when considering relationships of all sorts, but especially in relation to two people in marriage, fidelity to be our value. Fidelity is the value in most all our sacraments and also in our life as Christians.
It seems to me we have held our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in a “catch-22”. We say they cannot live up to our value because they cannot be married, or even blessed in their union. While many of them have begged for this, it is still not possible. What they ask of us, the church and the government, is to put boundaries around their relationship, to hold them in the same regard and with the same respect, which would also mean that we expect the same from them. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment. They are asking to be accountable, as a couple, in community. To me, this is a conservative proposal. I am for it, and I hope we will finally make way for this to happen, not only in our society, but also in our church.
Faithfully,
The Rt. Rev. Gregory H. Rickel
Mary said:
Let us pray!
Cascadoux said:
I prayed with and for you Three times already today.
Kevin said:
Thank you, Bishop Greg. It is ironic that opponents of marriage equality, while correctly identifying the importance of committed relationships with legal protection, wish to make them exclusively available. This is an issue that is so “liberal” in regards to personal liberty, it is “conservative.”
Keith said:
Well said as always.
Carol said:
Amen. Well said.
Pingback: The Episcopal Church on Marriage Equality in Washington | Community Matters
Michael Ashmore said:
Thank you, Bishop!
Dennis Tarkington said:
That is so simple and so beautifully stated. I think it is the least threatening argument I have heard, ever! Thank you,
Dennis Tarkington
Gadsden, Alabama
Tony Ramsey said:
I really love this, as Bishop, you continually make me proud to be part of this Diocese. I am wondering if, with all the moves towards civil marriage, there are any plan to move the Diocese towards giving parishes the option to perform religious marriages for LGBT members of our communities? I know that when full marriage equality becomes law, we have members of our Parish who it would mean so much to be able to have a religious ceremony, and it seems like we could be laying the groundwork now.
Nancy Dapper said:
Thank you Bishop Greg. I am grateful for your leadership on this important social justice issue.
Nancy Dapper
Wayne Adamson said:
Ridiculous. If this comes about, I will leave the Episcopal Church and go where the sacrament of marriage is respected. There is nothing conservative about this idea. It is an abomination.
Tony Ramsey said:
I fail to see how allowing two people who love each other to commit themselves to each other before God amounts to not respecting the sacrament of marriage. Once again, kudos Bishop Rickel.
Thegen said:
Love is actually not an issue here. In fact, we are to love everyone, even our enemies (which is kind counter-intuitive humanly speaking but is required of us believers). The real concern is with the union that comes after the state-authorized union. Marriage cant be without sex right? That’s the thing. People might think its ok but it’s actually not. Marriage is first and foremost spiritual in nature; it is sacred as couples are presented to God as man and woman. Secondly, “Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs”. Practically speaking, it is to bind two people to love and to propagate, that is the very basic purpose of marriage.
Dennis Tarkington said:
Hate to see you go
Mike said:
Based on your previous comment (2/3/12), do you really?
Katie Hultquist said:
Thanks Bishop Rickel. My partner and I will never forget the day you baptized our twins Rory and Nicholas at St. Columba’s and it really means so much to have our faith leaders supporting our family, in addition to the State.
Steve said:
Sir, with respect, I would point out that marriage is a civil institution that need have nothing to do with religion. One marries, as did my husband and I, under license from the state not the church. While one is glad to see someone of your standing talking sense about same-sex marriage it seems to me that it would be wrong to allow you to claim it as a religious institution when I point out to those opposed that it isn’t. By co-opting this discussion you give the impression that churches will somehow be required to recognize same-sex marriages when, of course, they won’t.
Dennis Tarkington said:
Steve,
I agree that it will not be “required” for churches to recognize same-sex marriages and I’m sure there will be hold-outs until us baby-boomers die out (the generations that follow seem, as a whole, to have no problem with the concept), there will be pressure from same- sex couples to have a religious blessing of the state-authorized union. We have seen some denominatins accept it already and many others are moving in that direction. It is simply a matter of time and no amount of ugly rhetoric is going to stop it.
Gordon (@gkgmiller) said:
Bishop Rickel, thank you for being a man of God who recognizes the importance of faith and faithfulness in our daily lives. My prayer and hope is that other bishops will recognize that marriage is a traditional, conservative value that everyone wants in their lives. Blessings to you and to your vocation.
Caliban said:
So I assume those of you attacking Bishop Rickel for his words also support Slavery, since that practice is defended in the Bible too. The Bible even dictates HOW you may beat your slaves- that so long as they don’t die within a few days time beating slaves is fine. The Bible also sets limits on women’s rights (none, basically) and dictates that women who are raped should be made to marry their rapist, so long as he pays her father to do so. (He did after all damage the man’s “property.”) It says that women should keep silent and obey their husbands and the Bible certainly has nothing nice to say about divorce and plenty to say about the punishment that should be meted out to those adulterers (which is how the Bible defines them) who divorce and remarry. Much like the few parts of the Bible dealing with homosexuality are being used today, those Bible verses were used (you can find copies of the sermons online) to oppose the abolition of slavery because it was Biblically approved. The Bible was used to oppose voting rights for women and for black people, to support Jim Crow laws in the south, to fight against interracial marriage.
So your opposition to marriage equality for gay people is just more of the same, the latest in a long “Christian” tradition, though not one I’d call “proud” or “fine.” I’d ask that you look up photos of the angry, hateful people opposing the integration of schools in the 1960s South because that’s your future, how you’ll be remembered. I’m sure someone will pipe up insisting that race and sexuality aren’t the same thing though truthfully they have many things in common. Study after scientific study has shown that sexuality IS in fact an inborn trait and considering that you’re reading this article and the comments on a COMPUTER, connected to millions of other computers around the world it’s rather silly to deny that science has a pretty good idea of how things work. Like those of various races, gay people have been subjected to abuse throughout history, though admittedly they’ve had the advantage of being able to hide their difference in most cases. Where they DIDN’T have the advantage is that unlike races of people, they were not born into families and communities like themselves which could offer support and solace. Or at least I’ve never HEARD of anyone’s parents kicking them out of the house when they discovered their child was black, Asian, or whatever.
Carolyn said:
As an Episcopalian and a member of the LGBT community who has been in a committed relationship for close to 25 years, I applaud the stand you have taken, Bishop Rickel. Thank you.
Betsy Gutting said:
Even as a young child, I knew that God was pure LOVE and acceptance. When I attended Christian churches with friends and heard the “fear of God” preached, something inside me said, “this is not the truth; God is pure love.” Fear is the opposite of love, and thus, the opposite of God. The movement to keep the LGBT community from entering into marriage stems only from fear, under the false guise of scripture. How could a marriage between two people who are ready, willing and sincere in committing to honor and hold high the sacred bond of marriage, NOT deserve the respect the Bishop Gregory asks we accord it here? I agree, Bishop, marriage equality is a CONSERVATIVE proposal.
Thank you, Bishop, for being courageous enough to speak out in leadership on behalf of God. To draw a line between church and the legislature and argue this isn’t the church’s business is to ignore our duty as humanitarians first. God has higher standards than this. We only need go within to hear our own truth. Thank you, Bishop, for speaking yours. I say we should ask, “what would love do here?” The Bishop’s response is the answer. With infinite love and gratitude for your courage and leadership.
Mike said:
You left out bisexuals and polygamists who share the same commitments but are not addressed by the bishop.
Pingback: Episcopals For Marriage Equality In Washington | Washington Investment
Pingback: Oxymorons with Bishop Greg
Alexi said:
Any church that “recognizes” will be sealing its final destiny with sure death and total irrelevancy. Then again, hey if that is what some want, why not!
David Wagner said:
Bravo. Kudos.
lraekim said:
I am so proud of Bishop Rickel and proud to to be an Episcopalian!
Confidential said:
too bad you have to go Against God’s Word to see it done though. So much for your Appointment.
Confidential Morris said:
Too bad you have to go against God’s and His Word to see it done. So much for your appointment.
Mike said:
A couple of things – actually several,
One: The previous citings of the Scriptures re. 1.relationships and 2.treatment of women etc. cuts both ways.
Read Matthew 19:4-5 “Haven’t you read,” he (Jesus) replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? Sooo…Jesus was not silent on this subject.
Second: As for the (supposedly misogynistic) Pauline Ephesian “submission” quote, read past the first part and check out “the rest of the story”…Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”c 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”
Women were being called out of the temple prostitution scheme of pagan Ephesus. Men were now to be accountable. Both the direction to the men and the one to the women are inextricably intertwined…can’t have one without the other. Guys, listen up!
Three: Regarding the new law, I am surprised at how few people have actually read the law now on the books. All domestic partnerships (except those with a partner older than 62) will be converted to marriages (unless dissolved before 2014) – no exceptions. BTW there never was a provision for heterosexual domestic partnerships except for the age 62 and older provision (which is driven by benefits.) Washington does not have provision for common law marriage either.
So all the partnerships become marriages i.e. civil marriages and subject to divorce law. Not sure about the benefits/liabilities here.
Four: The next step would be to simply use the BCP Blessing of a Civil Marriage. Just think; no more premarital counseling, no having to obtain the bishop’s permission for divorced persons — no matter how many previous divorces. Under the current diocesan policy, my father would probably not have been allowed an Episcopal marriage to his fourth wife – that marriage lasted 43 years. He fathered 10 children in the previous three unions–little if any child support.
Either Bishop Greg applies the same previously mentioned divorce/remarriage requirements to dissolution of partnerships and civil marriages prior to the blessings of any civil marriages, or drops all the requirements.
Five: Why are we limiting this issue of marriage to two people? What about bisexuals? How about polygamy? Don’t the same basic tenets apply? Don’t the “God given affection” combined with Jesus’s silence (except for the above Gospel citation and maybe adultery?) and current day observations and reasonings—enlightenments— apply as well??? So Caliban (see above 2/6/12) “Research shows” males are not naturally monogamous so why do WE have to be restricted? The “vengeful” God of the Old Testament wasn’t wrathfully displeased with Solomon having multiple wives, concubines, etc.. No, it was the building of the pagan temples for his gals. His very nature overwhelmed his great wisdom.
Oooops, wait a minute…oh yes…need to go back to that messy first item way at the top of this long tome. It’s the New Testament and the “red letters.” Jesus is in the way of my “natural” proclivities, but aren’t they God given if I can find fully consenting enlightened women who agree with me? Isn’t my truth as valid as “your” truth? I do make enough money to fully support two or three attachment parenting moms (Time magazine- May 11,2012).
Hmm, I wonder if Marcus Borg and company kept this (Matthew 19) as a true saying of Jesus.
Thegen said:
So Bishop, you’re saying that its okay for two people of same sex to have intercourse? Or you might have forgotten that sex is actually involved in marriage? Condoning to same-sex marriage is actually supporting intercourse between same sex. Sure you can reason about equality and things like that, but you know in your heart that we are not designed to have intercourse towards same sex. That should be an eye-opener. Just my 2 cents.
Pingback: Tying Knots — The Revealer