The Ocean County, NJ, Freeholders hear from a minister who gets it. This is worth posting in full.
Freeholder took moralistic tone
As the pastor of a church that welcomes all regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age or sexual orientation, I read with special interest the remarks of the Ocean County freeholders denying the request of Lt. Laurel Hester to extend her pension benefits to her domestic partner, Stacie Andree.
The Domestic Partnership Act passed by the Legislature last year makes a clear distinction between domestic partnership and marriage; they are not equivalent. Thus, Freeholder John P. Kelly’s comment that extending the benefits violates “the sanctity of marriage” is legally incorrect.
Beyond that, however, is the unfortunate — and un-Christian — moralistic tone used by Kelly in this case. These two women are life partners who live in covenant with each other; their love for each other is just as much a reflection of God’s love as is the love of heterosexual couples.
The Rev. Joyce Antila
Phipps
OLD FIRST CHURCH
MIDDLETOWN
And here’s an idea for Ocean County, NJ, clergy from a minister in Virginia who also get it.
Marriage for all or marriage for none. If the state won’t treat couples equally, he will.
Clarendon Presbyterian Church Pastor David Ensign has an alternative air about him. He wears an earring and has been known to pick up his guitar to play a few hymns during Sunday services.
But he surprised even some of Arlington’s die-hard progressives Nov. 3 at the county’s annual human rights awards ceremony, where his church was honored. He used the occasion to announce the church’s new wedding policy:
Traditional marriages are out. “Celebrations of commitment” are in.
To protest Virginia’s laws banning same-sex marriage, Ensign and the church’s governing council decided recently that Clarendon Presbyterian will no longer have any weddings, and Ensign will renounce his state authority to marry couples.
Any heterosexual couple who has their union “blessed” in a “celebration ceremony” at the tiny church will have to take the extra step of being officially wed by a justice of the peace at the courthouse.
“What we’re saying is that in the commonwealth of Virginia, the laws that govern marriage are unjust and unequal,” said Ensign, 45, who has served as the church’s pastor since 2003. He said that the matter had been bothering him for months and that he suggested the policy to the congregation’s leaders because his conscience would not allow him to continue performing legal marriages on the state’s behalf.
Imagine if every minister in Ocean County did this in protest of what’s happening to Laurel Hester and Stacey Andree, and explained that to every heterosexual couple who came seeking to be wed in a church. Sure, it wouldn’t keep anybody from getting married in Ocean County, and it would only add the extra step of going to the courthouse. But it would give folks something to think about on their way to the justice o’ the peace.
Quite frankly I never did understand the Church’s view that same sex marriage would destroy the sanctity of marriage. Despite what the Church keeps repeating marriage is NOT a religious rite. It has never belonged to the church and still doesn’t today. Which it why the preacher, minister or what ever you want to call them uses these words in the ceremony.
By the power invested in me by the state of (insert state here) I now pronounce you man and wife
Its not the Church that has the power to grant marriage it’s the state and its always been the state. Some people choose to have a religious ceremony to celebrate their union and that’s fine but they still can’t be ‘married’ without the state involved. And one can be married by the state and not have a church or religion involved.
Even Pastor Ensign understands it.
Clarendon Presbyterian will no longer have any weddings, and Ensign will renounce his state authority to marry couples.
His STATE authority. He know who has the authority to marrry, and he is 100% correct.
Now I’m all for freedom of religion and church’s should be free to do whatever they want within the walls of the church however trying to change state law to fit the confines of the Church’s view on any issue is stepping outside the boundary lines of good taste and good judgment. I can’t imagine the Church would allow the state to step in and start rewriting religious laws. You can’t have it both ways.If the Church wants the state to butt out of Church business then the Church needs to butt out of state business. And marriage belongs to the state.
I’m totally behind not performing secular marriages as a minister, but I wish the ministers who do it would call the church-only services they do–for both LGBTs and straight people–marriages instead of coming up with creative names for them. Coming up with new names just cedes "marriage" to the state, whereas (to me at least) the most important part of that institution is the relation between the married people (and optionally a vertical element involving a higher power). Let the state change its name for the institution!
This bugs me particularly when churches come up with a creative name for LGBT committment services but still use "marriage" for straights. If straight people can get married in the churches, gay people should be able to as well–forget "services of holy union" and so forth.