National Cathedral to perform same-sex weddings
By The Associated Press
This article was published January 9, 2013 at 7:02 a.m.
- Comments (28)
- aAFont Size
WASHINGTON — The Washington National Cathedral, where the nation gathers to mourn tragedies and celebrate new presidents, will soon begin performing same-sex marriages.
Cathedral officials say the church will be among the first Episcopal congregations to implement a new rite of marriage for gay members. The church will announce its new policy Wednesday.
As the nation’s most prominent church, the decision carries huge symbolism. The 106-year-old cathedral has long been a spiritual center for the nation, hosting presidential inaugural services and funerals for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford.
It draws hundreds of thousands of visitors.
In light of the legality of same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia and now Maryland, the Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, decided in December to allow an expansion of the Christian marriage sacrament. The diocese covers the district and four counties in Maryland.
The change is allowed under a “local option” granted by the church’s General Convention, church leaders said. Each priest in the diocese can then decide whether to perform same-sex unions.
The Very Rev. Gary Hall, the cathedral’s dean, said performing same-sex marriages is an opportunity to break down barriers and build a more inclusive community “that reflects the diversity of God’s world.”
Read tomorrow's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full details.
Comments on: National Cathedral to perform same-sex weddings
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
penber says... January 9, 2013 at 8:31 a.m.
If same sex marriages are not recognized at the national level, why should they be conducted in our National Cathedral?
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 9, 2013 at 8:50 a.m.
penber.....What don't you understand about "In light of the legality of same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia "? DUH!
( permalink | suggest removal )
penber says... January 9, 2013 at 8:56 a.m.
Bill Smith, what do you not understand about NATIONAL cathedral?
( permalink | suggest removal )
rainbowharold55 says... January 9, 2013 at 9:03 a.m.
'bout time!
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... January 9, 2013 at 9:54 a.m.
Will the National Cathedral also celebrate marriage between same sex heterosexuals, same sex polygamists, same sex siblings, and same sex members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association? It's all about marriage equality. Isn't that correct, rainbow?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... January 9, 2013 at 10:10 a.m.
penbar, the cathedral is just NAMED national cathedral. It belongs to the episcopalians, not the country. separation of church and state, remember?
~
Once we get sharia law, then we can have a REAL national cathedral. They probably won't be marrying gays, though.
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... January 9, 2013 at 10:15 a.m.
Sharia law...please. Whatever respect I had for you just dissipated.
( permalink | suggest removal )
rainbowharold55 says... January 9, 2013 at 10:25 a.m.
Packman, marriage equality has nothing to do with the other situations you cited. Spoken straight from the lap of heterosexual privilege.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... January 9, 2013 at 10:27 a.m.
well, dj, I'm sorry. Moslems scare me more than baptists or pentecostals. I mean, wow - if you think christians are all up in your personal business...
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... January 9, 2013 at 10:53 a.m.
Packman's just giving us his daily display of ignorance.
( permalink | suggest removal )
23cal says... January 9, 2013 at 11:47 a.m.
This is the same old, same old for Packman. He is unable to address same sex marriage on its own merits or lack thereof, but always wants to go haring off onto other topics such as polygamy or marrying animals. He is incapable of comprehending that those need to stand or fall on their own merits, just as same sex marriage needs to stand or fall on its own merits.
For him it always the same tired old "What about all of these other things?" He says this as if paranoid fear of a possible fantasy dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual discriminatory present. None of his sky-is-falling "what-ifs" have come to pass in any of the eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden) and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico and the United States) that have begun to allow same-sex couples to marry. None of these have been a problem in our nine states and District of Columbia that recognize same sex marriage rights. Nor has it been a problem for any of the religions that recognize same sex marriage, for example: Quakers, Episcopalians, the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Canada, Reform and Conservative Jews, Wiccans, Druids, Unitarian Universalists and Native American religions with a two-spirit tradition.
The racists used this exact same argument that the homophobes use now and which Packman articulated above. The Supreme Court rejected it then, and hopefully will reject it now. When the SCOTUS struck down misogyny laws in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, it focused on what Packman wants you to ignore: that there had to be a compelling reason for the state to discriminate against citizens on the matter at hand. There may or may not be compelling reasons to disallow polygamy or to disallow marriages between two consenting adult citizens like a man and his goat (?????) However, as the SCOTUS correctly pointed out, all of those various situations will have to bear that test on their own, and have nothing to do with discriminatory misogyny laws...nor do they have an iota to do with same sex marriage discrimination under the law.
So same sex marriage has to bear that test on its own. Is their any compelling secular reason for the state to disallow same sex marriage other than that homophobes think it is "icky"?
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... January 9, 2013 at 12:07 p.m.
Careful, 23cal...If Packman reads your entire post, he'll sprain his lips. Again.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Felina says... January 9, 2013 at 1:27 p.m.
Excellent post, 23! The only clarification is that Loving v Virginia affected the anti-miscegenation laws which prohibited interracial marriage. Misogyny is hatred of women.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Vickie55 says... January 9, 2013 at 1:35 p.m.
Why is it that John F. Kennedy's numberous flagrant affairs were not condemned but almost applauded?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Vickie55 says... January 9, 2013 at 1:40 p.m.
Sorry, that last comment was supposed to follow the article on McDaniel. That's what happens when I try to do too many things at once.
( permalink | suggest removal )
rainbowharold55 says... January 9, 2013 at 2:22 p.m.
Right, Felina. Mysogyny is still the status quo.
( permalink | suggest removal )
23cal says... January 9, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
Felina...so right on "anti-miscegenation". Thank you for the correction.
( permalink | suggest removal )
23cal says... January 9, 2013 at 2:48 p.m.
Seriously, that very same argument was made by the argument was made by R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws:
" It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."
It was a bogus argument then and it is a bogus argument now.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 9, 2013 at 3:32 p.m.
For many years, no one but the people closest to JFK knew about his private behavior. In those days, the press simply didn't report those things. In some ways it was more pleasant than it is now, with everyone playing "Gotcha".
Years after the fact, I was so disappointed to read about his behavior. In some ways, the Kennedy boys never stood a chance to be any different in that part of their lives than they were. Their father set them a horrible example. Their Mother set the example of putting up with it. She got her revenge by going to Europe to have new clothes made once or twice a year, but otherwise let Joe get away with it.
One book that I read said one of Kennedy's secret health conditions was treated by a drug that intensified sexual desire. Not that that is an excuse.
Some of our best presidents have been sexually misbehaved. The mysteries of that are beyond me.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... January 9, 2013 at 4:17 p.m.
Well, Inquire - these guys are at the very top of the alpha male ladder. I think it makes them a little more "manly" than the average pobucker. They are also in target rich environments. I don't sweat it. heh, that's up to their wives.
~
Not that I think it's an equivilent sin as to, say, eating a donut...but I think they do. Cut you off on the freeway and then seduce your wife - good old alpha males.
( permalink | suggest removal )
McGyver says... January 9, 2013 at 5:28 p.m.
Maybe the National Cathedral is where the new world religion will emerge and we all can join up. Imagine a religion where everything goes...look Ma, no sin. Not even sodomy. DC ..things hoped for; evidence of things unseen.
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... January 9, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
Plus, sharia law and MOSLEMS!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
nwar says... January 9, 2013 at 5:58 p.m.
Do any of you Muslim (not Moslem) haters even know any? I have had friends and colleagues from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, India and Indonesia. They were highly educated and honest people. Would you like Muslims to think of all Americans like the Koran burning pastor from Florida or the Westboro Baptist nuts?
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 9, 2013 at 7:47 p.m.
Packman.......Idiot extraordinaire, what about the 5 year old boy who wants to be a girl?
With all of your wisdom about it being a choice, why is that 5 year old making that choice when his older brother did not? The 5 year old boy only thinks his penis is for peeing. I am not trying to sound crude, but it is a fact that is rellavent to the comment. Give us your facts that it is a choice.
( permalink | suggest removal )
23cal says... January 9, 2013 at 8:09 p.m.
Sure, Packman. The "merits" is equal treatment under the law for citizens. When the governmment makes acquiring rights, privileges, and benefits contingent upon "marriage", then it needs to make civil "marriage" available to all citizens.
*
Sexual orientation isn't a "lifestyle choice". All of the major psychological and medical organizations agree on this. Your argument that allowing same sex marriage like mixed race marriage has been allowed will necessarily lead to civil marriage of "same sex polygamists, same sex siblings, and marriage between same sex members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association" doesn't hold water. There may be valid reasons to prevent these----like not two consenting adult citizens capable of legally contracting in "marriage between same sex members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association". Your other examples may have perfectly legal matters to prevent them---or they may not. In any event, they will have to work through those on the legal merits of each when their time comes. That we have to address pros and cons of every union you can fantasize in order to deal with same sex marriage is silly.
However, as I pointed out above, your examples of extremely an remote and unlikely possible fantasy dystopic future as an excuse to discriminate against citizens now is nothing but that...an excuse. And a lame one, just as was pointed out by the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia.
*
Your implication that a sexual orientation that is not a choice is the same as polygamy which is obviously a choice is just bizarre.
*
You obviously want the red herring of addressing the merits and demerits of every conceivable union instead of the one that is on the table. Let's do dance....what is your secular reason for disallowing same sex civil marriage?
What compelling state reason do you use to deny 1100 federal rights, benefits, and privileges to an entire demographic?
*
You say, "As to your compelling reason argument, the difference is between a lifestyle choice (GBLT) and a condition of birth (race, sex, physical disability)". Even if it were true, how does that justify state discrimination against that demographic? In other words, EXACTLY how does it hurt the state for them to marry?
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... January 9, 2013 at 11:12 p.m.
Here's how we know you're an idiot:
"unnatural lifestyle choice"
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... January 9, 2013 at 11:14 p.m.
Sexual identity isn't chosen.
However, abject idiocy...the kind exemplified by Packman...is ABSOLUTELY freely chosen.
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.