Am I correct in reading him to say that it is our continuing work to finish the work of changing the church’s teaching about the sacrament of marriage? Sometimes bishops are hard to understand.

Currently, the canons of TEC and the 1979 BCP define marriage as between man and woman.

I wonder whether the civil law protects clergy ordered to perform same-sex ‘marriages’ by a malevolent bishop.

Says Sisk. 

However, we can be confident that the Communion Partner Bishops, who stand as guardians and champions of the Faith within TEC, will very soon present a clear Biblical rebuttal and renunciation of same-sex marriage with great courage, clarity, conviction and compassion.

The Communion Partner Bishops…really, or are you pulling our legs on that? They have not said anything for literally years, like 2007 or something.

While I would’t support ssb of a marriage, in regard to the civil rights issues of minority populations I would support legislation which makes common life among those people easier to manage and to protect them from excesses of political enthusiasm which may mean their death.  Cliched as it may be, one cannot help responding to the clear and present and lethal danger visited upon the Jewish people before and during the second world war.  Nazi tyranny was so pervasive no one could help one of these unfortunates in the smallest of ways without fear of the firing squad or hanging.  We are not so far removed from that hell that we can afford to ignore its lessons.  He who has ears…....etc.

“I would support legislation which makes common life among those people easier to manage and to protect them from excesses of political enthusiasm which may mean their death. “

Do you have voting rights or other means of influencing the legislatures in countries with Islamic law?

Yes, #1, you are entirely correct.

Compare and contrast Sisk with this:
“Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have deconstructed the single most important institution in human history. Republicans and Democrats alike succumbed to powerful political elites and have passed legislation that will undermine our families and as a consequence, our society […]  I have asked all Catholic schools to refuse any distinction or honors bestowed upon them this year by the governor or any member of the legislature who voted to support this legislation. Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration […] Republicans and Democrats equally share responsibility for this ruinous legislation and we as Catholics should hold all accountable for their actions.” – (Roman Catholic) Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio,
H/T -http://www.patheos.com/community/deaconsbench/2011/06/25/quote-of-the-day-18/

I believe there are provisions in this act which say that no priest, minister, or rabbi will be forced to comply with it, and therefore churches and synagogues are not legally bound to recognize same sex ‘marriages.’

@Cennydd13
How long will that last. Already gay couples had gone after religious organizations who may not want to provide service due to religious objections.

This is a major win for secularists, and it seals their ultimate victory.

But thus it has always been, God’s faithful warn, the people fail to listen, and the church is left to pick up the pieces of shattered lives and broken homes.

God will be proven right as He always has been has the haughty are humbled…and we graciously speak God’s word of redemption and are vehicles for restoration.

10.  And how many of them have won in court?  Yes, it’s true that one couple won in the UK, but I don’t know of any who’ve succeeded in the US.

Just because that couple won in the UK, that doesn’t mean that the same would happen in New York.

I will give a TEC bishop credit for stating that the civil and church issues are separate.  Civil law does not entitle anyone to an automatic Christian marriage in TEC, gay or straight.

I wonder whether the civil law protects clergy ordered to perform same-sex ‘marriages’ by a malevolent bishop

July 1 is coming.  New disciplinary canons give bishops in general and the PB specifically, sweeping powers to deal with clergy who do not toe the line of the “new gospel”.  Civil law will be of no conern here.

It seems to me that the good bishop is not so much out to change the sacrament of marriage as he is to change the nature of a sacrament. I wonder how he would define this new undeersanding of a sacrament.

Re #16
Maybe we ourselves need to reflect on whether or not marriage is a real “sacrament” or perhaps something deeper.  It originated in Creation NOT with the coming of Christ. 
Gene Vieth did a real service with this:
http://classic.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp?ContentID=1035&IssueID=56

Cennydd13,

The legislation as written does have clauses regarding religion - but they use only the term “institution” and “organization” when granting a very limited exception to the law.  Nowhere is there any form of protection for individual clergy - “agents” or “members” of said institutions/organizations.  That means that there’s every likelihood that, if a priest refuses to marry a same-sex couple, they could file a lawsuit against the priest as an individual for failing to obey the legislation.  And, since a marriage witnessed by clergy is valid under NY state law, it can be argued that clergy are acting as agents of the state - and therefore required to obey all state laws.  (This same sort of logic has been used [successfully] against pharmacists who decline to prescribe “morning-after” abortion drugs, and JP’s who decline to marry same-sex couples.)

from today’s NYT:

The amendment that was passed stated that barring access to same-sex ceremonies, or failing to provide services for them, would not “result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation.”

The amendment also included protections for “any employee thereof being managed, directed or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order or a not-for-profit corporation.” And it included similar protections for clergy who declined to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Finally, the legislation contained what is known as an inseverability clause. If a court found any part of the act to be invalid, the entire legislation would also be invalid. The clause is an important provision to Republicans because it means that the marriage legislation would be at risk if the religious exemptions were successfully challenged in court.