“They are free to use their own discretion in their pastoral responsibilities in their own parishes,” Adams said [thus encouraging blatant open violation of TEC canons on marriage, as well as 1979 BCP rubrics. Not to mention Holy Scripture.]

As of July 1, conservative parishioners can initiate disciplinary proceedings against clergy who perform such actions. In theory, they cannot be ignored by the diocese, though we all know they certainly will be ignored.

“They are free to use their own discretion in their pastoral responsibilities in their own parishes.”  I thought that permission came with ordination in TEC - any priest can do whatever he/she damn well pleases.

Wait a minute. I just thought of something. Now that same-sex marriage is the law in some of these states, then they have marriage “equality,” right? Do they realize that if their relationship status is now equal to that of heterosexuals, then “common law” marriage is part of their new reality, too?

LOL, think about it! This means that even those GLBTs who live together but DON’T want to marry, that’s just tough luck. If they’ve lived together for a certain amount of time and fulfilled whatever other meagre requirements the particular state has, then they’re married, whether they like it or not! (And studies show that most of them WON’T like it!) The state will be involved if/when they split up to decide the property and custody matters.

Welcome to “equality,” gang!

“I thought that permission came with ordination in TEC - any priest can do whatever he/she damn well pleases”.

Unless that includes saying “no” to same-sex “marriage”.

Does the law specifically require the same sex partners to be human or is that Phase 2…

No. 3,

That might only apply if New York recognizes common law marriages. Some states don’t.

#6—Very true. But since their campaign is, of course, national, I wonder if they’ve even considered the implications of what they’re doing? It seems like this crowd runs more on appearance and public recognition rather than logic, implications, and responsibilities.

What the state does in this area is essentially irrelevant.  The state is constrained by political and constitutional limitations that require it to afford equal treatment.  For Christians, marriage is a religiously sanctioned estate between persons of opposite sex.  The state’s approach to this has no effect on our principles and precepts.  I wouldn’t worry too much about what temporal, secular authorities are required to do by civic guidelines.  The state can’t affect our views on transcendent matters of religion.

#8, no, what the state does is obviously not irrelevant. What the state does related to this matter is obviously going to be reflected in public education, “tolerance” laws, employment practices and other things to which the citizens are expected to abide. As long as Christians are also citizens, you’d best be vigilant and find it relevant. You can change churches fairly easily if you find your beliefs compromised by changes in your own church but it’s more difficult to change where you live when you’re put in a difficult spot.

I must say that I’m glad I live in Texas but that doesn’t mean I’m any less vigilant about what the state is doing. Things can change in a heartbeat.

I can just imagine all of the lawsuits and hair-pulling brawls that will occur once the divorce lawyers get busy in New York State.  Things are going to get nasty!  Welcome to the real world, guys and gals!

New York doesn’t recognize common-law marraige.