www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Bishop Michael's Pastoral Letter on NY Gay Marriage Law

His Grace's letter expresses in plain and unambiguous terms the teachings of our Church (as on this issue, the Church is one and undivided) and is worth reading.

"... No matter what the prevailing pressure of the culture or the legislation of the state may proclaim, the timeless teaching of the Church echoes the rule of marriage revealed to us by the Lord, written in the Scripture, and reaffirmed by the wisdom and examples of the Saints. Gay marriage or any other unblessed sexual activity is not the love that the Lord extols. Because “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16), no matter what the government or society may say, like St. Peter and the Apostles, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). We need not be afraid to stand in opposition to prevailing trends, as the earliest followers of Our Lord stood bravely and boldly, upholding the ideal of Christian marriage in the non-Christian empire of their time.

Having said this, we must never forget the Lord’s greatest commandment of love, which includes, after loving God above all else, the imperative, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31). This means we must never condemn anyone, but reach out to everyone with the living, healing, saving love of God in Christ Jesus. It means to walk in truth toward all, to do what is right for all, and to affirm what is good and holy on behalf of all..."

Many Years, Vladyko!

http://www.nynjoca.org/files/2011/Release-2011.27.1.pdf

(Bishop Michael (Dahulich) is the OCA Bishop of the Diocese of New York and New Jersey and is a native son of St. Michael's in Binghamton, NY. His Grace's father's family are parishioners of SS Peter and Paul BCC in Endicott, NY and his mother's family are parishioners of St. Michael's ACROD in Binghamton.)

Time for the Church to stop acting as deputized magistrates of the state. Let the state execute its own marriage licenses. Let the Church celebrate the Mystery of Holy Matrimony according to the Tradition of the Church, without regard to the laws of the state. If people want the dubious rights and protections afforded under civil law, let them procure a civil marriage, but let us not make that a prerequisite for marriages sanctified in the eyes of God through the rites of the Church and the descent and action of the Holy Spirit.

I couldn't agree more! The Church getting out of the civil marriage "business" will help protect the Church.

I agree. But it is not a new idea. In fact, the distinction between civil and religious marriage is straight out of the Code Napoleon!

In fact, in Mexico only the civil marriage is recognized by the State. That seems to me to be exactly the way it should be. State sponsored marriage is about legal contracts not moral or religious commitment.

Why don't we honor separation of church and state when it really matters?

Stuart,
I understand your point, but I feel it's premature. As followers of the God of Abraham and Isaac, the prophets and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, are we not to encourage others to follow Christ? By conceding marriage to civil authorities and basically telling them "Go ahead and call marriage whatever you want" are we practicing responsible "Faithful Citizenship?" (See this link) http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/

If we abandon the civil side of marriage, then we should not complain if homosexual, beastial, underage, polygamous, and incestual marriages become legalized. I'm a strong backer of the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience." See the link here http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

If we "go into the desert" to escape the world we are abandoning Christ's call to "announce the Good News!"

It's tempting to divorce ourselves from the foolishness of this nation and to escape. Christ said "my yoke is easy, and my burden light" but He never said there would be NO yoke or NO burden. Our lamp must not be hidden under a bushel basket.

Is it a product of the fact that you Eastern chaps have spent so much time under persecution that you're willing to retreat from the public square so easily?

Of course, we are! But the law of Christ must be written on the follower's heart. Civil law and Christ's law have very little in common: Just look at the principles of corporate law, if you doubt me.



On the other hand, if we immerse ourselves in shouting matches over civil law, the Good News cannot be heard, and we ourselves might forget the beautiful voice of He who proclaimed the Good News.

We are merely returning to the status quo ante, when the government was openly hostile to the Christian faith and its conception of marriage incompatible with it.


It's going in that direction, anyway, mainly through judicial fiat. Same judicial fiat also denies the Church the right of conscience, violating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment while expanding anti-establishment clause to mean any argument involving religious content, inspiration or motivation is illegitimate in the public square. If the Church continues to be the deputized magistrate of the state, eventually the state will dictate what the Church must do.


We aren't going "into the desert"--we are declaring that the Church refuses to conform to the standards of this world. Only by putting distance between itself and the state can the Church be free to declare the Good News.

Stuart's suggestion is starting to gather some steam. why should our clergy be deputized to act on behalf of the state, if the state clearly disrespects and dishonors well over thousand years of consistent moral teaching with respect to marriage. The Church has cared little over the centuries for the changing legal rights of parties within a marriage,e.g. dowries, property rights, child custody methodology - even the criminalization of certain physical marital contacts. As those, and other marital rights issues have been redefined by statute, court fiat and custom, they have generally not been our religious concern. Since the state will not recognize a religious ceremony without the parties first procuring a state permit or license, why not go one step further?

We will never recognize 'gay marriage' as anything other than a contractual relationship created by law, why should then use our faculties and facilities to 'solemnize' any civil union under the color of our religious practice? If the state decreed that henceforth butcher shops must label all pork, beef, chicken and fish only as 'meat', would such a law change our fasting obligations or allow Jews and Muslims to eat pork? I think not.

This is not a retreat, rather it is a clarion call to stand up for what we believe.

Besides, the Manhattan Declaration is divisive in many ways and is not in its entirety a document to which all of us can subscribe. Citing it is not persuasive to those of us who do not profess adherence to many of its policy goals. A topic for another day however.....)

Aside from your remark being snarky and incredibly disrespectful, it's also wrong-headed and incorrect.

Refusal to be a party to abomination is not a retreat from the public square, but a clearing of the decks so that we might wage battle for the truth unencumbered by entanglements in civil law. If the state in effect redefines marriage to be something other than what we understand it to be, by acting as agents of the state we are tacitly acknowledging the validity of that redefinition. By refusing to execute marriage licenses (particularly in states where same-sex pseudogamy is recognized), we make an affirmative statement that (a) we do not recognize the state's definition of marriage; and (b) we reject the authority of the state to impose that definition upon us.

From a pragmatic standpoint, the disentanglement of the Church from civil marriage will protect the right of the Church to refuse the sacrament of marriage to those who do not meet its canonical requirements. You may think it impossible for the state to force the Church to, e.g., marry homosexual couples, or divorced couples or whatever, but a look at the trends in other areas such as requiring religious institutions to hire people who hold views antithetical their beliefs, or for Catholic hospitals to distribute contraceptives, or to provide abortion services, or for Catholic adoption services to bar homosexual couples from adopting, all point to an erosion of conscience exemptions when such run contrary to state social policy.

That said, a Canadian ought to be the last person talking about the Naked Public Square. Canadian politics is almost totally devoid of religious discourse, except when one of Canada's human rights councils is prosecuting someone for a hate crime for expressing what, just a decade ago, was uncontroversial Christian moral teaching.

Stuart:

Christ is in our midst!!

Given the annual "Christmas wars," isn't it true that there has been a creeping in this direction for some time now?

Bob

Christ is amongst us!

The state is legislating and judicially dictating that Christians recognize the basic tenet of marriage..procreation by a united man and woman. The Church has not only been interested in civil regulations of marriage, but has actually IMPOSED them throughout the centuries in Christian monarchies, dictatorships, and Christian Democratic republics.

Our Churches have defied the Bolsheviks, not run from them. They didn't go underground until they were forced to by threat of death. Even then the blood of our martyrs was shed. At some point the Church may have to "shake the dust off its sandals" with regard to the state, but let's not roll over. The Boston archdiocese has abandoned its adoption program because of homosexual issues mandates. Someday Catholic hospitals will have to close because of conscience, abortion and euthanasia issues, abandon government sanctioned marriages and stop paying taxes.

BUT NOT YET!

O Lord our God, you holy martyrs have deserved the crown of immortality
on account of their good fight.
Armed with Your strength,
He has vanquished His persecutors
and crushed Satan's dreadful might.
Through His supplications, O Christ our God,
Save our souls.

Hospodi pomiluj

I think Stuart is right on target here. The forces pushing the agenda that resulted in the N.Y. action have no interest in stopping at simply having the "right" to marry. There is no doubt that they will proceed to force all of the agents of the state to conform to the actions of the state. It is only a matter of time before the Church ends up in a state court defending itself against charges that it failed to uphold the law by not marrying same sex couples. It has nothing to do with "blessing" it has to do with "marrying" and in N.Y. "marrying" means any two people. If you do not understand the way this works I would suggest you look at the major liberal Protestant denominations in the U.S. to see the process in action.

As a non-practicing attorney, retired albeit, I have to say that the argument that it will only be a 'matter of time' before churches end up in state courts because the tenets of the faith preclude same sex marriage is a red herring. Any gay litigant attempting to make such a claim would quickly be shown the courthouse door as the Courts can not and will not get into the sticky wicket of defining and determining religious doctrine. For that we must pay homage and respect to those great American thinkers, revolutionaries and deists and theists alike, known to us by the names of Jefferson, Franklin (both deists), Madison, Monroe, Washington (both Episcopalian, at least nominally), Adams (Unitarian) and others.

Orthodox and Catholic priests can no more be compelled to 'marry' gay couples in America than they could be compelled to 'marry' Muslim, Jewish or any other non-canonically allowed heterosexual couple. (I will grant you that there will be a problem with military chaplains and that will have to be dealt with by the hierarchy. Orthodox and Catholic bishops could join together on that battle for sure.)

Now, I expect some of you to fire back saying, yes, but the United States refused to permit Utah into the union unless Mormanism eschewed polygamy and we don't allow certain snake handler cults or peyote chewing Native Americans unfettered access to practice what they believe. So? Those cases are far and away the extreme exception to the general wall between church and state that our First Amendment creates. Now my politically conservative friends (not the 'social conservatives' on moral issues) who so love to decry the Jeffersonian-inspired theory of 'separation' found within most constitutional case law on first amendment litigation, will see on this issue that the proverbial chickens will have to come home to roost. That very wall will protect those of us who believe, as the Church teaches, that marriage is a sacrament binding a man and a woman into one.

A greater and more immediate problem will confront those churches who run catering halls open for public rental. This is in spite of the religous protection language inserted at the last minute into the New York law. This language will be the subject of much litigation, I fear, but I do think with some degree of certainty in my professional opinion, that the provisions dealing with clergy will be upheld.

Religious protection amendments to New York Domestic Relations Law:

"S 10-b. Religious exception. 1. Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any such refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit explanation.
Nothing in this article shall limit or diminish the right, pursuant to subdivision eleven of section two hundred ninety-six of the executive law, of any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, to limit employment or sales or rental of housing accommodations or admission to or give preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or from taking such action as is calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained.
Nothing in this section shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions otherwise provided to religious organizations under section three of article one of the constitution of the state of New York.
A refusal by a clergyman or minister as defined in section two of the religious corporations law, or society for ethical culture leader to solemnize any marriage under this subdivision shall not create a civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits or discriminate against such clergyman or minister."

Stuart's ideas are radical and perhaps, even revolutionary, but I think that by refusing to be a state actor in terms of allowing a religious ceremony to serve a dual purpose of provinding the union with a civil 'imprimatur' if you will, is an idea worth kicking around and one that may find traction with the politically conservative, the moderate and the economic progressives among us.