It is a moral issue. Characterize it any way you want using arguments from theology, ecclesiology, biblical prescriptions, biology, philosophy, history and terminology. Struggle with the differences between domestic partnership, civil unions and marriage. Does the word wedding apply only to a marriage or also to otherwise-worded unions of two people? In the end the bottom line is a moral issue. You may think it is right. You may think it wrong. It is thus a moral issue.
Prejudice (gut or learned feelings and our own worldview) is often the basis for an individual moral decision. All the arguments based on something-or-other are frequently only ways to justify what we already believe or think--it is right or it is wrong. At least that is the sense I get as I read dozens of liberal and conservative blog postings about this wedding or blessing.
Let's look at what happened at St. Bartholomew the Great Church in London. A ceremony took place. A ceremony! It was conducted for the Rev. Peter Cowell and the Rev. Dr. David Lord, who were already civil partners. According to BBC News, they exchanged vows and rings in front of hundreds of guests. The Rev. Martin Dudley, who conducted the service, said he had not broken any instructions issued by the bishops. “It wasn't a gay church wedding," he said. "It was the blessing of two people who have contracted a civil partnership. They wanted more than I was able to give - they wanted something more like a wedding. I was not willing to do that because I believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.”
We can toy with terminology and canon, as we are doing here. But that is not what is going on in the minds of people who are reacting to the story.
Two bloggers, who used the same five first words, show us that:
- "Call it what you want, it is a marriage and it is wonderful." He then went on to cite several New Testament passages to make his case.
- "Call it what you want, it's an abomination. I hope they enjoy themselves now for they aren't going to enjoy the hereafter." He went on to cite (of course) Leviticus.
Chuck Blanchard (A Guy in the Pew) has nicely summarized the findings of two studies on the origins of sexual orientation. The first study examined brain differences relevant to sexual orientation. The second study examined the relative importance of genetic factors and the individual's unique biological and social environments. Both studies conclude that same-sex orientation is natural (even if not totally biological).
I noticed the following from the second study (and it is applicable to the first, as well):
The conclusions apply equally well to why people only have sex with persons of the opposite sex as to why we have sex with same-sex partners. However, the conclusions are more difficult to transfer to countries where non-heterosexual behaviour remains prohibited. (Emphasis mine).
It goes beyond this. I think "the conclusions are more difficult to transfer" to individuals and groups where non-heterosexual behavior is found unacceptable for any reason, including basic prejudice. For instance, a creationist-fundamentalist who rejects evolution and depends on morality prescriptions found in Leviticus will reject these studies just as he rejects evolution: science means nothing if it contradicts the Bible.
But this last example is simplistic, and at least for those in the Episcopal Church and much of the Anglican Communion, extreme. In my parish, even among those who are most liberal on most social issues, there is a division of opinion about gay marriage. In my own family there is a division of opinion. Where my own intellect and emotion struggle with each other, I find lurking moments of prejudice that I can't always shake.
We have a long way to go on this issue. We can cheer about what has happened in California. But, the, look at what has happened in Albany.
The bottom line is that this is a moral issue. That is the primary way that what happened in London will be interpreted. That is the problem the Church must deal with. It will take extraordinary courage.
My name is Dan Porter. I have always believed in God. And I have always been a Christian, which means I have always believed, at some level of understanding, Christian assertions about Christ. But during all of my adult life—I am now 65—I have struggled with many seeds of doubt brought on by modern science, objective history, the question of why a loving God would allow so much suffering in the world and difficulties with seemingly conflicting moral precepts. 
Comments