A follow up on the right and rite of marriage post

On Sunday the Rector of All Saints Pasadena gave a sermon on Proposition 8. There are some things in the sermon that I disagree with, for example, I believe Reverend Bacon does not differentiate between civil and religious society. You can find his sermon as a Quicktime movie (look for the November 16 (titled For the Bible Tells Me So: Equipping Ourselves to Talk Across the Divide) and it will be published in the next week or so. I thought it was an interesting and provocative statement.

His basic message which argues that the first obligation of Christians is to their fellow human beings is both strong and correct. All Saints describes itself as the "gay" church - I think that is a bit limited - it has a very expansive view of its community - so a better definition might be as an inclusive congregation. A key message of Rev. Bacon was that we should be willing to appreciate differences. From my perspective, I think that means two things. If the congregants of All Saints decide that their religious tradition wants to accept the principle of a religious rite which sanctions same sex marriage, then so be it. Likewise if other churches, by reviewing their interpretation of scripture decide they cannot make the same decision, they should be given the opportunity to make that judgment.

My concern about his sermon rests with a fuzzy recognition between a rite in the church and property rights conveyed by California law which until the passage of Proposition 8 were both called marriage. He seemed to equate them, and from my perspective, I am not ready to do that. Ultimately, probably the best alternative for the state at this point - which could begin to recognize the unique and profound differences on matters of public policy and should probably become agnostic on marriage. They could, as they have already, create a series of legal provisions which are neutral on the issue of same sex relationships. Those things would convey rights to property and health care and inheritance and other issues. At the same time they could recognize who want to solemnize a relationship in a religious ceremony could also choose a congregation which either accepts or rejects the doctrine which Rev. Bacon wants to impose but which a small majority of Californians seem not ready to do. That would fulfill both the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause and might begin to allow more civil discourse.