www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The ‘Orthodox’ Gay Wedding

I’ve read many accounts like this of same-sex services, and they nearly all focus on how happy everyone is, goshdarnit, and the implication is that that should be enough. After all, isn’t that what weddings are really all about? But I’m interested in this story for the theology of both worship and ecclesiology that is put forward here, and such things matter far more than individual feelings. Human beings are by their nature responsible to the truth, and the truth is something that is far bigger than how happy you feel about getting the wedding you like.

These kinds of details underscore something profoundly significant that Storrs doesn’t address in his piece. The Orthodox liturgical tradition is precisely a tradition, something that functions within a covenanted community, led by a priesthood ordained in apostolic succession. You can’t just open up a book and conduct “the Byzantine rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church.” These books are not how-to manuals for do-it-yourself liturgists. Even if the Lutheran cleric who did this service really were an expert in such things, and even if he could account for all the bits of unwritten knowledge needed to do these things (something that occurs to me regularly, not only being a priest but serving on an archdiocesan committee dedicated to this stuff), it still wouldn’t make this service Orthodox. Removing a liturgical service from its context necessarily makes it something other than what it is. Storrs and Kostakis may like Orthodox liturgics, but what they did in June was not an Orthodox wedding service. It was a Lutheran wedding service imitating Byzantine liturgics.

That these folks would regard this as somehow valid and Orthodox indicates that they’ve already accepted a theology of sacraments which is not Orthodox but rather is essentially Latin in its sensibilities, which treats everything according to categories of validity that can actually function outside the covenanted community. (Assuming the spare groom were swapped out for a bride, I have no idea whether the Latins would look upon this service as “valid,” but I daresay they would not find it either Catholic or Orthodox.)

So we’re already dealing with a major departure from Orthodox tradition in theological terms. But Storrs believes this is just somehow a matter of rules being broken (dare to break the rules!): “Together, Andrew and I dared to break the canons of a church that would declare our love false and our marriage impossible. We dared to be who God made us and receive the Divine’s blessing for our family with tangible Greek traditions that date back over 50 generations. We dared to have the wedding of our dreams.”

But there actually isn’t a canon that says two men shouldn’t have a wedding service. Why? Because there is a major theological problem with such an act. This isn’t just a matter of canonical discipline, a “bigoted god” unleashing his “vengeance” on those who would “dare to be who God made” them by breaking a rule. But God didn’t make them that way, any more than He makes anyone with sinful passions. The way they feel is a result of the Fall, not the Creation, just as the sinful feelings I feel are also the result of the Fall. It may feel really right, but many of my sins feel that way, too. That’s why there has to be an objective measure by which we can know exactly what God intended in His creation. And you won’t find anything in Orthodox tradition that says that He made people feel sexual attraction to members of the same sex.

It’s interesting that there is a repeated reference to tradition in this piece—”tangible Greek traditions that date back over 50 generations”—but what would happen if those 50 generations were consulted on the matter? That doesn’t matter, though, really. What matters is that they “dared to have the wedding of [their] dreams.” You can both love and reject tradition simultaneously, it seems.

It's not like the Orthodox recognize civil marriages (which take place outside a covenentated community) as valid or anything. Oh wait! They do.

I'm telling you, why marriages such as this should be allowed in Canonical Law is beyond me. Not to mention we should never have government force us to perform these, either. I have no idea why we have to live in such a society such as this anymore. *Sigh*

Bob,

A marriage such as this is not allowed in canon law. Nor does the government 'force us to perform these.'

The Ultimate Aim Of The Gay “marriage” Plot

APRIL 2, 2013 BY DR. KEVIN "COACH" COLLINS

The gay marriage plot is not hard to see. It goes as follows: First, legalize gay “marriage.” Next, use tax law to force churches to commit to gay “marriages” with an either/or choice. Finally, close those that refuse to commit to gay “marriages.”
The forced choice will be: gay “marriage,” or lose tax exempt status.
The real target of all of this is the Catholic Church. For all of her faults, the Catholic Church has steadfastly refused to change her position against same-gender marriage. The elevation of Pope Francis has done nothing to make anyone think this position will be changed.
The Left knows that a Supreme Court victory will never give gays what they really want, which is a totally unfettered lifestyle and “freedom” to live not only as they wish, but to be accepted as equals in everyday life. With the Catholic Church standing in the way, that is a door gays will never be able to open.
Defeating a Church as strongly opposed to gay “marriage” as the Catholic Church is her gay enemy’s goal. Nevertheless, those who believe the approximately 28 million Catholics – actual Catholics who actually attend Mass each week – will roll over and accept gay “marriage” in their churches are terribly wrong.
The media can poll people who once walked past St. Patrick’s Cathedral and count them as Catholics to show “Catholics” voted for Barack Obama and love gay “marriage”; but real Catholics know the truth.
The plan will be carried out in an insidious and low-keyed manner. A pastor of a small unaffiliated white Protestant church will have a gay couple ask him to marry them, knowing he will say no. Since the pastor is unaffiliated with a larger structure, he will be faced with a lawsuit putting him in an “either/or” trap: Commit gay “marriages,” violate Scripture, and stay open; or refuse and be taxed out of existence. At first, many will resist; but eventually, some, then more and more, will be forced to cave in.
When the first legal case is won by gay “marriage” supporters, a legal precedent will be established. Larger churches such as Evangelical Assembly’s will be next – mosques and Orthodox Jewish synagogues will NOT be approached as it would not be worth the distraction.
Eventually, a prominent gay Catholic will demand to “marry” a gay partner in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. When that day comes, the gay enemies of Catholicism will see their long-held dream of putting the Catholic Church in an “either/or” trap become reality.

The Left knows that a Supreme Court victory will never give gays what they really want, which is a totally unfettered lifestyle and “freedom” to live not only as they wish, but to be accepted as equals in everyday life.

Nevertheless, those who believe the approximately 28 million Catholics – actual Catholics who actually attend Mass each week – will roll over and accept gay “marriage” in their churches are terribly wrong.

The media can poll people who once walked past St. Patrick’s Cathedral and count them as Catholics to show “Catholics” voted for Barack Obama and love gay “marriage”; but real Catholics know the truth.

In fairness to gays, I really think we should isolate "militant" gays just as we isolate "militant" Muslims. In both cases, the vast majority simply want to be unobtrusive and live in peace with the rest of society, while only a few are demanding change and are willing to stop at nothing to get it.

Secondly, it is practically a universally-accepted "truth" in today's society that homosexuality is part of a person's unchangeable inborn makeup, and subsequently that "if there is a God," He clearly wanted them to be this way.

I am not so sure about this. Despite having been brainwashed as a society, there are many reasons besides this...sexual experimentation in an overly promiscuous society, confusion at the age of sexual identity (and in a society that accepts homosexuality so freely, that confusion can easily be prompted into thinking one is gay and then following that lifestyle) ...
I think that history shows us that the proliferation of homosexuality is often a moral sickness in society that has turned away from God and His commandments and embraced all things sensual.

... an overly protective and overbearing mother and a weak father figure from the time of infancy, etc, especially when the little boy is considered 'pretty' and also treated that way by the strong mother.

In fact, the latter was one of the most accepted theories until recently. I have personally seen a few such cases that I believe follow this theory to the 't'.

It is also interesting to note that in ancient times (Greece and Rome), homosexuality had become so prevalent (as it is becoming now) that societies had to figure out ways to change it for fear that the population would die out! In ancient Corinth for instance, the leaders told women to walk around naked to tempt the men, because men preferred to have relations with other men (often younger adolescent boys called 'kouroi').

I've no doubt that there are *many* cases that do follow this pattern (and I would add that a "weak" father figure can also mean emotionally absent, or simply having little influence). However, I think the inadequacy of this model to explain all cases of same-sex attraction was a key factor in the APA's decision to de-classify homosexuality as a disorder. Clearly, more study is needed in this area.