First Unitarian Stands with Gay Couples

Well, I’m certainly glad Sarah and I got in early! We were married by Reverend Jenn of First Unitarian a few years back, and there may not be another marriage by that church for a while.

Channel 13 is reporting that the First Unitarian Church of Rochester has decided not to sign marriage licenses for straight couples in protest against New York’s ban on gay marriage. My first reaction to this is that it’s throwing the baby out with the bath water: if you stand on the side of love, how can you refuse to honor it where you can? But their explanation makes a whole lot of sense, at least to me:

More Work to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage –

Unitarian Co-Minister Scott Taylor compares it to the discrimination seen during the Civil Rights era.

“As ministers we were basically agreeing to serve the white-only counter for the state,” he said.

So, as hard as it is to think that this great church cannot do it’s work – what I think is the most important work a church can do, fostering love – the truth is that the law in this state makes that work impossible to do completely either way.  And as the article points out, there’s very little chance that the law will change any time soon.  The Republican Senate will not pass any law legalizing gay marriage, and while its not explicitly said in the article, I have my doubts as to whether the Democrats in Albany would be willing to risk the political exposure if ever they got the majority in the Senate.  Perhaps I’m just cynical, but based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think so.

By Tommy Belknap

Owner, developer, editor of DragonFlyEye.Net, Tom Belknap is also a freelance journalist for The 585 lifestyle magazine. He lives in the Rochester area with his wife and son.

2 replies on “First Unitarian Stands with Gay Couples”

That Charlotte, up above? Shameless pimping of her own web site. She has ridden on the tails of the historic same-sex marriage ruling, wherever it appeared on the web, put a 30 second film on same-sex marriage on her blog, but didn’t even mention the ruling OR same sex marriage. When I called her out on it, she said that it isn’t mentioned because they felt slighted that Massachusetts wasn’t mentioned.

Shameless, self-indulgent commercialism…that’s what they’re all about. And she’s drawing people there by posting this same comment on blogs throughout the web, with the link to her site.

Doh! I’ve been had!!

I can abide shameless pluging – I’ve been known to do some myself – but cross-posting and verbatim quoting of one’s self is just not acceptable on this site. The proof of what you say, Pat, is found here.

Her comment is getting pulled.

Comments are closed.