Historically, the Christian Churches, in the Catholic tradition, have maintained that there are two "greater sacraments." They are called "greater" because they were instituted by Jesus himself and we were mandated by him to continue to do them. The two are baptism ("Go, therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…." − Matthew 28:19) and the Holy Eucharist ("This is my body which will be given for you; do this as a memorial of me…" − Luke 22:19).

In addition, there are five "lesser sacraments," so called because they were not instituted by Christ but are ordinances of the Church. They are confirmation, ordination, reconciliation of a penitent (aka "confession"), unction (anointing of the sick with holy oil) and holy matrimony.

Sacraments are important because they are material actions and substances by which the immaterial and spiritual is mediated. We are physical beings inhabiting a physical, material universe and the Church has taught that these ordinances are given to us − by Jesus himself or by the Church as inspired by the Holy Spirit − to mediate or communicate God's grace, presence and favor.

Six of the sacraments are understood to describe God's movement towards us. In baptism, the candidate is presented by her sponsors and certain vows and promises are made and then, in the immersion or sprinkling of water, we say that the candidate is made new, reborn in the Spirit and marked as Christ's own forever. In the Eucharist, we come to the communion rail and receive Jesus under the "veil" of ordinary bread and wine, transformed by the action of the Holy Spirit to be the "real presence" of Christ's Body and Blood.

Similarly, in the four lesser sacraments, God comes to us through the mediation of physical actions and ordinary substances. In confirmation, by the physical laying on of hands by the Bishop, the vows and promises made on behalf of a child are "made firm" (confirmed) in an adult (a child over the age of reason). We say that the Holy Spirit comes to the candidate as strength and power to keep those promises and vows. In ordination, by the laying on of hands, the ordinand receives the charism for diaconal, presbyterial or Episcopal ministry. In the reconciliation of a penitent, God comes to us, through the laying on of hands and the pronouncement of the priest, and forgives our sins. And in unction, our bodies are healed by God, mediated by hands and holy oil.

The seventh sacrament, marriage, was historically considered to be different and in two fundamental ways. Firstly, the Church was reluctant to see matrimony as sacramental at all, if we understand a sacrament as a means to "mediate grace." St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), the most influential Catholic theologian in the Western tradition for over 1,000 years, emphasized in his teachings the negative aspects of the marriage union. For many theologians in this tradition, celibacy and virginity were counted the ideal and marriage was considered to be a lesser state for those who were too weak spiritually to commit to the higher plane. Such an ambivalence about matrimony as a sacrament would persist until a new consensus emerged under Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Secondly, the rite of marriage was thought of as an action in which God does not so much come to us as we move towards God.

Confused?

Well, as my professor explained this at Virginia Seminary decades ago: "Marriage is the sacrament the people do for themselves" or to quote from The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "Matrimony is accounted peculiar among the sacraments in that the parties themselves are ministers, the priest being only the appointed witness." Why is this important? It is significant because our understanding of who are welcome, and under what circumstances, at the altar to have their relationship solemnized*, and who is excluded, has shifted over time − dramatically.

In Jewish tradition and history, marriage was at times a matter of purchase (women as property) and polygamy was tolerated. And although wives could not be sold (see Exodus 21:7f), the woman had no right to own or inherit property and had no right to a divorce, although her husband could do so under the cause of "uncleanness" (see Deuteronomy 24:1). The great advance of Christian marriage was its emphasis on equality for women and on the ideal of indissolubility. By the 3rd century, the Christian Church further distinguished itself from Roman law in allowing a marriage between slave and free.

These changing mores surrounding marriage simply suggest that the institution of marriage is not fixed and immutable but can and does shift with changing times, the changes themselves occasionally being demanded by faith communities (in the move of women from being property in plural marriage without right of divorce to being equal partners and the ability of slave and free to marry each other after the 3rd century.).

In light of all that's been said above, can marriage be so definitively expanded to include same sex couples as well?

The basic impediment to same sex marriage lies in the definition given in the preamble of the marriage ceremony in the Book of Common Prayer: "The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity and when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord." (BCP pg. 423, italics mine.)

The words "when it is God's will" have been interpreted, by some, to outlaw birth control. The phrase allows for the possibility of a childless marriage should that be God's decision, but the second clause "for the procreation (begetting) of children," suggest that the bringing forth of children has to be a real possibility, which would eliminate same sex couples, right?

But what then are we to say about couples who, because of old age or medical condition (e.g. sterility) can no longer become pregnant or couples who, because of economic circumstances or probability of inherited disease, choose not to have children? Should these straight couples be denied the sacrament of marriage? No reasonable person would argue thus.

And what of same sex couples who choose to beget children; through adoption, fostering, artificial insemination or surrogacy − should they, but not the gay couples who do not choose to have children, be admitted to marriage? And what of couples, gay or straight, who initially commit to parent children and then change their mind − should their marriages be annulled?

The very ridiculousness of these arguments suggests that, in very truth, procreation is not the sole or even primary purpose of marriage. Rather, marriage exists to signify a commitment to fidelity, mutuality and steadfast love. For the Church of the middle ages, a key purpose or aim of marriage was for the avoidance of sin (promiscuity and its social consequences −a value in any age). Indeed, Christian marriage vows do not even mention children but rather calls the couple to "have and to hold for better or worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until parted by death ." Such a vow is applicable to couples, both gay and straight.

Finally, to argue that marriage entered into by gay couples somehow compromises heterosexual marriage is simply bizarre. It would be like arguing that my neighbors' buying of a new BMW depreciates my six year old Chrysler or might cause its' battery to fail. Lack of consistent maintenance on my part is a greater predictor of my engine failure than envy of my neighbors' ride. (Marriages need maintenance and care as well.) The greatest threat to marriage is not the sexual orientation of some people who seek it but the relative ease of divorce (a central tenet of Christian marriage is the permanence of the marriage bond, an abrogation by Jesus of the Mosaic toleration of divorce; for marriage symbolizes the union of Christ with the Church. See Ephesians 5:22-33.) But it is unlikely that a Proposition amending the State Constitution to abolish divorce would be either funded or passed in spite of biblical clarity.

The resolution of General Convention, reprinted below, is an enabling legislation, which is to say that the Episcopal Church chooses to be free to develop and use liturgies to marry (in jurisdictions which permit it) same sex couples as a pastoral response to their needs as members of our church communities and, under the direction of the Bishop, to allow same sex blessings in states which do not permit civil unions.

General Convention Resolution B012: Pastoral Generosity in Addressing Civil Marriage Resolved…That this 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church acknowledge the pastoral concerns facing those dioceses in states where the civil marriage of same gender couples is legal; and be it further

Resolved, That in those dioceses, under the direction of the bishop, generous discretion is extended to clergy in the exercise of their pastoral ministry in order to permit the adaption of the Pastoral Offices for The Celebration and Blessing of a Civil Marriage for use with all couples who seek the church's support and God's blessing in their marriages; and be it further

Resolved, That in order to build a body of experience for the benefit of the church, each bishop in those dioceses where this pastoral practice is exercised provide an annual written report on their experience to the House of Bishops each March and to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music for its report to the 77th General Convention.

*The Church solemnizes relationships and not the sexual expression of that relationship, which in marriage can be holy or profane, mutually fulfilling or abusive and so on.