Main content | Sidebar | Links
Visit Walton Academy Cards

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Forrest Church watch: 'Good Morning America' edition.

Rabbi Jamie Lee Korngold, Rev. Forrest Church, and Rev. Jimmy Allen Thomas on GMA/ABCNEWS.comSpeaking of anniversaries: The Rev. Dr. Forrest Church, minister of All Souls Church in Manhattan and perhaps the best-known Unitarian Universalist minister currently serving, appeared on "Good Morning America" today. Why? you ask:

One-hundred-twenty-five couples said "I do" all over again during "GMA's" vow renewal special in New York City's Hammerstein Ballroom. Those couples — who have been married for a total of 2,409 years and have 277 children between them — stood before members of the clergy and their family members and said they'd marry each other all over again.

Love isn't the only thing that brought 125 couples together to renew their vows, however. "While the couples were more than happy with just the opportunity to renew their vows, they knew a few would also win a second honeymoon on the Norwegian Dawn, one of the world's most luxurious cruise ships," ABC News reports. Because it's television and anything is possible on TV, they all won! After the crowd "went wild," Michael Bolton sang. It brings a tear to the eye, don't it?

Copyright © 2004 by Philocrites | Posted 18 November 2004 at 5:08 PM

Previous: Happy anniversary!
Next: Got your Bible and scissors?





November 18, 2004 05:15 PM | Permalink for this comment

Sartorial note: Forrest is wearing a crimson Harvard doctoral gown. He earned a Ph.D. in early church history at Harvard in 1978.


November 19, 2004 08:40 AM | Permalink for this comment

Cudos to Forrest!


November 19, 2004 04:00 PM | Permalink for this comment

I wonder if anyone married in MA or San Francisco got to renew their vows?


November 22, 2004 11:12 AM | Permalink for this comment

Call me old fashioned but marriage,to me,is a man and a woman united in "holy matrimony." By the way, I am a Unitarian - before any erroneous assumptions are made.


November 22, 2004 11:26 AM | Permalink for this comment

Paul, what about a man and woman united only by the power of the state—in other words, not in "holy matrimony" but simply married? Should the state regard couples as married if they weren't bound by the church? Should the church regard a couple as married if they were married only by the state?

And what do you make of UU churches that celebrate sacred ceremonies uniting same-sex couples for life? Do you regard them as really united (if not "married")? What would you make of same-sex couple that has been legally and religiously married in a UU church in Massachusetts?

I'm not dismissing your discomfort (or simply definitional disagreement) about the whole idea of same-sex marriage, but I'm interested in knowing which parts of the definition are open for change.

Comments for this entry are currently closed.