Marriage Equality 17 | ***Dave Does the Blog

Guess I’m not a True Christian

Or, at least, I wouldn’t make for a True Christian VP choice, in case Obama or McCain were to call me up and make an offer. What qualifications are embodied…

Or, at least, I wouldn’t make for a True Christian VP choice, in case Obama or McCain were to call me up and make an offer.

What qualifications are embodied in a truly Christian candidate for the Vice Presidency? Quite simply, the candidate will demonstrate actions and hold the beliefs personified by all of us who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ as Savior: …

Wow. Not many beliefs (or actions) that all Christians would agree upon. Which, of course, doesn’t mean that Christianity is a broad set of beliefs and traditions, but that there are a lot of “Christians” who aren’t True Christians®.

So what are the beliefs and actions of True Christians®? One might think that they encompass what someone — hmmm, was it actually Jesus himself — identified as the Greatest Commandments, i.e., to love God and to love our neighbors. One would, of course, be wrong.

… the need to be re-born in Christ and the affirmation of historic Christianity, having a demonstrable and proven record of support for traditional Christian morality.

As a side note, Anglicanism in general, and the Episcopal Church in particular, use the model of the “three-legged stool” in terms of discerning morality, the three legs being Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. I.e., what the church believes that God revealed in the Bible, what the believers of the past two thousand years have discerned from that and from the influence of the Holy Spirit, and what each individual today brings to the table via the Brains God Gave ‘Em.

Many evangelical and “conservative” churches ding Episcopalians for this, claiming that only Scripture is valid — but, when pressed, they’ll fall back instead on “tradition” and “historic” and so forth, seeming to claim that what people have thought God commands for thousands of years somehow intrinsically trumps what someone today might think God commands.

We’ll leave aside the whole demand on being “re-born” — though that excludes a substantial number of ostensible Christians whose faith tradition doesn’t do the whole “born again” thang.

So, okay, “historic” and “traditional” Christianity will be what we follow. Does that mean Catholicism? After all, Roman Catholics have the best claim to “historic” and “traditional” Christianity. No, I suspect not — to paraphrase Orwell, all Traditions are Equal, but Some are more Equal than Others. Which probably means their English cousins, the Anglicans, are right out, too. *Sigh*

A life of dedicated Christian service to the public is demonstrated by the following:

Interesting. The whole “faith” vs “works” thing is also a big debate with Christianity, which most evangelicals claiming (when it’s just a theological question) that faith trumps works — even though the New Testament makes clear that one without the other doesn’t hold a lot of water.

Still, let’s assume that these folks are enlightened enough to consider that particular works (“a life of dedicated Christian service to the public”) may very well reflect a presumptive faith that they’d consider Truly Christian®

Support for traditional marriage. As a Christian, the candidate for Vice President must affirm that marriage is an institution created by God and defined as a union between one man and one woman. …

Really? Now, I can see a particular faith tradition making an internal decision about what is, or is not, a true marriage. But surely different religious traditions have different opinions about what constitutes marriage. Even within Christianity there are different rules about and surrounding marriage — though I guess the implication is that True Christians® have a unitary marital policy.

I’m also, by that same token, intrigued by the whole concept of “traditional marriage.” Whose traditions? Going back how far? The traditions of 19th Century United States? 18th Century Japan? 12th Century France? 2nd Century Rome? Solomaic Israel? Heck, God certainly seems to bless (in the latter case) marriage between on man and multiple women. When did He change his mind?

But even if we arbitrarily consider things in the context of Modern (Yet Traditional) Christianity, are we talking marriage as my wife and I know it? As my parents understood it? My grandparents? Whose traditions are we talking about. Is any “union” between a man and a woman considered a marriage as created by God? Really? And is divorce allowed under God’s created institution, and on what basis would anyone actually say yes to that as a True Christian®?

For that matter, was marriage actually instituted by God? Certainly there have been a lot of marriages that were identified as such in regions and times when, presumably, Christianity (since that’s the God we’re probably talking about) was not yet known — or even where the Christian message was available, but not adhered to. Were those actual marriages? Is a Buddhist wedding an actual marriage? Are/were marriages between folks who aren’t True Christians® actually marriages, if they were not in alignment with what True Christians® believe God intended?

Support for the Right to Life, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, without exception.

I’m really interested in the implications of a Right to Life “without exception.” Presumably that means someone who would see abortion made illlegal. But how would a True Christian® think of capital punishment? Certainly it’s something seriously talked about in the Bible as an appropriate punishment for a variety of violations of the the Law. And what of war? Is killing others in wartime — a violation of their Right to Life — an exception to that right?

Does Christianity actually teach or support a Right to Life? Christ’s mandate to love your neighbor would certainly seem to say so — but I’ll be the first to admit that most societal implementations of Christianity have included multiple “exceptions” to that right.

Regardless of the more careful reading of all of this, it’s clear that the obvious statement being made by the representatives of True Christianity® is that a True Christian® can be recognized as being (a) against gay marriage and (b) against abortion rights. I don’t know that I know of where Christ actually identified True Christianity® that way, but I’m clearly not a Truly Christian®-enough person to make that judgment.

DAVE: I have bad news, dear. I’m not a True Christian®.
MARGIE: For so many reasons … [pauses a moment] Says who?
DAVE: True Christians®
MARGIE: Ah. Well, yeah, the fact that Les likes you probably rules you out right there.

So, sorry Barack, John … I guess I’m out of the running to be your running mate. Though I am available for any other Cabinet-level position you think I can handle, despite my spiritual shortcomings. Just say the word …

(via Right Wing Watch)

All Saints

Margie and I were married at All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, California. It was not either of our “parish” churches — I was new to being an Episcopalian (and living…

Margie and I were married at All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, California. It was not either of our “parish” churches — I was new to being an Episcopalian (and living in Colorado), and for Margie it was a matter of various convenience factors.

All Saints is a large and lovely church, and its congregation is noted as progressive and liberal. For example, they have an open communion rail (not only do you not need to be baptized in the Episcopal Church to receive Communion, you don’t have to be Christian, which meant we could share bread and wine with all of our wedding guests who wanted it). And over the past few years they were involved in (and exonerated from) a big IRS brouhaha over whether they had violated their tax-exempt status by talking about politics.

Now they’re making a splash again: Church to begin same-sex nuptials – Pasadena Star-News

All Saints Church in Pasadena, one of the largest and most liberal Episcopalian congregations in the country, announced Thursday it will begin performing wedding ceremonies for gay couples starting June 16. In what All Saints Rector the Rev. Ed Bacon called a “historic vote,” church officials adopted the “Resolution on Marriage Equality” unanimously Thursday, after a special meeting of the 3,500-member congregation’s lay leadership.
The church’s action came in response to the California Supreme Court’s May 15 ruling overturning the ban on gay marriage approved by voters in 2000. All Saints has performed blessings for same-sex couples for the past 15 years.
But Bacon described the church vestry’s vote as showing “stirring courage to move beyond lip service” to the church’s commitment to equality by extending marriage rights to gay members. “Today’s decision is consistent with All Saints Church, Pasadena’s identity as a peace and justice church,” Bacon said in a statement Thursday. “It also aligns us with the Scriptures’ mandate to make God’s love tangible by `doing justice and loving mercy’ (Micah 6:8) and with the canons of our Episcopal Church that forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

As someone who was married before that same altar, I will state categorically that I do not feel that my own marriage is at all threatened, cheapened, or changed by the decision — except that it means that more loving, mature couples will be able to pledge their commitment to each other before God at the same place, which can only be (to my mind) a good thing.

The Vestry resolution is here.

I approve. And expect this to further fan lots of flames.

(via Father Jake)

Still more on the California gay marriage rulling

From the “other” side: Pam’s House Blend:: Freeper, fundie heads exploding over CA marriage ruling No, I won’t repeat any of it here, but … well, when you listen…

From the “other” side: Pam’s House Blend:: Freeper, fundie heads exploding over CA marriage ruling

No, I won’t repeat any of it here, but … well, when you listen to some of the comments, it makes me happy for the decision all the more, if only to lead to more exploding heads.

Well, I will say a couple of things:

The basis for the decision, in the face of the previously (eight years ago) initiative law voted in by the populace, was that the populace and their representatives had crafted a body of law regarding domestic partnerships that was close to marriage already, save for the name. Except that it couldn’t be called that. Except the justices decided that was discriminatory.
Despite all the rhetoric of “every child deserves and needs a mother and father,” a different ruling would have done nothing regarding California child custody laws.
It is, in fact, one of the most important jobs of high courts to stand up to the will of the people when that will, in law, is not in keeping with the (state or federal) constitution. That can be irksome. That can also be a critical protection of your rights, too. Idjits.
I don’t insist on knowing and approving everything you do in your bedroom. I do insist you show similar courtesy to others. I didn’t ask your permission to enter into a committed relationship with someone I love; ditto on the insistence of similar courtesy.
Oh, and, that whole “marriage is dooooooomed!” thing? Here’s what I think.

(via Les)

More on the California gay marriage ruling

Couple of good articles in the LA Times about the state supreme court decision yesterday that overturned the legal ban on gay marriage. It’s an instant presidential campaign issue, for…

Couple of good articles in the LA Times about the state supreme court decision yesterday that overturned the legal ban on gay marriage.

It’s an instant presidential campaign issue, for starters. It’s not just California — it now raises the issue nation-wide again. McCain — who has made all the “right” noises about “protecting marriage” — now suddenly risks alienating either his GOP conservative base or his moderate base if he comes out either too strongly or too softly. I suspect it’s not as strong an issue to raise or pursue for most moderates as it is for the conservatives — but if he comes out as forcefully as he’ll be pushed to from the Right, it may seriously backfire.

Obama and Clinton have both taken a more center position on the issue — not favoring gay marriage, but okay with civil unions. If the Left presses the Democratic candidate to take a stronger stand, again, the center might get turned off; if the candidate fails to take a strong stand, though, it might turn off some of the (ahem) younger generation that, as a whole, approves of the whole gay marriage thing.

I think the risks are greater for McCain than the Democratic nominee, but it does bring the whole “values” issue back to the fore, and maybe will help demonstrate that people to the left of Pat Robertson have “values,” too.

For the moment, everyone’s treading water.

All three offered finessed responses Thursday, saying that defining marriage is best left to individual states.
In an apparent effort to assuage supporters, McCain reiterated his belief that states have a right to ban same-sex marriage. Obama and Clinton emphasized support for civil unions and equal rights for same-sex couples.

In California, where it looks like there will be a ballot proposition to constitutionally ban gay marriage, the question is whether that will draw more conservatives to the polls or not. A lot of that may depend on how the presidential campaign plays out. Though, notably.

Not surprisingly, the most definitive political statement Thursday came from someone not on the November ballot: California’s Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the Constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

The actual decision goes beyond just this actual item.

The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state’s high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.

Good on them.

The court’s ruling repeatedly invoked the words “respect and dignity” and framed the marriage question as one that deeply affected not just couples but also their children. California has more than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with children, according to 2000 census data.
“Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” George wrote for the majority. “An individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

Looking at the actual decision, the court framed it interestingly. Given that California already had a strong statutory domestic partnership law for gay couples …

Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an
officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

In other words, state law already made the status more or less equal — the court was looking at whether it could then call it different things without getting into “separate but equal” territory. They decided not.

Meanwhile, the Right is fulminating.

“This is yet another example of why the people need to go to the polls in November to defend the historic and natural definition of marriage,” said Ron Prentice, executive director of the Sacramento- and Riverside-based California Family Council, which opposes same-sex marriage.

Yeah — it’s all about “history” (and what’s “natural”). As the court noted, the same was true when it struck down (in 1948) bans on interracial marriage, too. But, then, using Mr Prentice’s arguments, maybe we can get a polygamy clause into his ballot measure, too — that’s not only natural and historical but Biblical as well.

The Marriage Game

Michigan’s voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage “or similar union for any purpose.” Because of that, the state supreme court has now ruled that no public agency can extend any benefits to domestic partners (e.g., to gay couples, who, of course, cannot get married in Michigan).

The irony is twofold. First, though the amendment was touted by “pro-family” organizations, among those hurt by the ruling are the children living in households of gay couples. Sorry, not only do we not recognize your adoptive parents as your “real” parents, but you can’t have health insurance, either. A bigger irony is that the “pro-family” folks who proposed and got Amendment 2 pushed through claimed again and again and again that this was not about “benefits,” that beneifts would never be taken away, it was simply about protecting the “M” word from those nassssty gay people.

I wonder if the “Citizens for the Protection of Marriage” can be sued by the couples so affected.

Meanwhile, the Maryland supreme court has ruled that, regardless of Islamic law, a guy can’t summarily divorce his wife by simply repeating “I divorce you” three times – certainly not in order to avoid having to divide up the (in this case sizeable) estate.

Maybe he’ll sue that his freedom of religion is being infringed …

(via Les)

No religious exemption to school curriculum

Being the parent of a school-aged kid, I tend to be sensitive to court rulings and the schools. But while I see possible negative issues arising from this, I also…

Being the parent of a school-aged kid, I tend to be sensitive to court rulings and the schools. But while I see possible negative issues arising from this, I also think it forestalls some potentially huge problems.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes most of New England, handed down an important and very controversial ruling this past Thursday (see full text here), siding with the school district in a case involving the question of whether parents have a right to have schools not teach things that are contrary to their religious faith.
In the case of Parker et al vs. Hurley et al, two sets of parents of elementary school children in public schools in Lexington, Mass., filed suit against the school district over their use of books that portrayed gay couples and families. The parents, who believe that homosexuality and gay marriage are morally wrong, argued that they should be given prior notice and the right to exempt their children from any material that they consider contrary to their religious views. The district court dismissed the case; the appeals court upheld that dismissal last week.
In the Lexington School District, kindergarten students are given a picture book called “Who’s In a Family?”, which depicts a range of different types of families, including single-parent families, extended families, interracial families and, to the distress of the plaintiffs, a family with two fathers and another with two mothers. The parents of a student in that class, the Parkers, complained several times to the school but got no satisfaction.
The second family, the Wirthlins, had a child in second grade whose teacher read a book to her class called “King and King.” The book tells the story of a prince who is ordered by his mother to get married. The prince rejects several princesses before finally deciding to marry another prince. Those parents likewise complained but the school refused to allow them to exempt their child from such materials and they filed suit as well. This case decided both suits.

The court basically said that (a) there’s nothing stopping parents from teaching their kids in whatever religious beliefs they want, and (b) no coersion was taking place (the kids weren’t being forced to chant “Gay is Good!” or anything), so there was no grounds for the cases.

The potential problems if a contrary decision had been reached — or if the Supreme Court (which both families say they will appeal to) overturns the decision — are obvious.

The number of subjects from which a parent could assert a right to shield their children for religious reasons is almost limitless. Could a racist parent successfully assert the same right against the kindergarten book from this case because it depicted an interracial family? Could a Jewish or Muslim parent demand that the school not use any material that depicts the eating of pigs or shellfish?
The implications for science teaching are obvious and far-reaching. There are large groups of parents who object to evolution because of their religious views, but that is hardly the only scientific theory taught in schools that is rejected by one religious group or another. Young earth creationists also reject the Big Bang. Geocentrists reject the heliocentrism of Galileo and Copernicus. The Christian Science church rejects the germ theory of disease. Scientologists reject all psychology and psychiatry.
If the courts uphold a right to be exempted from any public school teaching that is contrary to their religious beliefs, all of these situations and many more become fodder for future court cases, and it is difficult to imagine a principled basis on which to reject any of those claims once that precedent is set.

Obviously I would have a problem if Katherine’s text books included items that I found morally reprehensible (e.g., if they had racist material, or showed how it’s okay that some people sacrifice puppies to Sutech). But, remarkably enough, I don’t think I’d hop into a law suit. I’d offer my objections (to the teacher, the administration, and the school board), I’d ask for some sort of accommodation, and, failing everything else, I’d tell Katherine how I felt about it and how I thought the materials were not right.

But, then, I don’t insist that everyone agree with me, or that things I find offensive are, per se, unacceptable for everyone else.

As a side note — I do wonder how this ruling might affect already-existing opt-out programs, e.g., requiring parental consent before sex ed.

(via Les)

Bzzzzt — Thank you for playing!

Mike Huckabee strikes me as a nice enough fellow — if nothing else, he’s been a hoot on the Colbert Report. But make him president? “I have opponents in this…

Mike Huckabee strikes me as a nice enough fellow — if nothing else, he’s been a hoot on the Colbert Report. But make him president?

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution,” Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. “But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

That’s as in this past Monday, not back in the dark ages of the 1980s or something.

The Constitution is, of course, not a perfect document. The fact of its amendment (and re-amendment, in some cases) a couple dozen times over two hundred years demonstrates that.

But changing it to line up with “God” — God as defined and believe by Mike Huckabee? That’s not just scary, it’s just wrong. Because the Constitution is not about who wins, who has to give in, God or the Constitution. God’s law, “God’s standards,” if you believe in such a thing, doesn’t change because the Constitution says or doesn’t say some particular thing. God’s standards, as one would expect Mike Huckabee to espouse them, are a lot bigger than the Constitution.

Failing to amend the Constitution (the context was discussion of abortion and gay marriage) doesn’t actually “change God’s standards.” To imply it does so is actually a hell of an insult toward God.

As to the whole question of how you amend the Constitution to actually make it “God’s standards” — that’s so ludicrous a concept (which standards are you going to pick and choose from, even if you argue with a straight face that we’re talking “Christian” Godly standards) that it should serve to disqualify the man right there. Presumably gay marriage would be out (Should gays be stoned instead?), as would abortion. But should witches be killed? Should restaurants all be kosher? Do we amend the Constitution to anoint kings rather than elect presidents? Is Prohibition back in, or still out? How about the slavery question?

Feh. And I believe he means it, too — which just makes it worse.

(via DOF)

Burning irony

So, today’s Gospel, from the standard Lectionary, was Luke 18:9-14: To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two…

So, today’s Gospel, from the standard Lectionary, was Luke 18:9-14:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men — robbers, evildoers, adulterers — or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

And then we have this guy ranting about God’s wrath on the folks he considers ungodly.

They shook their fists at God and said, “We don’t care what God says, we will issue our legal brief to support gay marriage in San Diego!” Then Mayor Jerry Sanders mocked the Christian vote and signed off on this rebellious legal document to support same-sex marriage. And then the streets of La Jolla under the Mt. Soledad Cross began to cave in.
They shook their fists at God and said, “We don’t care what the Bible says, We want the California school children indoctrinated into homosexuality!” And then Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the heinous SB777 which bans the use of “mom” and “dad” in the text books and promotes homosexuality to all school children in California.
And then the wildfires of Southern California engulfed the land like a raging judgment against the radicalized anti-christian California rebels.

Hmmm. Let’s see — the Gospel talks in unfavorable terms about those who condemn others, who declare themselves holy because they are not like those, and who rest comfortable in assurance that they are saved, while others dwell in darkness and condemnation, who spend more time pointing out the flaws in others seemingly to build up their own self-apparent righteousness.

And here in this post (and in the comments, and the biographical sidebar) we have someone condemning others, making it clear how he is not like those, resting comfortable it seems in an assurance of being saved, with all those others dwelling in darkness and condemnation, and who spends more time pointing out the flaws in others than in being concerned about their own shortcomings (including tooting his own horn in the sidebar, demonstrating how .

Though, of course, I suppose this post could qualify as doing the same myself.

(via DOF)

Episcopal Stuff

I really don’t have time to write on this at length, but various bits and pieces from the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans this week. First off,…

I really don’t have time to write on this at length, but various bits and pieces from the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans this week.

First off, their public statement, which basically restates the status quo:

A promise to “exercise restraint” in future consecration of bishops that would torque off the rest of the Anglican Communion (e.g., gays, though in fact women would probably qualify as such in some quarters, and in others anyone not willing to sign off on a checklist of theological positions).
A pledge to not authorize public rites for same-sex unions (while acknowledging that local options may exist).
The Presiding Bishop’s plan for dealing with alternate episcopal oversight for conservative parishes without turning them over to foreign provinces is peachy-keen.
Foreign provinces: no soliciting allowed. Please.
The Presiding Bishop should continue talking things over with the rest of the Communion, without giving away the store or violating our canons.
The Anglican Communion should, per Lambeth, keep listening to gay people. Really, truly. No, actually, it’s written there in the last Lambeth report. It’s just that the conservatives seem to stop reading after the earlier conclusion that gay stuff is a bit dodgy.
The Archbishop of Canterbury really should find a way to invite Bp Gene Robinson to Lambeth. Please.
Gay folks are full members of the church and “We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.” Isn’t that nice?

Since nobody was particularly happy with the status quo, nobody’s particular happy with the HoB statement. Gay groups are hurt by the hypocrisy of saying that gays are full members of the church — but can’t get married or have their committed relationships blessed or become bishops. Conservatives are torqued that the Episcopal Church hasn’t groveled sufficiently or suggested auto-de-fes for homosexuals or abdicated in favor of Abp. Akinola or something.

I tend more toward the former attitude than the latter, obviously. I could have wished the HoB had spoken boldly and prophetically on the subject — but it’s important to remember that despite the conservative/schismatic painting of the Episcopal Church as a bunch of lunatic radicals, the bishops are “liberal” to the same extent that mainstream America is “liberal,” at least viz gay rights. I.e., “gay bashing is wrong, discrimination is distasteful and socially sketchy, but, boy, that whole gay marriage thing makes us really uncomfortable.”

With luck, the schismatics will use this as the trigger for their Big Departure, and we can get over it and move on. Sad, but less sad than dragging this out much further. And maybe with their leave-taking, the Episcopal Church will realize that they don’t have to pander to them for fear of causing schism.

Meanwhile, to the North …

More same-sex-marriage brouhaha from our neighbors in the Anglican Church of Canada. The Canadian church has been a footnote in a lot of the discussions to date on what’s going on…

More same-sex-marriage brouhaha from our neighbors in the Anglican Church of Canada. The Canadian church has been a footnote in a lot of the discussions to date on what’s going on with the Episcopal Church. At least one diocese has officially blessed same-sex marriages, as I recall, and, of course, Canada-the-country is allowing gay marriage (or at least civil unions, I lose track of which).

I’d read this the other day, and thought it was a pretty reasonable position for the moment. It’s a letter from the Canadian House of Bishops to the General Synod (their more snazilly-named General Convention) on the whole same-sex blessing thing.

In short, it declines to support same-sex blessings (marriages), but it does everything but. It welcomes gay couples, it allows for non-nuptual blessings and communal participation, it condemns any sort of prejudice against gays, inside or outside the church (e.g., excluding the children of gay households from being baptised), etc. It also offers support for gay clergy in the church.

(Those sorts of things (or even supporting them) could get you arrested in Nigeria, of course, if Abp. Akinola had his way, but …)

The letter doesn’t close any doors, however, recognizing that these issues will be discussed at the next Synod (this year) and asking for some specific reports for the following Synod (in 2010) on the underlying theological issues.

In other words, it’s a position not all that different from where the Episcopal Church officially stands, so far as I can tell. No word on whether even these positions will draw down the wrath of the conservative Primates (certainly the folks over at T19 see it as an heretical capitulation to same-sex blessings). It has been met, from the other direction, with disappointment from gay rights supporters in the Canadian church (though that story misstates the recent actions of the US House of Bishops).

Thank you, New Hampshire

Well done. A bill authorizing civil unions for gays cleared its last hurdle Thursday in New Hampshire, the first state to embrace same-sex unions without a court order or the…

Well done.

A bill authorizing civil unions for gays cleared its last hurdle Thursday in New Hampshire, the first state to embrace same-sex unions without a court order or the threat of one.
The Senate passed the bill 14-10, sending it to Gov. John Lynch, who announced last week he will sign it.
“To me this legislation is a credit to our state. We’re making this move not because some court some place is telling us that we must,” said Democratic Sen. Joe Foster of Nashua. “We do so today because it is the right thing to do.”

“Live free or die,” as the state motto says.

I was listening to reaction to this on NPR yesterday, and continue to be astounded by two basic reactions I keep hearing from opponents to such measures:

The sense that they are “losing” something because someone else is “getting” something. As if their platonic ideal of marriage is threatened with getting gay cooties on it, as if there’s only so much marriage mojo out there, and if it gets spread too thin, they won’t get their share.
Talk about plugs. Lots of talk about plugs (and sockets) and how plugs (and sockets) are only meant to go one way, and going another way doesn’t make any sense, so why have the law recognize it (as if making sense was ever a basis for lawmaking)? And what’s with this obsession with plugs and sockets, given that most of the gay folks I’ve heard discussing the subject talk about it in terms of affection and commitment, not as a legal permission to engage in gay nookie. But that seems to be what some opponents (rather suspiciously) obsess on.

At any rate, kudos to New Hampshire. Here’s hoping more states follow suit.

The logical conclusion

Last year, the Wasington State Supreme Court ruled against gay marriages, ruling (reluctantly) in Andersen v. King County to uphold its state Defense of Marriage Act, asserting that the state…

Last year, the Wasington State Supreme Court ruled against gay marriages, ruling (reluctantly) in Andersen v. King County to uphold its state Defense of Marriage Act, asserting that the state had a ““legitimate state interest” in limiting marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. From the lead opinion:

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. […] DOMA bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate state interests—procreation and child-rearing.

One group in Washington (to point out the absurdity of such a position) has launched an initiative drive to … well …

add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

I like it. If that’s the basis the state legislature has established for marriage, then let’s firm up that law to it’s logical conclusion. If that’s not what the legislature or the population of Washington really want … well, perhaps that DOMA ought to be reconsidered.

(via Terry)

Why gay marriage matters

Because no matter how many powers of attorney and documents you plan for and sign ahead of time, no matter how much folks say, “Well, there’s ways you can make…

Because no matter how many powers of attorney and documents you plan for and sign ahead of time, no matter how much folks say, “Well, there’s ways you can make it all the same” — someone’s going to balk.

As a same-sex couple living in Utah, Jody and Jess weren’t stupid. They knew they needed protection if their love was to count in the eyes of the state. So years ago, they met with an attorney to churn out legal documents. Jody gave Jess power of attorney and named Jess her representative after death.
[…] Jody died early Thanksgiving morning. She was 47.
Jess removed the catheter, the feeding tube and “got Jody looking more like Jody.” She then sat there, alone with her partner, and said goodbye.
It was Pam [Jody’s former girlfriend, a nurse, and a friend of the couple] who offered to call the mortuary that morning. The response she got left her, and Jess, stunned. “They wouldn’t even pick up her body,” Jess said between tears. “I was so . . . angry, I couldn’t breathe.”
After all they’d done, legal documents didn’t seem to matter. The mortuary required permission from “a blood relative” to retrieve Jody’s body, Pam was told.
Fortunately, Jody’s brother was available to call. And her mother, days later, faxed a consent form giving Jess full control of arrangements. Had Jody’s mom insisted on a traditional burial and LDS service, all their plans would have been for naught or required court action.

Read the article. Anyone who tells me that Jody and Jess didn’t share a sacred bond that ought to be respected and recognized by our social and legal systems is missing something here.

(via Ginny)

Well, as long as they have their priorities straight

Evangelical groups are fighting tooth and nail to keep their fundamental missions from being watered down by distractions and dubious side activities. Take the decisive action by the Pat Roibertson-founded Christian Coalition of America, which beat back an attempt by a new president, Rev. Joel Hunter, to turn them away from their core values.

The Reverend elected to take over as president of the Christian Coalition of America said he will not assume the role because of differences in philosophy.
The Rev. Joel Hunter, of Longwood’s Northland, A Church Distributed, said Wednesday that the national group would not let him expand the organization’s agenda beyond opposing abortion and gay marriage.
[…] Hunter, who was scheduled to take over the socially conservative political group Jan. 1, said he had hoped to focus on issues such as poverty and the environment. “These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about,” Hunter said.
He resigned Tuesday during an organization board meeting. Hunter said he was not asked to leave. “They pretty much said, ‘These issues are fine, but they’re not our issues, that’s not our base,'” Hunter said.

Good riddance. I mean, only some sort of cultaral-relativist wishy-washy radical nut could argue that opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage weren’t The Primary Goals of any Goodly, Godly Christian organization. Right?

(via Terry)

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Most amusing reason to oppose gay marriage to come out of this year’s political debate, out of a debate in Florida’s governor race, featuring Republican Charlie Crist. Crist, who currently…

Most amusing reason to oppose gay marriage to come out of this year’s political debate, out of a debate in Florida’s governor race, featuring Republican Charlie Crist.

Crist, who currently is Attorney General and who has dogged suggestions throughout the campaign that he is gay, had one of the more unusual reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, saying marriage is a “sacred” relationship – “like I had, before I got divorced.”

Now, I will say, as someone who was divorced, that I do consider marriage a sacred relationship (and one, for that matter, that continues, in its way, post-divorce). But, of course, the discussion shouldn’t be about how the state recognizes sacred stuff — we don’t regulate or require or restrict baptisms, or (in most cases) religious orders. Marriage is an issue because of its social ramifications, and how that is impacted by civil law.

What I suspect Crist was trying to argue was that the “sacred” issue of marriage was a sufficient reason to forbid marriage to gays — the irony, of course, is that most of the “sacred” arguers over the issue also come from a tradition that considers marriage to be a life-long sacred institution that ought not be broken. Much of the arguments are made around how society values marriage for its child-rearing environment and social stability, which, again, implies permanence. So making the
argument while admitting to a divorce points out the elephant in the living room: a lot of the pols who sling around the “sacred” argument don’t like to admit how many of them have had divorces, often nasty and quite “unsacred” ones.

All the more reason to keep that church/state thing nice and unentangled.

(via Culture Wars)

The shift in gay marriage bans

In 2004, thirteen states passed constitutional amendments declaring marriage as being one-man+one-woman. Still more similar bans are on the ballot this year (in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin) — but in a lot of cases they’re having trouble finding support.

Colorado’s first-in-the-nation ballot proposal to create same-sex domestic partnerships had strong support in a recent poll. At the same time, polls in three of the eight states that will vote on banning same-sex marriage show the measures either trailing or leading narrowly. “It could be a watershed year,” said Carrie Evans, state legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group.
Jim Pfaff, state policy director for the conservative group Focus on the Family, disagrees. He says all same-sex-marriage bans will pass because voters “believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”
Any victory for gay groups would be unprecedented. Voters have approved each of 19 proposals for state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage; support has averaged 70%. The questions began appearing on ballots in 1998 after a Hawaii court struck down the state’s same-sex-marriage ban. Now, well-run opposition campaigns and growing acceptance of homosexuality are eroding support for such bans, pollsters say.
In Arizona, the most recent poll on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage showed 51% of registered voters were opposed. Just 38% supported it. A poll in July in South Dakota showed a similar measure trailing 49% to 41%. “We have a very good chance of killing this,” said Ken Clark of Arizona Together, which opposes the measure. Cathi Herrod of Project Marriage Arizona, the group that got the amendment on the ballot, predicted it would pass because U.S. voters have always approved
such measures. The Arizona measure is called Proposition 107.
In Colorado, a mid-September Rocky Mountain News poll showed 58% supported a ballot measure to create domestic partnerships that would give same-sex couples many rights of married couples, such as health-insurance benefits and hospital visitation. The poll showed 38% opposed it. A Colorado ballot issue to ban same-sex marriage was favored by 52% to 42%.

I don’t know that I would assume that public attitudes are shifting. Presumably the states that passed them were the “low-hanging fruit” (so to speak) — places that were most eager and willing to do so, and so got national organizations behind their passage. One would expect greater difficulty over time. Further, as Colorado shows, there’s still support to ban same-sex marriage — but also greater acceptance of recognizing same-sex relationships and providing them similar rights (and responsibilities)
to marriage.

Americans are torn about recognizing same-sex couples, said Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center. A Pew survey in July showed 56% of respondents opposed gay marriage, but 54% favored civil unions.

Bucking that tide is the trouble that, on the other hand, Arizona is having, where Prop. 107 would prevent any legal recognition or privileges being given to same-sex (or unmarried) couples (a similar ballot measure in Colorado didn’t get enough signatures to make the ballot).

Here’s hoping for some good (or less bad) news come election night.

Kids and Marriage

One of the arguments that keeps coming up in discussions of gay marriage (or legal approximations thereof) is the idea that marriage is for the rearing and protection of children….

One of the arguments that keeps coming up in discussions of gay marriage (or legal approximations thereof) is the idea that marriage is for the rearing and protection of children. I.e, society and the state offer favorable status to married couples because they are presumably having kids and providing a stable, sheltered existence for them.

Now there’s a kernel of truth there — though it’s wildly oversimplistic. If nothing else, marital benefits do not at all track to actual child-bearing or child-rearing. Thousands marry with no intent (or sometimes capability) to have or raise kids. Parents can be the most awful, abusive monsters in the world, such that the state removes their kids from their custody — but those parents will still be allowed to inherit automatically from each other, make medical decisions for each other,
file jointly, etc., all exclusive of their actual “taking care of kids” status.

But beyond that, the people making such an argument often as not are also busy pointing (indirectly, if they’re discreet) to the Bible as the moral foundation of how society should order itself, Which is ironic, because marriage isn’t fundamentally presented in the Bible as an institution for the rearing and protection of children. Children don’t even factor into the primary statements made about marriage … which just happened to have been lectionary readings this past Sunday:

Genesis 2:18-24:
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Mark 10:2-9:
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Neither God the Creator nor Jesus says, “Men and women ought to cleave to each other so they can raise babies to be good, productive, morally straight individuals.” Marriage is couched here solely as the individuals joining together, as helpful partners, because, “it is not good that the man should be alone.”

Now, I’m not here to preach these (or other passages) as the final word on the matter — for one thing, folks can turn around and start noting about the genders being described (which opens a longer discussion), and for another thing there’s that whole “divorce” issue (which is also a post for another time).

My point is, though, that if the opponents of gay marriage or domestic partnerships want to argue that, sociologically or socio-biologically, marriage between man and woman has certain unique benefits toward children that means that it should remain a uniquely heterosexual institution, they are welcome to do so (and be debated on the subject). Except that raises all sorts of other issues about how society might want to “tweak” marriage “for the children,” and most of the people involved
in so arguing find assertions from sociology and other squishy sciences to be anathema.

But on the other hand, if they also want to claim that marriage is a divinely-ordained institution, steeped in the Bible as the paramount relationship all the way back to Genesis, then they can’t have it both ways. Marriage, the “cleaving” of the two together, is not fundamentally presented in the Bible as being for or about children, but about two individuals becoming deeply, divinely-ordained partners.

And we can take the debate on from there. Thus endeth the lesson.

More Episcopalian brouhaha

Haven’t ranted much on this of late — life’s too short, I guess — but Big Plans Proceed A-pace for the various conservative provinces of the Anglican Communion to formally…

Haven’t ranted much on this of late — life’s too short, I guess — but Big Plans Proceed A-pace for the various conservative provinces of the Anglican Communion to formally force an ouster of the Episcopal Church (and, likely, the Church of Canada, and, if the liberals prevail there, the Church of England or anyone else who disagrees with them) from the Communion.

The latest installment — a big soiree of the “Global South” Anglican provinces — though excluding quite a few South American provinces who have historic or other ties to the Episcopal Church and other such Fonts of Evil — in which the post-meeting communique included bits (numbers from the document) like:

“We plan to be first out the gate with a new ‘Anglican Covenant’ — never mind that the Archbishop of Canterbury said that could take several years — so that we can, on our own initiative, put it forward as the Drop Dead Line in the Ecclesiastical Sand as to what what All True Anglicans Must Believe. Which, of course, includes such definitive church doctrine as ‘homosexuality and homosexuals are icky and eeeeeevil.'” (#7)
“Oh, and it’s such a shame that the Episcopal Church is ignoring all the ‘minimum conditions’ of the Windsor Report, so we don’t feel honor-bound to go along with any of the Windsor recommendations, either, especially all those parts about not sticking our noses into Episcopal Church business.” (#9)
“So we welcome all those individuals, parishes, and especially whole dioceses currently stuck with those Bad, Nasssty Churches to come over to our fold, which we’ll use as a basis for pushing forward plans for a new Anglican province in North American that will parallel and obsolete the existing provinces there (i.e., the Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church).” (#8-10)
“Oh, that new Presiding Bishop-elect of the Episcopal Church? We don’t like her, so we don’t think she should be invited to official Communion events, and if she is, then the folks doing the inviting better let us right-thinking types choose who to invite from the US.” (#10b)
“And, everyone, be sure and read and reflect on this document (which most of us wrote), which basically says (a) the Windsor report didn’t go far enough in demanding those nasssty Episcipalians repent and toe our line in the future, (b) those nasssty episcopalians should either shape up or get out of here, and (c) if they don’t, we won’t go to the next big Lambeth meeting, so there! Oh, and
(d) we’re not sure we should even be praying for them, either. And, by the way, (e) that all includes that new English civil union law, so if the Church of England doesn’t immediately condemn it in the strongest terms, then they’re just as bad as those nassssty Episcopalians, and we won’t talk with them, either. So, maybe (f) we should just bag Lambeth and hold regular bishops meetings down South of the Equator, anyway, where the hotel rooms are cheaper and we have control of the agenda.” (#14)

How charming.

And I’ll note that though the Province of Tanzania was among those whose name was appended to the communique, we managed this morning to find it in our hearts to pray for that province and its archbishop.

(More observations, thoughts, and commentary)

UPDATE: An interesting, and lengthy, note from one of the Primates (from Southern Africa) who didn’t even know a communique was being put together, let alone this particular one, but whose Province was touted as being a part of it all.

Governance

On the one hand … When U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez erroneously accused African-American women of terminating 70 percent of pregnancies – “maybe even more” – in a radio interview last…

On the one hand …

When U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez erroneously accused African-American women of terminating 70 percent of pregnancies – “maybe even more” – in a radio interview last week, he managed to take something that had dogged his Democratic opponent for months, something that should have been a nonissue for his socially conservative base, and turn it into a political misstep.
It was stunning.
His speedy apology signaled that his advisers knew there was no way he could spin his way around the offensive remark. They must have figured that his best hope after his performance on KCFR’s “Colorado Matters” was that people would come away thinking he was simply clueless, not racist and dishonest.

On the other hand …

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter said Friday that he would support changing the state’s definition of marriage – then backed off the statement the next day.
“The statute says marriage is between a man and a woman,” Ritter said Friday to The Denver Post’s editorial board. “You know, if a bill came to my desk to change that statute, though, I would sign it – that changes the definition of it.”
When asked whether the definition should include marriage between two men, Ritter said he didn’t want to answer a hypothetical question. “It depends on what the bill says,” he said. “I would entertain changing it, is what I’m saying.”
Referring to his Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez, Ritter said: “I’m just in a different place on this issue than the congressman is.”
On Saturday, however, Ritter clarified his position, saying in a statement that he would keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman but consider adding recognition of civil unions to the statute.

I’m so excited about voting on the governor’s race in November.

An evangelical message most folks I know could stand behind

Interesting article on an evangelical “megachurch” pastor and an unusual message he preached to his conservative congregation. I don’t necessarily agree with his theology, but I think he’s spot on…

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortionwork? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?
After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.
“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

How refreshing. And it’s not like this is some whacko left-wing Episcopalian or something. Nor was the preaching without cost.

Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God’s ideal. The response from his congregation at Woodland Hills Church here in suburban St. Paul — packed mostly with politically and theologically conservative, middle-class evangelicals — was passionate. Some members walked out of a sermon and never returned. By the time the dust had settled, Woodland Hills, which Mr. Boyd founded in 1992, had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members.
[…] Mr. Boyd gave his sermons while his church was in the midst of a $7 million fund-raising campaign. But only $4 million came in, and 7 of the more than 50 staff members were laid off, he said.
Mary Van Sickle, the family pastor at Woodland Hills, said she lost 20 volunteers who had been the backbone of the church’s Sunday school. “They said, ‘You’re not doing what the church is supposed to be doing, which is supporting the Republican way,’ ” she said. “It was some of my best volunteers.”

But a lot of the congregation welcomed the message. And many of the folks who left have been replaced by others.

Mr. Boyd said he never intended his sermons to be taken as merely a critique of the Republican Party or the religious right. He refuses to share his party affiliation, or whether he has one, for that reason. He said there were Christians on both the left and the right who had turned politics and patriotism into “idolatry.”
He said he first became alarmed while visiting another megachurch’s worship service on a Fourth of July years ago. The service finished with the chorus singing “God Bless America” and a video of fighter jets flying over a hill silhouetted with crosses.
“I thought to myself, ‘What just happened? Fighter jets mixed up with the cross?’ ” he said in an interview.

I might actually buy the book he’s written from those sermons.