Prop 8 OVERTURNED: LA Bishop Issues Celebratory Statement

The response from the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles to the announcement Wednesday (Aug. 4) that a federal judge had overturned California's Proposition 8 was swift and celebratory.

"Justice is advancing thanks to today's ruling affirming Californians' constitutional right to marriage in faithful, same-gender relationships," Bishop J. Jon Bruno said in an official statement.

The Episcopal Church, which has in recent years become one of the Christian denominations most supportive of gay and lesbian rights, has been vocal in its opposition to Proposition 8.

On November 5, 2008, after California voters initially passed the ban on same-sex marriage, Bishop Bruno wrote, "Proposition 8 is a lamentable expression of fear-based discrimination that attempts to deny the constitutional rights of some Californians on the basis of sexual orientation. It is only a matter of time before its narrow constraints are ultimately nullified by the courts and our citizens' own increasing knowledge about the diversity of God's creation."

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 Wednesday in a landmark ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed that the ban on same-sex marriage violated their constitutional rights.

The case could eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will then have to decide if the U.S. Constitution in fact grants gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Despite the Wednesday ruling on Proposition 8, same-sex marriages will not be allowed to go forward until after the appeals process concludes.

Lamenting the coming appeals, Bishop Bruno said, "[M]y continuing prayer will be -- as the prophet Amos said -- for justice 'to roll down' and to prevail."

Comments

[scottyknows]

08:40 PM on 08/13/2010

The calling of any church leader professing to be a Christian is to lead people to Christ.

Those chanting for homosexual marriage have yet to be introduced.

[DevonTexas]

02:00 PM on 08/10/2010

"Despite the Wednesday ruling on Proposition 8, same-sex marriages will not be allowed to go forward until after the appeals process concludes."

Isn't that a bit hasty? I thought there was a hearing today about the stay and no decision yet on that.

[Fogy]

10:14 PM on 08/09/2010

The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, not enumerated freedoms. Included in the Bill of Rights are the 9th and 10th amendments declaring all rights not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution shall be the domain of the People and the States. All rights. Not some rights. Not rights that haven't been conceived of yet. If it's a fundamental right, it applies to all citizens.

The 14th amendment was necessary because prior to it's adoption blacks were EXPRESSLY NOT citizens, nor was there a universal equal protection clause for the rest of our rights. The amendment was the States agreeing that they could no longer discriminate for ANY reason, not just race, e.g.- marriage, a fundamental right. If it's not explicitly forbidden, it's allowed.

Which brings us to the 19th. At the time the Constitution was ratified women were EXPRESSLY forbidden to vote by all state Constitutions but New Jersey, who voluntarily withdrew that right in 1807.

"...the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage." Minor vs Happersett (1875) Clearly voting was not a fundamental right, but a government construct, thus the required amendment.

Marriage on the other hand has been declared no less than 14 times a fundamental human-condition right by SCOTUS. As a fundamental right it cannot be abridged. Voting is not a fundamental right. Pair bonding is, gays included.

[OhgReaTone]

11:20 AM on 08/07/2010

My mother belongs to a fringe wacko fundamentalist religion - yet she is able to apply simple logic to the issue of gay marriage. She does not understand what is different about gay people marrying and her own marriage of 62 years. ...........

http://thefiresidepost.com/2010/08/07/old-women-talk-proposition-8/

[FlGlades]

04:05 PM on 08/07/2010

Let see God opennly forbids it in Jews scripture and Christian repeatedly

[thereisonlyoneparty]

11:12 PM on 08/08/2010

Exactly.

Religions picking and choosing what to believe is dangerous for society. I cannot believe that anyone else who is a skeptic would think that it is not. I do not even care what religion it is. You cannot be a Scientologist and reject Xenu. You cannot be a Jew that likes Jesus. You cannot be a Buddhist and not blame the victim.

This cleaning up of religious beliefs to make the religion appeal to more people hurts society. It means that people view religion more favorably and allow it to be more influential. I knew a homosexual fellow who like Christianity and searched around until he found a church that he called "gay friendly." What the hell? How are we allowing people to do this?

Religion now is a bunch of people who believe nothing, but are lead to think that they actually believe something. Their "church" (or whatever) still is able to lead them into developing a moral viewpoint even though it has no basis for it (well, ok. It does have a basis, but not the basis it is attempting to use. It is replacing an ancient authority and replacing it with a modern one, though not being open about this.)

[DevonTexas]

02:02 PM on 08/10/2010

god forbids gay marriage?

[Hysterian68]

10:43 PM on 08/09/2010

"My mother belongs to a fringe wacko fundamentalist religion"

Hmmmmmmmmm. She must be a Catholic.

[DevonTexas]

02:02 PM on 08/10/2010

ow.

[FlGlades]

07:37 AM on 08/07/2010

It's unclear, again because of inadequate scientific studies. To our knowledge no study has been conducted that isolates the primary problem: adult male homosexual abuse of adolescent boys. One expert in pedophilia, Dr. John Bradford, "estimates its [pedophilia's] prevalence at maybe four percent of the population" (John Cloud, "Pedophilia," Time, April 29, 2002).

If so, the percentage of pedophiles in the ranks of Catholic priests is significantly lower by all accounts than in the general population. This may be due to the psychological screening candidates for the priesthood are subject to prior to ordination-and to the practical fact that priests have less access to children than do typical pedophiles.

[OBroadhurst]

02:18 PM on 08/13/2010

Good heavens, you're puking forth the nonsense of Cameron and his ilk.

This puerile pablum has been thoroughly discredited.

[FlGlades]

07:37 AM on 08/07/2010

The Associated Press reported that 250 priests had been dismissed or had resigned by the time the bishops met last June, though it is not clear that all of the dismissals and resignations were due to abuse. Even if all 250 priests were abusers, it would still amount to about one-half of one percent (0.53 percent) of the 47,000 priests currently serving in America, a proportion far smaller than in most media accounts. Since some of the allegations involved priests who are now dead, the proportion of offenders within today's priesthood is significantly smaller than one-half of one percent. Nevertheless, the numbers are profoundly disturbing

[FlGlades]

07:35 AM on 08/07/2010

In significant ways the media's coverage of the scandal has been misleading or inaccurate. For example, the media reported the scandal almost exclusively in terms of "pedophile priests." This is not correct.

According to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV, pedophilia is sexual attraction to children who have not yet arrived at puberty (DSM-IV, 528). While there have been priests who were pedophiles, the overwhelming majority of cases involved a disorder called ephebophilia, a term that refers to sexual attraction to minors who have arrived at puberty (i.e., teenagers). But we shouldn't give a false emphasis to the clinical term ephebophilia, because it masks the real nature of what is occurring: priestly homosexual activity with under-aged males.

The overwhelming majority of the priests involved in these incidents are accused of sexual molestation of adolescent males, not females. This means that nature of the scandal is homosexual. The media downplayed or ignored this fact in its handling of the subject. But it has everything to do with the cause, the extent, and the cure of the problem.
It should also be noted that pedophiles make up 4% of the US population. Pedophiles have been found to make up only half a percent in priest well below the us average

[bobojack1]

12:10 PM on 08/10/2010

Priests look after the males, nuns the males and females. Priests aren't left alone with the females so it is only natural that the incidence of molestation against males by priests is higher. You obviously have this idea that it is all about homosexuality and that is incorrect. You also suggest that homosexual males are predatory and more likely to molest children. Once again, you really have no clue what you are talking about. Psychological studies don't show any correlation between homosexuality and molestation. You are brain washed by the church and the book of fairy tales.

[DevonTexas]

02:05 PM on 08/10/2010

what does this have to do with the topic of the article?! Your comments should be deleted as irrelevent.

[Fogy]

12:40 PM on 08/06/2010

"Marriage" isn't about love.
You can be in love and not be married.
You can be married and not be in love.

"Marriage" isn't about sex.
You can have sex and not be married.
You can be married and not have sex.

"Marriage" isn't about children.
You can have children and not be married.
You can be married and not have children.

"Marriage" isn't about religion.
You can be an atheist and be married.
You can be married without a preacher.

"Marriage" isn't about vows.
You can make vows without being married.
You can be married without vows, only an affirmation; "I do".

"Marriage" isn't about rings.
You can wear rings without being married.
You can be married without exchanging rings.

Supporters and h8ters both need to learn what marriage ISN'T before trying to argue what it IS.

Marriage is legally only about property, citizenship, kinship and inheritance. The marriage license is an application for State and Federal benefits granted a specific class of people. All arguments about love, romance, reproduction, religious dogma, tradition and family values are PERSONAL BAGGAGE and cultural ignorance of the legal fiction called marriage.

Bigots and don't own marriage. The State owns it and is constitutionally mandated to offer it to all couples.

Denying US Citizens benefits granted others on the basis of their sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Denying gays benefits because they offend the sensibilities of bigots is no more valid than denying the bigots the same benefits because "I" am offended by them.

[LintLass]

03:08 PM on 08/06/2010

Legally, no. But if they want to say *my* marriage isn't about love, that it's somehow totally different from most straight ones, *as people reckon these things,* they are wrong.

I am not a sex act. I am not a 'sin' and neither is my dearest, nor were any of those I've been with, or my daughter in a same-sex couple a long time ago.

The law is the law, and that should be enough, but I caution.

If any of you Christians out there think someone like me doesn't know from love:

People have tested that before. You'll come away sorry and sore if you think your rationalizations undo that for a *moment.*

[Fogy]

03:38 PM on 08/06/2010

Congratulations, by the way!

Just so we're clear, be sure you're separating the relationship we commonly refer to as marriage from the civil application for benefits. That's the point that most people fail to make, leading to emotional arguments for or against gay marriage.

The personal feelings one has, the religious rules one lives by, etc., have no bearing on the who can get married. That's the point of my post.

Cheers!

[Ioan Lightoller]

01:16 PM on 08/16/2010

Beautifully said, LintLass! My beloved and I are none of those things you mentioned, either. We love one another, are committed and monogamous. We will be together until death us do part. We married legally in Canada (so my late 91-year old mother could see her daughter and her love united in marriage since the haters in Michigan passed an anti-equality amendment) but we will not quit fighting until our Canadian marriage is accepted everywhere in the US.

[unimatrix0]

10:19 PM on 08/06/2010

Perfectly said (fanned). I got a MA marriage for the legal benefits. After 15yrs we knew we lived together because of love, and because we owned property together, were beneficeries, legal guardians in bad times, etc, but wanted a marriage to solidify that. It really sucks to go on vacation with a brief case of legal documents in case of an accident and prove you can make medical decissions. There was nothing religious about it, we went to a justice of the peace.
Like you said, some couples spend their entire lives in a loveless marriage. Perhaps because of pre-marrital sex, others because of arranged marriages that weren't well thought out, or a 24yr women marrying a 84yr billionaire (power, money are reasons too).

[Arrech]

09:10 AM on 08/06/2010

I appreciate his good intentions.
But this is a secular issue. Human rights.

[kapuckett]

11:46 PM on 08/05/2010

Makes me proud to be Episcopalian.

[KennebunkportIndependent]

09:09 PM on 08/06/2010

Me too.

[charlesdickens]

01:11 AM on 08/07/2010

Makes me want to convert.

[gun1934]

09:19 AM on 08/13/2010

makes me want to pukeeeeeeee

[MathIsTruth]

10:48 PM on 08/05/2010

It certainly is a good thing that the Episcopal church(or at least some of it) has taken this stand.

However, until some religious group is at the vanguard of moral issues, the value of religions in encouraging a moral society is suspect.

I mean, what is the use of a moral leader if they don't lead? Having churches come out in support of same-sex marriage this late in the debate is a lot like the Southern Baptist Church waiting 150 years after the Civil War to apologize for supporting slavery.

[Weirdwriter]

11:33 PM on 08/05/2010

Try reading up on what other Christian sects did against slavery and other social justices over the decades before lamenting one sect's belated response.

[MathIsTruth]

10:04 AM on 08/06/2010

Why? Did I say something wrong?

I think I had my facts right (well, 150 years was a few years too many) but I'm open to suggested corrections.

By the way, the Southern Baptists Church's APOLOGY was belated. Its response to slavery was not.

[KennebunkportIndependent]

09:10 PM on 08/06/2010

Much of the abolitionist movement in the 1840 and 1850 was centered around Unitarian ministers.

[LintLass]

03:35 PM on 08/06/2010

"i mean, what is the use of a moral leader if they don't lead?"

The people lead. The leaders *ride.*

[Kentaro]

08:09 PM on 08/05/2010

I am not so much concerned about the law as the Bishop endorsing gay marriage.
It seems to be a regular trend for people who claim to be Christian (and I'm not saying they aren't) who decide to pick and choose which Scriptures they will follow. Jesus is called Lord for
a reason. It's one thing to struggle to understand or obey Scriptures. Its quite another thing
to place oneself above it and decide "I like this one, but not that one, etc." I understand the temptation to change what we believe because of our love for others. But it's not very loving to
encourage and approve of sin of any type. It results in God's displeasure and His wrath in this life and the life to come, though it should never come from the church.

[wulidncr]

08:28 PM on 08/05/2010

How do you not pick and choose. Do you eat shrimp? Wear blended fabrics? Do ANY work on the sabbath? I know those are from the old testament but Jesus endorses the law in the new testament. What about the biblical age of the earth? Geocentricity? How do you not pick and choose when the bible is just plain wrong about so many things?

[Kentaro]

11:19 PM on 08/05/2010

When Christ died and was raised from the dead, the New Covenant was instituted. Because of the New Covenent, God has released us from the dietary/Levitical laws and Israel's national laws. (See God's vision given to Peter in Acts 10, The Jerusalem Council's decision in Acts 15, and the books of Galations and Hebrews in the NT)
And no, I try not to work on the Sabbath. In Christ's incarnation, He is living under the Mosaic law (even though its recorded in the NT) and fulfills it for us since we can't. I don't remember the Bible giving an age of the earth. What verses are you thinking of describing the Earth as the center of the universe?

[MatthewRobertson]

09:15 PM on 08/05/2010

According to Christianity, you don't get to judge anyone's relationship with God. Only God can do that. Plenty of scripture is morally ambiguous, not to mention acceptable today. The Levitical Laws, Divorce, women in ministry and leadership positions, etc. And plenty of things are permitted in scripture that are considered reprehensible today including polygamy, incest, genocide, and slavery.

[Kentaro]

11:38 PM on 08/05/2010

I'm not judging their relationship, I'm questioning whether the way they live is consistent with their profession of being a Christian. As Christians we are to exhort one another to the truth, not in judgement but for their their holiness and the holiness of the church. (see Hebrews 3:13 and 1 Thessalonians 2:12) Just like you would expect us to call out a pastor who is abusing children, stealing, etc. Most scripture is pretty clear. Other people can explain better than I can about the individual topics. You may already know this, often times the events recorded in the OT records both good and bad as examples to us, to imitate the good and not imitate the bad. You see monogomy encouraged in the NT (See Titus and the Letters to Timothy) and I'm sure incest is regarded as sexually immoral. I guess when you mention genocide you are thinking of God using Israel as an instrument of judgement on other nations, but that is God's right. He also used other nations to judge Israel. I don't understand the cultural aspects of slavery in the OT and NT enough to comment. But despite what progressive Christians say, the Christian faith did not seem to focus overturning society structures, but instead focused on the individual's need for salvation.

[AdaNewbie]

06:54 PM on 08/05/2010

I consider myself a devout christian and i cant tell you how happy and well... relieved i am. The fact alone that i believe in the gospel has made me a homophobic, Bible waving ignorant to many people. Now i can point to California and say: see, there are some Christians/Religious people with comon sense, a heart AND a brain. Its a shame that there are so few Bishop Brunos and so many Pat Robertsons.

[kapuckett]

11:51 PM on 08/05/2010

Hear, hear! I agree wholeheartedly.

[LintLass]

03:15 PM on 08/06/2010

You just gotta speak up: this homophobia is largely 'Christianity's' monster. And there's only so much I can do from outside. Lassitude on your part really hurts people: lets homophobes oppress us.

As on so many other issues, I ask, as a neighbor.

Speak up. *especially* if you love your religion.

I know you're tired of being the bad guys.

So I ask of you some courage.

It won't convert me, or the world, or give you wealth or power, but.

If you so believe, I ask of you honorable strivings. 'Progressive Christians' are like the French in our Civil rights American Revolution. At this rate we'll be surprised if you turn up, but you'll still be most welcome.

Be our Lafayette. :)

Not just condolences.

[Salty 2]

06:23 PM on 08/05/2010

As a Christian I personally don't agree with this, but I don't waste my time opposing it. This should be left between the people involved and God. Gays marrying each other does not affect me in any way. Christians get all up and arms with the gays, but seem to have no problem with other " moral" issues that actually have damaging effects on society. My issue with the gay agenda is that they are trying to push it on my kids in school. These things should be left to the parents to teach their children, not the gov. or the schools. Hands off our children.
It is scary when the vast majority votes for something and the Gov ignors the vote results. So much for "we the people".

[Janicot]

08:07 PM on 08/05/2010

Remember something - gay couples have children in our school system as well, children who can be easily hurt if marginalized by insensitive teachers, administrators, or even by other kids because of bias. If you're a Christian, I would think this would bother you more than any discomfort you might feel from having to explain "mechanics" to your kids, who despite your best efforts are going to learn all sorts of things you may not approve of from their peers. I think the sooner that parents can impress on their children the idea that, although we may not choose "B" over "A" for ourselves, we don't hurt others for making different choices, the better off all kids are in the long run. And that shouldn't be a difficult or uncomfortable discussion for any parent. As far as the vote goes, I'm sorry, but Prop 8 wasn't planned out very well from the beginning, it was bound to run up against a constitutional challenge and lose in federal court. "Majority rules" does not take precedence over basic rules of equal access and protection, and due process.

[Salty 2]

08:42 PM on 08/05/2010

What kids learn from their peers is one thing . What the Gov promotes is quite another. I find it disturbing that the schools can't teach about each "faith" considering that 95% of Americans are of some "belief". Not promoting faith , just teaching the basics of each one. But the same schools can teach about homosexuality which is maybe 3% of Americans. And is an issue of " morality" . Schools can hand out birth control and teach our kids sex is always OK as long as it's "safe", regardless what the parents say. The Gov and the schools have no business teaching about moral values. That is up tp mom and dad. Morals values are a personal thing. Parents ,according to Obama , do not have the exclusive right to teach their own children moral values. That is a very scary and dangerous thing. And it is wrong.

[jmidnightwarrior]

10:50 PM on 08/05/2010

I am so tired of listening to this kind of comment, especially from those of you who haven't a clue as to what your own government is. We are a democratic Republic. Not a true democracy. If that is what you want, move to Switzerland. There, everything is by the vote of the people. Here, it is representative government. If you haven't read the Constitution, then do so before stating more that makes you sound foolish. If you have read it, reread it for the same reason.

In fact, I would recommend reading MANY books that are the writings of the Founding Fathers, to get an idea into what they believed, what they put into motion, and even what they MEANT when they penned our Constitution.

It is what it is. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is NOT what so many want and think it is. I don't think we need any topic in school as desperately as we do a "required", in depth study of just the Constitution alone. I find it mind boggling how many people out there have no idea what even governs this nation.

You can NOT vote on rights. They, by the Constitution of the United States, are off limits to voting. They are there to protect the minority from majority abuse.

More than anything, I have loved what has happened here, because it has been a marvelous event of watching our Constitution in action.

[Salty 2]

11:52 PM on 08/05/2010

So , I take it you don't believe in " Gov by the people , for the people"

[michelle1821]

06:42 PM on 08/11/2010

Just look at what most of the Founding Fathers said about religion and why it shouldn't be apart of this nation. Most of these men understood the difference between being Christian and being American. They did not want this country to be a Christian nation.

Benjamin Franklin: "Lighthouses are more useful than churches."

John Adams: "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."

Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

Thomas Paine: "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." "The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

James Madsion: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
-1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches
James Madison:
"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."

[Ernie Lijoi]

04:26 PM on 08/05/2010

Anyone with basic reasoning skills doesn't need to look toward religious leaders (or witch doctors, or psychics or big foot) to have their relationship validated.

But since the majority of americans lack reasoning skills, I guess this this could qualify as a good thing.