It is long past time to overturn the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a shameful piece of legislated discrimination that does nothing to defend marriage and everything to make second-class citizens out of gay and lesbian couples and their families. And so as the Senate Judiciary Committee begins debate on the Respect for Marriage Act on Capitol Hill, our nation takes a much-needed step toward making liberty and justice for all not just a pledge but a reality.
God does not discriminate against same-sex couples, and neither should our federal government. The time has come for a "protect marriage" movement that protects all marriages, and for a "family values" coalition that values all families -- and as a priest and pastor, I want to be part of helping realize that goal.
In my parish, All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif., we married f46 same-sex couples when marriage equality was the law in California from May to November 2008. When a slim majority of California voters passed Proposition 8 and wrote discrimination into our state constitution, our governing board passed the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the institution of civil marriage in the State of California is, as a result of Proposition 8 and the Court's decision, a constitutionally-mandated instrument of discrimination, which furthers injustice and denies same-sex couples the fundamental dignities to which each human being is entitled;
WHEREAS, our active participation in the discriminatory system of civil marriage is inconsistent with Jesus' call to strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being; and
WHEREAS, All Saints Church is called to make the sacrament of marriage equally available to all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Rector, Wardens and Vestry do declare that the sacramental right of marriage is available to all couples, but that the clergy of All Saints Church will not sign civil marriage certificates so long as the right to marry is denied to same-sex couples.
The Respect for Marriage Act will allow All Saints Church to get back into the business of ministering equally to all who come to us seeking to live lives committed to each other and in alignment with God's love, justice and compassion. And by granting the same federally protected rights and responsibilities to all married couples, it will help us live into our DNA as a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal.
The Respect for Marriage Act isn't just the right thing to do for same-sex couples. It's the right thing to do for America.
Matthew 7:22-23
22-On judgment day many will say to me, 'Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.'
23. But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.
I was wonder who Jesus was refering too.. Thanks for making it clear Mr. Bacon.
I lived for many years in the Pasadena area and greatly respect these people.
BTW: This is the same All Saints that was subjected to a Bush W. era vendetta for years because in the fall of 2004 a visiting pastor preached a pre-election sermon advising the congregation to consider "who would Jesus vote for." The IRS tried to yank All Saint's non-profit status for that one comment.
Of course, the reason is obvious: JESUS WOULD HAVE DESPISED BUSH AND ALL HE STOOD FOR.
So I guess maybe the IRS was right: All Saints was promoting the Democrats by asking "who would Jesus vote for?"
PS: Meanwhile the RCC and fundamentalist church were giving out "voters guides". Ever hear of an of those churches being threatened with the loss of their "charitable" status? No, you did not, because they have continually gotten a pass from the IRS.
It's not natural, animals are not gay?
First, animals do not have religion, so does that make religion unnatural? Second, you obviously know very little about the sexual practices between animals, dolphins often have gay sex and partnerships, bonobos use sex between both genders as a way of bonding. Crazy sex is very natural, religion is not.
God says it's not okay!!!!
First, ever heard of separation of church and state? You cannot make a law based on religion, sorry this is not Sharia law of the middle east, if you want religious control, go move to Iran. Yes, we are a secular nation. Also what makes you the speaker of god, does he personally give you a plan, because most of the time 'gods' plan sounds a lot like your own.
It's just not rational...
I'm not even going to get into an argument about logic and reason with a theist, it's like trying to debate a wall. Anyways, I fail to see how gay marriage has anything to do with logic, if anything it makes sense to get married, logical in fact.
Well there you go, top arguments and ways to refute them, feel free to use anytime!
Still, its very good that God has gotten past his homophobia, as you have discovered. Now maybe He can make further strides resolving on his misogyny and love of cruelty, and hopefully his core issue, the low self-esteem which demands such slavish adoration by His frail mortal creations.
Jagge, you're usually famous for quoting scripture - where did you dig up those strange ideas about "human mating organs" and "strange flesh"?
To inject something like "between a man and a woman" reduces the value of marriage to procreation and inhibits the fullest development of those whose labor created the marriage.
If I create a universe; will I be holy?
The story you present is sad. We can doubt that either relationship met my definition of marriage because my definition requires a team and teamwork to preserve, enhance and fulfill the lives of the unique persons who create it.
Again, with all fervor, I state that the fullest possible development of each person can be assured with my definition. A marriage limited to procreation has little value when compared to all the values assured by my definition.
If you have a problem with fornication by homosexuals, let's get busy and get rid of laws banning their marriage. Then they won't be fornicating without benefit of wedlock.
Language and logic?
How can we agree on common treatment when there is no common definition.
Sounds like a "seperation of church and state" issue.
Personally, I say get the state out of the business altogether. Mary Lincoln didn't need one to be married to Abe, Mary Washington didn't need one to be married to George.
Civil Marriage is a legal contract that creates kinship and family. It can only be entered into by two people who are legally competent to sign a contract, and who are not already family as defined by the marriage law. It creates a certain set of rights, benefits, obligations,. and responsibilities, also defined and enforced by law.
Churches, as agents of the state, may solemnize a marriage, i.e., make it legal. But it isn't necessary. But it is not legal without the official contract approved by the state.
But the state should have the foresight to be able to logically recognize that men and women were made for one another. It is simply reasonable. The love between same-sex people is a beautiful thing. But it is not the same spiritual union as that between a woman and a man.
That sounds very off putting, no doubt. But I think happiness (living life well) is stalled when people engage in certain behaviors.
Also, what do you mean by, "get past your obvious religious teaching." Are you suggesting I should hide it?
Remove terminology associated with religious beliefs or cultural traditions from state and federal law. Use tradition-neutral terminology to describe and define the secular benefits and protections established by a secular union.
Individuals and organizations are welcome to go down to their club houses and do as much "marriage" as they can stomach, using whatever definitions as requirements they prefer. The legal benefits and protections formerly associated with that common English-language word become available to all law-abiding, tax-paying similarly situated adults without anyone having a tantrum about their religious beliefs or cultural traditions.
What kind of person cares more about a smudge of printer ink on a seculat, government-issued legal document than then law-abiding neighbors' Fourteenth Amendment RIGHT to Equal Protection of the Laws?
UTAH—Hypocrisy Elevated
Here in HATU--Please set your clocks back 60 years--many members of the One and Only True Green Jell-O Fan Club sincerely believe that they OWN that particular, common English-language word.