We are one vote away from same sex marriage in New York.
I am an Episcopal Priest in New York, watching, more than a little excited. The Episcopal Church is one of the churches that has come out in full support of the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, including the right to constitute family with a same sex partner.
I am writing to make only one point. State recognition of same sex marriage is about freedom, an all-American value, more libertarian than liberal. It is about removing a state imposed barrier in the construction of family.
As human beings, and specifically as persons of faith, we organize ourselves as families based upon values much more profound than simply the code of law of the country we happen to inhabit. As followers of Jesus our standards for relationship are quite high and often distinct from any legal requirements. The law does not require fidelity, love, skill in communication, or signs of a healthy relationship. The church increasingly requires articulation and signs of those kinds of qualities in relationship before blessing a marriage or relationship.
As a church we hold quite a diversity of opinions on this subject, but as a church we have not allowed those who hold one opinion to restrict the freedoms of other people. That is quite the opposite of what those who oppose gay marriage are trying to do. They are trying to maintain a level of discrimination, historic and traditional discrimination, but discrimination, a restriction on freedom enshrined in law that now also violates our common understanding of human sexual identity as diversely ordered in the human experience.
Episcopalians are often quite traditional and deliberate in our approach. We often do not make change quickly, and when we do, we do so informed by our tradition. We are proud of our tradition of holding human dignity and reason, our capacity to take in new information and respond faithfully, as foundational values undergirded by the teachings of Jesus as known to us in the Bible.
Marriage between members of the same sex reflects a new understanding of human beings and human sexuality. The law must change to reflect new truths, which should inform how we approach our scripture and tradition. In light of our newly formed understanding and respect for the experience of gay and lesbian persons, same sex marriage is a matter of civil rights, an increase in a fundamental freedom for a group oppressed by outdated, biased legislation.
For those religious leaders who are afraid, you will not be required to marry someone of the same sex. For those of you who have waited too long, our church hopes and prays with you.
Follow Rev. Winnie Varghese on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wsvarghese
James Peron: NOM Poll On Same-Sex Marriage Skewed To Get Results NOM Wanted
New York Senate Republicans undecided about whether to allow same-sex marriage ...
Could Obama 'Evolve' All the Way to Gay Marriage Equality Next Week in New York?
NY Archbishop Dolan Warns of Communist Threat from Same-Sex Marriage, Says It ...
Same-Sex Marriage Gains on Both Coasts
A California Bankruptcy Court Rejects US Law Barring Same-Sex Marriage
Some people still thump the Bible to oppose, but are they consistent in obeying ALL commands?
http://www.11points.com/books/11_things_the_bible_bans,_but_you_do_anyway
Rom 1:27~ And 5037 likewise 3668 also 2532 the men 730, leaving 863 the natural 5446 use 5540 of the woman 2338, burned 1572 in 1722 their 846 lust 3715 one toward another 1519 240; men 730 with 1722 men 730 working 2716 that which is unseemly 808, and 2532 receiving 618 in 1722 themselves 1438 that recompence 489 of their 846 error 4106 which 3739 was meet 1163 .
Lexicon Results
Strong's G5446 - physikos
φυσικός
Transliteration
physikos
Pronunciation
fü-sē-ko's (Key)
Part of Speech
adjective
Root Word (Etymology)
From φύσις (G5449)
TDNT Reference
9:251,1283
Vines
View Entry
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) produced by nature, inborn
2) agreeable to nature
3) governed by (the instincts of) nature
lexicon results
strong's g5540 - chrēsis
χÏῆσις
Transliteration
chrēsis
Pronunciation
khrÄ'-sÄ“s (Key)
Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From χÏάομαι (G5530)
TDNT Reference
n/a
Vines
View Entry
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) use
a) of the sexual use of a woman
Otherwise, I can point to the "institution" of the Bridal Chorus processional as a necessary component of modern marriage, and blithely claim that "real" marriages have only existed a little over a century. It is stupid, and I know you know it is stupid.
But where the support for that?
Also where is your support for allowing "marriage" or union contracts to be altered or for them to contain pre-determined dates of contract termination?
That is actual equality. And that is actually want libertarians desire (sort of; the view is to let contract law deal with this instead of moral institutions from the dark ages).
So the bible is against it, but you are more intelligent than the bible? Yet you still follow it and the character of Jesus?
That I do not get. If one part of a religion is considered antiquated then maybe the whole thing should be viewed that way.
First cousin marriage is legal in most of the US. Polygamy cannot work in a contract that's structured for 2 parties. Medical proxy, inheritance, and custody laws all have to be changed to accommodate multiple party members, not to mention the unequal tax distribution this creates along with the hoarding of women by the most powerful and wealthy. None of these issues arise when removing gender restrictions from the marriage contract. No equality between the two, your comparison is faulty.
11 Fans
Become a fan
19 hours ago (12:02 AM)
"I don't think homosexualÂity is "weird," I said it was abnormal.
I just don't our society to be forced by an abnormal fraction of the country to be forced to accept it as normal."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is naturally present in over 1500 animal species including humans. Just because something isn't average, doesn't mean it's abnormal. "Abnormal" implies inappropriÂate, but all that can really be said is it's not the norm. It will never be the norm because there will always be more heterosexuÂals than homosexualÂs.
However, the same thing can be said of red-haired people, who only make up 1-2% of the worldwide populationÂ. Would you call them abnormal? Do we need to pass laws to make red-haired people normal? There are actually more gay people than red-haired people. Why should red-haired people get equal rights and not gay people?
Left-handeÂd people are also not the norm. There are about as many gay people as there are left-handeÂd people. Should it be necessary for the country to try to make left handed people the norm? Should left-handeÂd people be required to conform to what's normal because they can learn a different behavior (of right handednessÂ)?
Left-handeÂd people, red-haired people, and gay people are just subsets across a broad spectrum of human phenotypesÂ. None of them are abnormal, just not the average.
Also arguments of "natural" are rather useless. How natural is anything that humans do now? Clothes? Computers?
Additionally it ignores motives and reasons for behaviors. Humans have much more choice in why they act. Especially with regard to sex. Sex for humans is generally not about procreation nor a result of natural cycles.
I question the implication of value judgments in the above too. "'Abnormal' implies inappropriate", huh? No, it states a variation from the norm. (Which also leads to questions of categorization of human variation, but Huffington Post is not a place for intelligent type discussions.)
It's quite apparent you were using the term in a negative fashion, you followed it up with a textbook "morality" phrase about "society not endorsing..." Were you really using the statistical terms you claim to be, you'd called them outliers.
They are, as you say "progress(ing) in faith, and receiv(ing) the Spirit of God, and bring(ing) forth the fruit thereof" etc. And they are LGBT. It seems that they are showing more of the Love of God, as Jesus taught, than those who would deny that they are Children of God.
Suppose, just suppose, as a cruel joke a warden issued valid marriage certificates to every pair of cell sharing inmates, whether each of those inmates wanted it or not. We're pretending they are valid. Would the existence of that warden's actions diminish the sanctity, if you will, of a real couple? I say yes.
People that would shop around to find a church that would "accept" them or some rubbish.
You cannot deny part of a religion while accepting other parts. It makes absolutely no sense at all. It is fun to be a member of a group, but it is not necessary.
As a "historian" I am sure that you are aware that legal grouping arrangements change over time and are not standardized across the various peoples of the world.
In western society marriage is entirely religious/moral. Two parties? Morality. No pre-determined end date? Morality. No adding or removing parties? Morality. No incest? Morality. You may be able to make an argument that these moral views are not wholly derived from religion, but that does not make it any less of an affront to the concept of liberty.
Actually there was plenty of inbreeding, but that was because of a lack of partners in some places (your poor ancestors living outside of a small town) or views that related partners were better (your royalty and what not).
It's not "GAY MARRIAGE" It's "MARRIAGE EQUALITY".
You do not support equality. You claim equality to hide your own selfish intentions.
This is a SECULAR country after all.
Wait... huh?
None of that makes any sense!!
I'm glad to see so many Episcopalians joining the movement to bring America more in line with the moral values we made a commitment to at our founding. Good luck to you and your church, Rev. Varghese.
If this is about respecting and understanding human sexuality, and it there is a "B" in LGBT, then denying bi-sexual triads the right to form a loving family is a form of hateful discrimination. You can't have it both ways.