Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:57:49 PM
...and lose one in the California Supreme Court.
The Los Angeles Times, via staff writer Duke Helfand, once again shows
that homosexuality advocates aren’t satisfied with browbeating the APA,
academia, the legislature, the courts, the media, and business – they
continue to demand that churches abandon the Bible to affirm
their choices. In this article, Helfand writes about United Methodist
Church ministers defying the Bible and their leadership to conduct
“weddings” for brideless couples and groomless couples.
Ministers in Santa
Monica, Claremont, Walnut Creek and other cities have already performed
ceremonies for gays and lesbians or are planning to do so.
In addition, 82 retired pastors
in Northern California signed a resolution in June offering to perform
such [ceremonies] on behalf of ministers who feel they can't do so
themselves.
Pastors have been emboldened by
United Methodist assemblies in California that declared their support
last month for the state Supreme Court's recent ruling [neutering
marriage licensing].
I seem to recall something about the salt losing its saltiness.
The regional assemblies -- composed of lay leaders and clergy from California and other states -- also urged pastors and congregations to "welcome, embrace and provide spiritual nurture" for gay couples.
What about threesomes? Or are they bigots?
"I'm tired of being
part of a church that lacks integrity," said the Rev. Janet Gollery
McKeithen of Santa Monica's Church in Ocean Park, who plans to conduct
weddings for two gay couples in August and September. "I love my
church, and I don't want to leave it. But I can't be part of a church
that is willing to portray a God that is so hateful. I would rather be forced out."
So now God is hateful because
He created us male and female? I don’t know about you, but I’m so
thankful He made us different. He must be a bigot, too, because He
deprived "gay couples" of the ability to procreate. How dare He! Oh,
if only there was some way He could have communicated His will.
The two bishops who oversee United Methodist churches in California -- Mary Ann Swenson and Beverly J. Shamana -- have cautioned ministers against taking matters into their own hands.
Oh, why not? It’s not like
there is a higher authority than themselves… such as church leadership
or a God or Bible or anything. I mean, if someone gets turned on by
someone else, who are we to not do everything they ask of us?
The turmoil in the
Methodist church is occurring in variations across the Protestant
landscape, with some religious authorities glimpsing what they believe
are the seeds of rifts, perhaps even schisms, in mainline denominations.
Turmoil in families, turmoil in
the courts, turmoil in the churches – everything must be sacrificed for
the sodomistic-orgasms of the few. Can’t expect people to conform to a
church they freely joined, right? It isn't like we have freedom of religion and association and any other churches in this country, like the Metropolitan ones.
At the heart of
the dispute is the Book of Discipline. The book calls the practice of
homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching and says "ceremonies
that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our
ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches."
In addition, it excludes "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" from the ministry.
Notice that there is nothing about not accepting gay people into the church – some people fail to note the difference between that and accepting ongoing behavior.
But
as defenders of [mock] marriage note, the text also says that "certain
basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are
committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual
persons."
There’s no conflict there. There is no right to be married.
Some
conservative United Methodists believe that the debate over church
rules ignores a deeper issue -- the Bible's prohibitions against
homosexuality. "We have lost any ability to have a biblical discussion
on the topic," said the Rev. John McFarland, senior pastor of Fountain
Valley United Methodist Church.
Somebody still has some sanity.
"This
is my flock," she said, adding that the men have been together 40
years, 22 of them as members of her Claremont congregation.
So
what? I could stand in a garage for 40 years and it would never make
me a car. I’ll bet there are straight fornicators who have been in
that church for a long time. That doesn’t make fornication
okay.
Meanwhile,
Los Angeles Times staff writer Maura Dolan reports that the California
Supreme Court actually made the right decision, leaving Proposition 8
on the November ballot, despite the attempt by the marriage neutering
activists to prevent the people from having their say.
"Californians
do not want their Constitution to single out people to be treated
differently," said the statement from Lambda Legal, the National Center
for Lesbian Rights, Marriage Equality and the American Civil Liberties
Union.
Uh, right. Typical lie about this issue. It’s equal access either way.
If
approved by voters, Proposition 8, called the "California Marriage
Protection Act," would add a provision to the state Constitution that
says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California."
Radical idea, I know.
After Wednesday's
decision, Kevin Norte, a lawyer who helped inspire one of the legal
arguments for removing the ballot initiative, sent friends a note
asking that in lieu of a wedding gift they donate to a campaign to
defeat the initiative.
Kevin and his longtime partner, Don
Norte, went to Tiffany's for wedding rings on the day the court
overturned the marriage ban. They plan to exchange vows this week.
"I am getting personal because I will do almost anything to save my marriage," wrote Norte, a Republican. "Wouldn't you?
And the emperor will do anything to save his new clothes. Register as domestic partners. You'll have the same legal standing in California.
My
guess is that the four justices who voted to force neutered marriage
licensing on the people of California didn’t rule to remove Prop 8 from
the ballot because they believe: 1) the Proposition will be defeated,
or 2) they or some other court will be able to somehow keep it from
being implemented or will be able to remove it. Make no mistake about
it – the marriage neutering advocates will keep trying all sorts of
courtroom maneuvers. And regardless, they’ll likely have Massachusetts
as a backup.
Related posts:
It Takes a Bride and a Groom to Make a Marriage
More on the Definition of Marriage
Prop 8 Won't Hurt Anyone, But Will Help Restore Power to the People