The Los Angeles Times had a lot of coverage over the last several days about the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles selecting an unrepentant, openly practicing sinner to a bishop position.

The church I attend welcomes everyone. However, someone will not be placed (or allowed to remain) in a position of power or leadership if he or she continues to openly engage in the same sin, refusing to repent. This is about more than sexual behavior with someone other than your partner in holy matrimony. It is about Biblical authority. The church is not a social club. It is there to make disciples, draw them closer to the Lord, and to serve those in need.

How can a pastor counsel someone to turn from their sin when they are openly sinning themselves?

Duke Helfand had this blog entry.

"Dee" hit the nail on the head December 04, 2009 at 09:39 AM:

I'm confused...an organization whose purpose is to shepherd its followers in the way of the lord as revealed in the bible is choosing to elect "shepherds" who openly defy those teachings? Wouldn't that be like the democracy of the United States electing communists and fascists as its leaders? I have nothing against gays or even, in some cases, communists or fascists, but they should not seek to infiltrate and, eventually, pervert, the meaning of organizations whose beliefs are opposed to theirs. They could start their own religions, governments, etc. based on what they believe. That is, of course, what they would do if they were honest in their desire to worship God in their own way and not just activists trying to mess with the system. But what can you expect from a religion formed on a king's wish to divorce his wife?

Some people say that the Anglican Church’s split from the Roman Catholic Church was more complicated than that, but no doubt that simplistic perception assists all sorts of departures from tradition.

"Elizabeth" wrote December 04, 2009 at 10:47 AM:

I have nothing against intolerant so-called christians who prostrate themselves in idolatry before a BOOK written by men for men (Christ's message can be found therein but mostly in spite, rather than because, of its many writers and later-to-come manipulators/translators), but they should not have perverted the teachings of the original teacher: love one another.

Since the Bible is a "book written by men for men", I wonder how Elizabeth knows exactly what Christ's message is or isn't? Is she simply picking what she likes and calling that Christ's message?

"pasadena jag" wrote December 04, 2009 at 11:23 AM:

It amazes me how the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles can get so much media attention. They barely have 70,000 members - with probably close to 20,000 attending each Sunday.

Good point. I think we know why the Los Angeles Times gives them so much attention. Meanwhile, churches that teach the whole Bible, including the parts about sex being for marriage and the reality of Hell, are growing.

"Jack", referring to condemnations of nonmarital sexual or pseudosexual behavior, wrote December 04, 2009 at 12:59 PM:

I am so sick of this "pick and choose" christianity.

It's called systematic theology based on a study of the whole Bible. Elizabeth is the one who is "picking and choosing".

Duke Helfand and Larry B. Stammer had this article.

Larry Stammer had this blog entry.

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles today elected the first openly gay bishop since the national church lifted a ban that sought to bar gays and lesbians from the church's highest ordained ministry.

This is not accurate. The problem isn't that someone has a certain "orientation". It is the practice of certain behaviors that is the issue. I dare say that many of the "conservative" congregants would be supportive of having a leader who refrains from acting on certain feelings. Who better to preach to us how to defeat temptation?

"Thomas Leavitt" wrote December 05, 2009 at 04:35 PM:

It appears that the Episcopal Church is capable of evaluating a person based on their qualifications, not their gender or sexual orientation.

Ah, yes, qualifications...

1 Timothy 3:1-7: "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

1 Timothy 3:8-13: "Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Titus 1:5-9: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."

Let me know when you find the clear Biblical teachings that rescind those passages or the parts of the Bible that teach that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites a bride and a groom.

Larry Stammer had this blog entry.

Larry B. Stammer and Paul Pringle had this article.

Duke Helfand had this blog entry, noting that the Archbishop of Canterbury wasn't supportive.

Duke Helfand and Carla Rivera have this article in today's edition, examining the Archbishop's statement.

It is good to see the paper is keeping those vast numbers of homosexual Episcopalians informed, and letting the rest of us know where not to attend church.

Hey! Church leadership! The Los Angeles Times editorial board has some advice for you. And considering how newspapers are losing their subscribers, what better place to get your advice on how to run your church and what you should believe when it comes to God?

Last weekend, the paper ran this editorial regarding the outreach of the Roman Catholic Church to Anglicans who do not want to abandon the Bible or tradition when it comes to sexual behavior.

This week's announcement that the Roman Catholic Church will welcome disaffected Anglicans en masse is of primary interest to members of the two Christian communions.

But that won't stop the editorial board from butting in.

But this religious realignment is also a reminder to supporters of equality for women and gays and lesbians that they must literally preach to the converted if they are to win believers to their cause.

I'm not aware of any RCC teaching or policy that says women and those with homosexual feelings are somehow unequal to men or those without homosexual feelings.

But Benedict's action is part of a formidable religious backlash against gay rights that isn't confined to the pulpit; witness the lobbying by some religious leaders against same-sex civil marriages.

They think it is okay to actually believe and live out your convictions – as long as you stay within the walls of your church. Well, not really. They want to tell you how to do it inside your own church, too.

Marriage defense is about marriage, family, and society, not about denying any rights to anybody.

Under the 1st Amendment, churches in this country can't be forced to alter their doctrine or to stop preaching against the supposed immorality of homosexuality.

Too bad for you.

Even so, supporters of gay rights in particular -- many of them Christians -- should try to dispel the notion that belief in God is incompatible with full equality for gays and lesbians.

I believe in God, and I believe people who engage in homosexual behavior are doing something wrong. But that doesn’t make them inequal.

Now as before the pope's action, Christians can be reminded -- as they have been by both Anglican and Catholic theologians -- that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and that church leaders, including popes, have changed their thinking over the years about everything from usury to the culpability of Jews for the Crucifixion to the desirability of religious tolerance.

I see. If the church teaching or approach on anything ever changed, that means everything must be changed?

As far as "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality” – that is an argument that has been shown to be a bad one in many ways, many, many, many, many times. And check out this for good measure.

Quickly, 1) Jesus is God, and thus Jesus affirmed what God taught, and that included things about sexual behavior and marriage - this was reaffirmed with Jesus also being a Jew who affirmed the teachings of the Scriptures - and unlike other established practices and traditions of those days, Jesus is never recorded as changing or ending or countering or clarifying the existing teachings about homosexual behavior; 2) Jesus chose and raised up Apostles and disciples who also wrote about sexual behavior and marriage under the inspiration of God (the Holy Spirit); 3) Jesus spoke about the two sexes and the practice of them cleaving to each other.

This editorial features "sleight of words". Disapproval - and therefore refusal to endorse and celebrate – homosexual behavior is presented as identical to denying the equality of people who identify as homosexuals. Guess what? My church removed someone from a teaching position because he was engaged in adultery (= who he chose to engage in sex with). This man was attracted to this other woman. Does that mean the church denies the equality of men?

The Los Angeles Times should stop treating churches like they are mere social clubs that would benefit from their hip advice. That may be the way the editorial board sees churches, and they are free to express their opinions, but they’re just being silly. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else how to make their gay pride parade better.

Looks like Anglicans not happy with the direction of their denomination will find it easier to be accepted into the Roman Catholic Church. Associated Press writer Nicole Winfield has the story.

The Vatican announced a stunning decision Tuesday to make it easier for Anglicans to convert, reaching out to those who are disaffected by the election of women and gay bishops to join the Catholic Church's conservative ranks.

It is not simply "gay bishops". It is a matter of putting people in places of leadership who openly and unrepentantly violate Biblical morality in their behavior, the mocking of marriage, and the celebrating of those two things.

Pope Benedict XVI approved a new church provision that will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining many of their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions, including having married priests.

I wonder what traditional Roman Catholics think about that?

The new Catholic church entities, called personal ordinariates, will be units of faithful established within local Catholic Churches, headed by former Anglican prelates who will provide spiritual care for Anglicans who wish to be Catholic.

They would most closely resemble Catholic military ordinariates, special units of the church established in most countries to provide spiritual care for the members of the armed forces and their dependents.

Interesting.

Anglicans split with Rome in 1534 when English King Henry VIII was refused a marriage annulment.

I know that’s the standard, drive-by schoolbook portrayal of the situation, but would Anglicans describe it that way? I'm not an Anglican or a Roman Catholic, and I haven't really been keeping up on the finer points of the differences in their practice and doctrines. While my basic first impression is, "Hey, now that Henry is long dead, why can't they get back together?" But there's a lot more history than that.

The new canonical provision allows married Anglican priests and even seminarians to become ordained Catholic priests - much the same way that Eastern rite priests who are in communion with Rome are allowed to be married. However, married Anglicans couldn't become Catholic bishops.

In contrast, it is strongly expected in "evangelical" Protestant circles that the leaders and teachers be married.

Despite the "separation of church and state", a government court battle has resulted in breakaway "conservative" Episcopalian congregations having to hand over the property they’ve held for decades to the local diocese. The Los Angeles Times ran two stories in recent days on this happening with St. Luke’s Anglican Church in La Crescenta, in Los Angeles County. Duke Helfand had the "before" story, on the upcoming transfer of the property.

The diocese sued to retain St. Luke's property after the congregation voted overwhelmingly in 2006 to leave it and the national Episcopal Church over theological differences, including the consecration of a gay bishop in New Hampshire.

It is more than that. It is the refusal to adhere to clear Biblical authority and teaching when it comes to sexual behavior. By placing those who unrepentantly engage in homosexual behavior in power, and celebrating homosexual behavior with ceremonies, the denomination is going against what it has considered Scripture, as well as tradition. The Bible teaches that sex is for marriage, and that marriage unites a bride and a groom. That may be inconvenient for a lot of people, but convenience should not determine church teaching.

Oh, and if Scripture doesn't have authority, then why should I get up out of bed on a Sunday morning to make it to church? I should do what I feel like doing, right? And most of the time, I feel like sleeping in. This is exactly how a lot of denominations lose people.

The dispute at St. Luke's is part of a larger conflict in the national Episcopal Church that has pitted theological liberals and conservatives against one another over issues of biblical authority and the role of gays in the church.

Last year, four breakaway Episcopal dioceses and dozens of parishes formed the rival Anglican Church in North America. St. Luke's joined the new church last summer.

The exodus of traditionalist congregations has produced similar property disputes around the country, among them one in Fallbrook in the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego.

It is too bad that these congregations can't get some "alimony" in this "divorce", seeing as how they have contributed over the years.

Here is the "after" story, reporting on how it went on Sunday, by Ari B. Bloomekatz.

Holman told the congregation that fighting for their principles is more important than a building, and that God has greater plans in store for them.

Amen. Look, there are churches out there who start our meeting in the buildings of other churches, or in a local strip mall, or a home. And they grow and either buy a campus (usually from a shrinking "liberal" church), or build their own. This has happened over and over again, because they stick to their principles. So this congregation can definitely continue, and thrive, and the diocese can figure out what they're going to do with their empty buildings.

I do not belong to any Anglican organization. But I observe all of this with keen interest, as you can tell from some of my previous coverage.

The Los Angeles Times, that great theological journal, continues to cover the homosexuality advocacy within the Episcopal Church.  As if there was any doubt, their editorial board makes it clear that they are very happy.

But its recent pronouncements indicating support for openly gay bishops and church blessings for same-sex couples will have reverberations beyond that church, beyond Christianity and even beyond religion.

Most likely it will mean fewer members for the liberal churches and more fighting within the Anglican denominations.

For all the theological issues it raises, acceptance of gays and lesbians at the altar reflects -- and affects -- the campaign for equality in the larger society.

There is a slight of hand being used here.  My church accepts homosexual people.  It does not condone, let alone celebrate, homosexual behavior.  There is a difference.

One resolution calls for a "renewed pastoral response from this church, and for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same-gender relationships."

Yes, but based on what?  Certainly not anything in the Bible or in church tradition.

The other affirms that God has called gays and lesbians to "any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church."

Again, based on what?  Warm and fuzzy feelings from the members voting on the matter?

Actually, Episcopalians already have seen an acrimonious parting of the ways between the national church and bishops and faithful who have aligned themselves with churches in Africa and South America that have more conservative (and in some cases crude) views about human sexuality.

It is crude to believe that sex is for marriage?

One could dismiss the fissure in the Anglican Communion as a purely internal matter that turns on theological issues of little import to non-Anglicans or non-Christians, such as whether the church's policy toward homosexuality should be guided by Jesus' seeming lack of interest in the subject or the condemnations of homosexuality in the Old Testament and the writings of St. Paul.

This argument from silence on the part of Jesus is ridiculous.  The assumption of Jesus' day among religious authorities and the faithful was that sex was for marriage, marriage united the sexes, and any sexual activity with someone other than your spouse was a sin.  If Jesus challenged such notions, then it is far more likely that would have been noted in writings more than some of the other things actually recorded.  After all, Jesus did challenge some notions of those in authority and common notions, and it was recorded.  However, what is recorded is that Jesus affirmed what we call the Old Testament as the Word of God.

They go on to equate this homosexuality advocacy push in the denomination with ordaining women, before finishing with...

Supporters of Proposition 8 weren't the only ones to cloak prejudice with piety.

Who is prejudging?  It takes a bride and a groom to make marriage.  If we want our state marriage licensing to reflect that, we are not prejudging.  The church is not to affirm and celebrate sinful behavior.  That is not prejudging.

Duke Helfand has more than one version of his story on the latest actions within the church posted online.  This is the shorter (earlier) version.  And here's the blog entry.

Episcopal Church leaders in Los Angeles today nominated an openly gay priest and an openly lesbian priest as bishops, becoming one of the first dioceses in the national church to test a controversial new policy that lifted a de facto ban on gays and lesbians in the ordained hierarchy.

The nominations of the Rev. John L. Kirkley of San Francisco and the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool of a Baltimore-based diocese are likely to further inflame theological conservatives in the U.S. church and their global partners in the Anglican Communion, who have repeatedly warned about the repercussions of such action.

The two are among six nominees who will face election for two assistant bishop posts at the diocese's annual December convention in Riverside.

I want to know when "open" atheists will get a fair shake in being put into positions of power and leadership in the church.

In addition to Kirkley and Glasspool, the other nominees are: the Rev. Canon Diane M. Jardine Bruce of St. Clement's by-the-Sea Episcopal Church in San Clemente; the Rev. Zelda M. Kennedy of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena; the Rev. Irineo Martir Vasquez of St. George's Episcopal Church in Hawthorne; and the Rev. Silvestre E. Romero of St. Philip's Episcopal Church in San Jose.

The action in Los Angeles followed a similar decision Saturday by leaders in the Diocese of Minnesota, who nominated a partnered lesbian as bishop. The Rev. Bonnie Perry is rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Chicago and an adjunct professor at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Ill. Her longtime partner is a priest in the church.

On the one hand, I think it is kind of silly the paper keeps giving this so much attention.  On the other hand, I like how it helps warn those who are looking for a church.

One of the main purposes of a Christian church is to make disciples who will grow in their walk with Jesus.  Part of this involves repenting of sin - which means that although you may still struggle with it, you no longer call it right.  These people appear to be treating the church like a social club that also happens to be a charity.  The Bible clearly teaches that sex is for marriage (believe me, I've looked for a way around that) and that marriage is something that unites the sexes.  Any sexual behavior with someone other than your spouse is sinful.

Some people have a rather lame retort to these truths, citing other teachings in the Old Testament that they don't like or seem strange today, forgetting that some things are given in the Bible to a specific person or people for a certain time and with certain conditions.  Other things are given to all and reaffirmed as lasting.  One of the lasting things that applies to all is that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes.  No church that uses the Bible as Scripture should be affirming, let along celebrating, homosexual behavior, or fornication, or adultery.  It doesn't matter how depraved the surround culture gets.  If anything, the church should be doing more to defend and promote morality the more the culture deviates from it.

As for the editorial writers and other homosexuality advocates - they don't really believe the Bible has any authority, though they may cite passages here and there that they like.  The worldview being used appears to be one that is not Christocentric, but rather focused on their own personal feelings and tastes.

Church membership in our country is strictly voluntary.  It is too bad that the homosexuality advocates couldn't stick with churches that seem to have been expressly created for unrepentant homosexuality participants ("metropolitan").  Perhaps more Episcopalians need to think about finding another church, or realigning their congregation with Bible-affirming Anglican organizations.  If the church is willing to abandon the Bible on this matter, what will be next?

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has said that recent moves by the Episcopalians towards celebrating unrepentant sin might necessitate changes the role of the Episcopalians.  Duke Helfand of the Los Angeles Times has the story.

Williams, spiritual leader of the communion, spoke of a "two-tier" or "two-track" model -- one path for those who remain part of the communion's "covenantal structure," and another with "fewer formal expectations" for those who value autonomy.

Uh, I know I'm probably oversimplifying here, but aware Roman Catholics are probably getting a chuckle out of all of this, seeing as how the Anglican Church got to be a separate deal from the RCC.

Episcopalians greeted Williams' letter with a range of emotions. Some criticized him, saying his proposals would relegate their church to second-class status.

Maybe they’re right.  Maybe he should try to get the Episcopalians kicked out entirely.

If the Anglican Church is going to be serious about making Christian disciples, it can't have entire branches celebrating what is clearly sinful behavior (according to the Bible) as a matter of policy.

Good news for the marriage neutering advocates.  Eric Carpenter has an article in the Orange County Register.

Episcopal priest Ernie Bennett doesn't see eye-to-eye with Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop, on where the Episcopal Church is moving on gay issues…"We agreed that even if we disagree on this, we live in the same family and will love and respect each other no matter what," said Bennett, 66, a priest in Florida for 41 years.

Well that’s great Ernie, but the fact is that Gene and his cohorts have taken your denomination a direction that puts it directly in conflict with the Bible.  So, while you are making nice, Gene and his buddies are taking your contributions and using them to promote destructive sin in the very place that should be fighting sin.  What's worse is that they have shown that the denomination is willing to go against Scripture for the sake of letting the culture transform it.

Earlier in the week, bishops voted 104-30 to draft an official prayer for same-sex couples based on "theological resources and liturgies," and sent that plan to the committee of clergy and lay members for a final vote.

I'd like to see those.  The only things I can find call for repentance.

The move was widely applauded by Episcopalians attending the convention. But some say it will most certainly increase friction between the denomination and the Anglican Church in England, which has frowned upon the increased acceptance of [unrepentant homosexual behavior].

We must remember that nothing is more important than affirming homosexual behavior.  What’s next?  Promoting abortion?

"I think we need to move forward with the way the church responds to the needs of gay and lesbian people, especially considering the way civil courts and many elections are going on those issues," said the Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, which includes Orange County parishes.

Isn't that what Jesus said?  "Model the church after what Caesar and the Roman courts do."  Yeah, I think that’s right there in 1st Illusions 3:16.

Many elections?!?  Which ones???

On Thursday, Robinson told a Register reporter he was pleased to see his fellow bishops moving forward on addressing issues important to gays and lesbians.

Well, sure, after all, they make up so much of the church and the general population.  Let's reorganize everything to cater to their feelings.

"I'm delighted to see the church moving forward."

It's great to move forward - unless you are heading over a cliff.

Duke Helfand has the Los Angeles Times article.

Jefferts Schori also said she believes that the tensions between the church and some Anglicans are less the result of theological differences than varying social norms in different regions of the world.

Have you stopped to consider that you are sacrificing sound theology for the social norms of Leftist Americans?  Pot and kettle?

Opponents questioned whether the large majorities of Episcopal bishops and deputies who embraced the liberalized policies had been moved by cultural trends rather than biblical authority, noting that the Bible defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Thank you.

Here are a couple of comments on the paper's blog entry on the matter.

"Norman" wrote:

Loving and respecting all of God's children, be they gay or straight, is neither liberal nor conservative. It is God's will.

Loving and respecting is different from supporting certain behaviors.  In fact, our love and respect requires us to discourage sin.

God made us all equally and blesses all forms of love

I'm interested in the definition of "love" here.  What about an adulterous affair?

The Biblical passages referring to gays being an abomination are outdated, irrelevant and obviously written by man.

1) It is homosexual behavior that the Bible condemns, not people. 2) Why would such passages be outdated by not the passages about God’s blessings? 3) What makes them irrelevant? 4) How you do know those passages are any less inspired than the passages about God’s blessings?

The Episcopal Church just gained thousands of more members…

We’ll see.  History says otherwise.

"DB Hendriks" wrote:

As far as we know, by reading scripture, He never spoke a word about homosexuality.

This is an argument from supposed silence.  It fails for many reasons.  But here is a good start.

Here are some past entries on this blog about related matters.

Here are some past entries on The Opine Editorials about related matters.

How long before this post ends up on the "cotton swab" website?

Duke Helfand has today's Los Angeles Times story from the Episcopalian convention in Anaheim.

Bishops, clergy and lay leaders voted overwhelmingly at the denomination's General Convention in Anaheim to open "any ordained ministry" to gays and lesbians.

I don’t think this really gives the clear story on what is going on.  What the church is doing, unless I'm missing something, is refusing to hold leaders accountable for openly, actively, unrepentantly engaging homosexual behavior.

Meanwhile, the Bible makes it clear that sex is for marriage, and marriage unites the sexes.  As such, it is inescapable  that the Bible teaches homosexual behavior (like any sexual activity with someone who is not one's spouse) is sinful.  How can church leaders be supported in being unrepentantly sinful?

The liberalized policy represents a reversal from guidelines adopted by the church at its last convention in 2006 that effectively prohibited the consecration of bishops whose "manner of life" would strain relations with the 77-million member Anglican Communion.

They should have stuck with that.

"Being an Episcopalian means you can disagree and still worship together," said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles. "We're going to leave the door open for all those who disagree with us to find a place here and peace here."

"Hey, you’re still welcome to come here and pay your tithes and offerings, even though we mock your convictions as official policy."  Uh, yeah.

But the measure also affirms that "God has called" gays and lesbians in partnered relationships to "any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church," adding that the call "is a mystery which the church attempts to discern for all people."

Please show Biblical support for this claim.  Smells to me like a claim to revelation.  The Bible has very strict standards for prophets.  Lying in the name of God is not taken lightly.

There could still be more bad news from the convention.  It will be interesting to watch the denomination continue to shrink.

Jessica Garrison reports in the Los Angeles Times that marriage neutering advocates are split on whether or not to take their campaign to the 2010 California ballot.  Some of the activists think it would be too soon and they don’t want to risk losing at the ballot again.  Any ballot measure to repeal the California Marriage Amendment would be the first time that they tried a ballot measure instead of carefully crafted courtroom maneuvering - at least in California.

Ron Buckmire, president of the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, one of the groups that signed the statement issued Monday, said the need for more time was made clear to him this weekend when his group went door to door to talk to voters about same-sex marriage in South Los Angeles.

"It was a huge success. We had 70 volunteers, working for five hours, knocked on 1,200 doors," he said. But after all that, they identified only 50 voters who moved in their direction.

Marriage defenders should also be reaching out to reinforce the importance of preserving marriage and teaching people how to deflect the pleadings of those calling for marriage neutering.  They don't need to allow someone to stand in their doorway badgering them with pleas to emotion.  Any California same-sex couple can get a domestic partnership, which in California means they will be treated as they they are spouses.

Also at LATimes.com - Duke Helfand reports that the Episcopal Church, at their Anaheim convention, is moving closer to having its leadership endorse marriage neutering, endorse the practicing of brideless or groomless "wedding" ceremonies, and affirming bishops who unrepentantly and openly practice homosexual behavior.  Finalizing such moves would cause further fracturing in the Anglican denomination.

What really matters, apparently, is not fidelity to Scripture or tradition, but that a tiny minority of the membership has their feelings, urges, and behaviors esteemed.

The Los Angeles Times had a few different items relating to the push to neuter marriage.

First up is this article by Molly Hennessy-Fiske about how the Southern Christian Leadership Conference may actually hold a local leader, Reverend Eric P. Lee, accountable.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights group partly founded by Martin Luther King Jr., has threatened to fire the president of its Los Angeles chapter because he supports same-sex marriage.

Actually, he has supported court-imposed-against-the-vote-of-the-people neutered marriage licensing.

The SCLC national board notified Lee on May 27 that he would have to attend a hearing at its Atlanta headquarters on June 4 to explain his stance on same-sex marriage. If he did not show up, they said, they would suspend and fire him.

Good for the SCLC, but why is this news?  Really?  Aren't there cases every day of employees and members of organizations that are disciplined for going against the policy of the leadership?  What would happen to a local ACLU leader who was so outspoken that students should actually be able to organize prayer in a public school?

But Lee said he was driven to support same-sex marriage by the teachings of King, who helped found the SCLC to champion civil rights 50 years ago.

"Any time one group of people are denied the same rights as other people, it is unequivocally a denial of civil rights," Lee said.

Everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, has the same rights.  This argument is a red herring.  I don't seem to remember King calling for the neutering of marriage.  What, was he a bigot?

Duke Helfand covered some of a convention of Episcopalians, who are having to waste precious time dealing with homosexuality advocates who are trying to reorder the entire Anglican communion for the sake of their sexual desires.

Despite warnings about the consequences, liberal Episcopalians at the meeting are championing a flurry of resolutions to expand participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in church life, with votes expected in coming days.

I can’t imagine some dude  reading from the Scriptures that say God made them male and female while standing there after hes had their genitalia removed by a surgeon so as to appear to be female.

Among resolutions attracting attention is one from the bishop of Maine that would give priests in states where gay marriage has been legalized "generous discretion," under the direction of bishops, to adapt marriage blessings for same-sex couples.

Yes, let's follow Caesar over the Jesus.  That's a good thing for a church to do.

Other proposals call for the church to develop and authorize blessing rites for such couples, and to amend church canons so that they use gender-neutral language in reference to marriage.

Based on what?  The only condoned same-sex relationships in the Bible are strictly friendships.

Finally, the paper's editorial board chimes in on the 2010 census.

The paper is essentially saying that same-sex couples should be recognized as married and thus counted that way, and, as a result, DOMA should be discarded... because the couples were counted... and therefore recognized as married!  Circular much?

Up to now, the census has simply asked an adult member of the household about the other members and their relationships. If a male said the other adult was his wife, the census would count them as a married couple. If a male said the other adult was his husband, the computer was directed to categorize them as "unmarried partners."

Under the new rules, the computer will stop doing that, though the census probably won't classify these couples as married but as something legally safe, such as "spousal-designated same-sex couple."

I thought the census was there to count the population for the purpose of allocating Representatives?  What does it matter to the federal government what relationships exist?  Just because two people are legally married does not mean that one of them ceases to exist.  I got one of the long census forms in 2000.  The only question I answered was how many people were in my household, and their ages.

The 13-year-old Defense of Marriage Act has always been discriminatory,

All laws are discriminatory.

and now it is out of sync with the realities of a changing society.

Changing society?  Are there suddenly more homosexual people?  More homosexual couples?

With same-sex marriage legalized in six states, the District of Columbia recognizing such marriages performed elsewhere and an estimated 18,000 married gay couples living in California, what's needed aren't convoluted interpretations of the federal law but a push from President Obama for Congress to repeal it.

A handful of states recognize neutered "marriage" licensing.  However, the rest of the states and territories recognize only bride+groom unions as marriage – most of them reinforced in their stance by constitutional amendment – amendments that have passed since the 2000 census.  This claim of momentum by the marriage neutering crowd is wishful thinking.

Homosexuality advocates are causing schisms in churches.  But, hey, every person and organization must bow down at the altar of homosexual esteem, right?  Duke Helfand of the Los Angeles Times has another story about this issue.

One of the most visible denominational skirmishes will occur in July, when leaders of the 2.2-million-member Episcopal Church consider proposals at their national convention in Anaheim to sanction a religious rite for blessing same-sex unions and ease restrictions on the ordination of gay and lesbian bishops.

Where is the basis for this, either in the Bible or tradition?

Even as they acknowledge deep divisions over homosexuality, members of the 4.7-million member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will decide at their meeting in Minneapolis whether they should enable local congregations to recognize same-sex unions and allow "practicing homosexuals" in committed relationships to serve in the ministry.

What about fornicating heterosexuals?

Other Protestant groups are embroiled in similar struggles, including the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Methodist Church. Another, the American Baptist Churches USA, is scheduled to hold its biennial convention in Pasadena in June but is not expected to consider any action related to same-sex marriage, a spokeswoman said.

The Church is supposed to transform individuals and the culture, not be transformed by the culture.

"What has been emerging for the last several years is becoming even clearer now: We're on a trajectory toward the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said the Rev. Jay Johnson, a professor of theology at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley and director of academic research at its Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry.

Really?  You expect people to sit in the pews and listen to someone talk about what we ought to be doing when that person is being shot up full of hormones and having healthy body parts lobbed off in an attempt to appear to be the opposite sex?

It's not enough for the homosexuality advocates to have the schools, the courts, the media, the workplace, professional associations, and their own churches – they want your church, too.

Churches are supposed to make disciples by being spiritual hospitals for sinners, not be mutual admiration societies where sinners get together and pretend God supports their sin.  That goes for heterosexual fornicators, too.

Have you noticed that the way you get the MSM to cover church services (other than high-profile funerals) is to have a marriage-neutering advocate speaking there, or a Leftist politician?  I analyze an article covering V. Gene Robinson, Episcopalian bishop and unrepentant sin promoter, and his recent marriage neutering advocacy, over at The Opine Editorials.

Joanna Lin and Ari B. Bloomekatz of the Los Angeles Times check on how things went down yesterday in the local congregations of the Episcopalian Church, given a recent court decision that sides with the larger church against breakaway congregations.

Kowalewski read a letter from the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, the bishop of the Los Angeles diocese, saying, "The Episcopal Church continues its long tradition of welcoming among its members a diversity of opinion, including loyal dissent. Our church remains a large tent expansive enough to include many views and voices while united in common prayer."

Everyone should just stick together and continue to give time and money to an organization that is going against their faith?  I don’t think so.  This isn't really about who gets appointed to what position.  It is about whether or not the Bible is the authority.

Another parishioner, Dan Justin, 36, said he recently finished seminary and is in the process of becoming a priest. But his path to the pulpit has not been easy. Years ago, he said, he was thrown out of religious training at a nondenominational church in St. Louis because he was gay.

Was it really because "he is gay", or was it because he rejected in his profession and his practice the Biblical teaching that sex is for marriage?  I don’t know the guy, so I don't know.  But there is a difference.  My church welcomes people who identify as homosexual, and even let's them teach, as long as they identify above all as followers of Christ and submit to His restrictions on human behavior.

If the Bible is our Scripture, we need a better reason to ignore a part of it than "this is what I want."  If you want to do whatever you want without confirming to and outside standard, perhaps you shouldn't bother even going to a church.  Christ calls us to follow Him, not to remain as we were.

Their editorial board goes all-out to shill for marriage neutering in a formal endorsement.

It's the same sentence as in 2000: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different.

Yeah, this time we’ve already had four judges work to overturn our will as voters and thousands of years of human understanding and practice.

This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry.

Where is this “right” found in the constitution?

We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8.

Well that’s been painfully obvious for a long time now.

The state of [neutering] marriage shifted in May, when the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, the [affirmation of] marriage that voters approved eight years ago, and ruled that marriage was a fundamental right under the state Constitution.

Even if that were true, everyone had access to that “right” before the court ruling.

Proposition 8 seeks to embed wording in the Constitution that would eliminate the fundamental right to…marriage.

Actually, Proposition 8 seeks to restore common sense and self-government.

It's a rare and drastic step, invoking the constitutional-amendment process to strip people of rights.

Oh yes, rare and drastic… you mean like publicly flouting the laws to “wed” a brideless or groomless couple in a deliberate attempt to manipulate the courts to subvert the will of the people?

All the more reason for voters to weigh carefully what would be wrought by this measure.

Proposition 8 won’t hurt anyone, actually.  Any same-sex couple can register as domestic partners and get all of the trappings that California applies to marriage.

In a meeting with The Times' editorial board, supporters argued at length that children are best off when raised by their own biological, married mothers and fathers. Even if that were true -- and there is much room for dispute -- this measure in no way moves society closer to such a traditional picture.

Sure it does.  Without Proposition 8, it will be the official policy and teachings of the state (which runs schools) that there is no difference to the state between a couple with only one of the sexes or a couple with both of the sexes.  Clearly, there is a difference.  One is how we all got here.  One is the only kind of couple that naturally produces new citizens.  One has been the foundation for ordering society through all of history. The same can’t be said for the other.  Without Proposition 8, the state’s default position is that marriage can’t be about children.

But notice that the people in control of the content at the Los Angeles Times can’t even grasp the painfully obvious – that all other things being equal, a child is best off with a mother and a father who are married to each other.

Gay and lesbian couples already are raising their own children and will continue to do so, as will single parents and adoptive and blended families.

Wrong.  Gay and lesbian couples are raising children that they did not bring into this world as a couple.  Either one of them made that child with a prior partner of the opposite sex, or they used at least one third party and medical technology to intentionally bring that child into a situation where there is either a father or a mother missing.

Using the supporters' own reasoning, it would be better for same-sex parents to marry.

Actually, it would be better if people didn’t make babies outside of a stable marriage to a capable, devoted person of the opposite sex in the first place.

Still, there are differences. Some are statutory -- domestic partners must share a residence, while married couples can live separately

Okay, so do you want to extend the legal trappings of marriage to people who never live together?  I bet you aren’t in favor of extending marriage licenses to platonic roommates.  So the conclusion here is that you want the state to issue marriage licenses because two people are engaging in sodomy, which contributes nothing to society, unlike coitus.

-- and others are pragmatic -- studies have found that domestic partners do not receive the same treatment or recognition from hospital staff, employers and the public as spouses do.

Sorry, but neutering marriage licenses for this reason is like burning down a house because there was some termite damage found.  What happens when people still tilt their head when a man claim’s to be another man’s husband?  Will we have to step up school and workplace “sensitively training” laws?

The fact is, California treats domestic partners as spouses.  If there is a problem with someone in a workplace or hospital, it is a problem with that person or the training at that facility.

But it was Ronald M. George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who cut through to the essence of the issue in the May 15 opinion he wrote: "[A]ffording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."

You can’t force dignity into a situation.  Marriage carries with it things that existed long before the State of California, and no judge can force those things to magically appear between two men or two women.  It’s like saying that “The sun now rises in the west.”  Well, okay… you can pretend it does.  It does not make it so.

In other words, the very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry -- traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment -- by definition relegates them and their relationships to second-class status, separate and not all that equal.

Actually, in most places, through most of history, marriage has not been about “love” – at least not as the paper is using the word.  And there is still no “love test” when you go to get a marriage license.  There never was.  Their arguments continue to be so much slight of hand and shifting definitions and demanding mutually exclusive rights, such as the right to privacy at the same time as a right to public affirmation.

The relationships are not equal - by their very nature.  One contains both sexes and is therefore a microcosm of society.  The other one excludes one of the sexes.  It isn’t the place of the government to slap approval or recognition on “love” between two adults.  The law deals with facts, like whether someone is male or female.

Whites in the South vehemently rejected the 1954 Supreme Court decision to desegregate schools. For that matter, Californians have accused the state Supreme Court of obstructing the people's will on marriage before -- in 1948, when it struck down a ban on interracial marriages.

Again with the false comparison.  Marriage has always, in every religion, in every state, in every country, all through history – been recognized as uniting the sexes – until very recently in a few places.  “Interracial” marriages were banned in a few – not all- states.  There is hardly a comparison.

Fundamental rights are exactly that.

And this is not a fundamental right.  Notice that nobody had to cooperate or give you your fundamental right to free speech when you woke up this morning.  In contrast, with state-licensed marriage, you have to find an eligible, consenting person to agree to marry you, and then you have to go ask the people of California for a license.

Now, marriage licensing has been changed for EVERYONE.  It wasn’t that same-sex couples were given access to marriage licensing – it was that marriage licensing was neutered for everyone so that neither brides or grooms are recognized or honored.  Glad I got a real marriage license.

Then they go on to comment about how homosexuality advocacy is causing problems for Anglicans.

Still, tensions were evident between liberal bishops from North America and conservative ones from the "Global South." The archbishop of Sudan demanded the resignation of Gene Robinson, the openly gay New Hampshire bishop whose ordination in 2003 was the casus belli of the crisis. A female bishop from the United States suggested that "many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife."

You see, wanting your CHRISTIAN church to adhere to clear teachings of the CHRISTIAN Bible is akin to approval of wife-beating, apparently.

The dispute among Anglicans may seem a strictly religious argument, turning on whether biblical prohibitions of homosexuality should be interpreted literally or softened, as scriptural condemnations of divorce have been without much protest from conservatives.

Churches should definitely enforce standards about divorce.  But there is little the church can do other than 1) refusing to perform a marriage when one person should reconcile with their former spouse, or 2) kick out the offending divorcee.  But divorce is a different issue.  The Bible teaches that sex is for marriage, and that marriage unites a man and a woman.  A Christian church should no more “soften” a stance against homosexual behavior than it should on unmarried fornication or adultery.

Then we get this doozy:

In the culture wars, there is no separation of church and state.

Hmmm.  Interesting.  Have they tipped their hand?  My guess is that they will use such thinking to insist that churches should not be able to refuse to perform state-licensed marriages.

Well, there’s another example, like with the UMC, of where homosexuality advocates are trying to get the church to pick and choose which Biblical teachings to follow.  Everyone else is supposed to sacrifice their faith, their intuition, their needs, their traditions on the altar of homosexually-induced orgasms and esteeming the sinner.