A Christian case for same-sex marriage

Jesus' teaching on marriage - that it is a public and permanent arrangement between complementary opposites - male and female - who in their very complementarity image the infinite God - implicitly excludes "gay marriage."
___________________________________

What if the woman is stronger and the man is meeker?

Turns out I know a very gentle married Christian gentleman (though I never hear from him or his wife). I try to be. Gentleness is one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit Christians are supposed to have (Galatians 5:22-23).

Let's not be tough on us gentle guys who are otherwise normal, shall we?

Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it was put to a vote. Can't take a hint? Guess what? People don't approve of or want 'gay marriage'.
People are increasingly sick of this being pushed off as "normal". People are sick of having this shoved at us.
____________________

This is hilarious.

I thought gay marriage was for gay people.

Get over yourself. It isn't aimed at us. It isn't for our benefit. It's for theirs.

Take a chill pill- you must be 'ill.

The Episcopal Church nationwide had an average Sunday attendance for 2008 of only around 700,000, compared with millions of Roman Catholics, millions of Southern Baptists, and millions of other evangelicals. The departure en masse of three more Episcopal dioceses in November 2008 means that the denomination's average Sunday attendance for 2009 will be below 650,000, as many others reject denomination's increasingly leftward drift. Just because they maintain an impressive cathedral on Wisconsin Avenue and cater to Washington elites doesn't mean they know anything about anything.

Including gays and lesbians in Protestant churches (say my Baptist church) is a good idea too. We simply can't marry them and we are duty bound to discourage them from having the kind of sex they would like to have. And if they want to live as disciples of Christ we must insist they live "by the book". Gut feelings are misleading because Satan can tempt us. Your feelings must always be checked against the Word.

god or gods.... I don't know, people whose god or gods are not "Abrahamic"

I thought we were going to reserve God for Christianity or maybe for Abrahamic in general, right?

"people who believe in god in lower case"

Would you explain? I've never heard of people like that.

If we needed to put something on the currency and in the Pledge to unite this country, religion turned out to be a poor choice. Maybe Christianity unified us once (except for the Native Americans among us who had their own faiths). It doesn't much any more, and when people claim it, it is often hollow.

I would suggest "United We Stand" on the currency. "United" has the same number of syllables as "Under God" so it could fit in the flow of the Pledge.

It will make the atheists and agnostics and people who believe in god in lower case part of our nation-community and make them feel as though they have something to contribute.

God divides in the present day. We want to unite Americans instead.

Irving Berlin can still be played in Christian churches, where presumably everyone is a Christian.

"There are no 'Abrahamic' religions. The unthought out notion was a feel-good, self-legitimation strategy of the late Pope...Further, whatever God influences America, that God is neither Hashem or Allah. That God is Christian."

I didn't know that about JP2. I use "Abrahamic" to mean the god that three religions claim to share, as an alternative to "Judeo-Christian." But I would agree that for practical purposes, our culture uses "God" almost exclusively in a Christian way, and for that reason the name doesn't belong in our Pledge and on our money.

Abrahamic religions:

Islam: through son Ishmael and mother Hagar. Most recent of the three, established 622 AD (year 1 of Islamic calendar)(Wikipedia).

Judaism: through son Issac (mother Sarah) and grandson Jacob (mother Rebekah) (also named Israel by God). Oldest of three.

Christianity: based on later prophecies in the Old Testament about Jesus coming true. Has nuch in common with Judaism but in Acts 15 jettisoned much of the Jewish law requirements, notably circumcision, leaving only: do not eat meat offered to idols, do not eat strangled animals, do not drink blood, avoid sexual immorality.

Carstonio

And the name "God" in those contexts amounts to an endorsement of Abrahamic religions because those are government actions.
---------------
There are no "Abrahamic" religions. The unthought out notion was a feel-good, self-legitimation strategy of the late Pope.

Further, whatever God influences America, that God is neither Hashem or Allah. That God is Christian.

The opponents of gay marriage, that is those who are successfully influencing the legislature are the Christian Fundamentalists and the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church and the Fundies are also attempting to overturn abortion legislation.

The Catholic Church is lobbying the United Nations (UN) to ban distribution of contraceptives in third-world countries.

This has nothing to do with Judaism or Islam, less to do with Abraham.

fr vote-sarah-pal-in:

>...http://N-O-T-C-E---To---SUE---"NEWS-CORP"-et-al..BY:...

Stop SPAMMING the board. Please. You've been reported for spam.

And the name "God" in those contexts amounts to an endorsement of Abrahamic religions because those are government actions. And even when it's not a government action, such as Irving Berlin's "God Bless America," it still blurs the line between faith and patriotism. It implies that there's something unpatriotic about faith in a religion other than Christianity, and one wouldn't have to be an unknowing foreigner to get that impression.
_________________________________

July 4. Small towns like Hagerstown, MD. Pray for the troops, out loud and in public. And somewhere someone says Jesus.
_______________________________________
The American religious right often equates government neutrality among religions as anti-Christian persecution.
___________________________________
And calls equality for gays special privileges. What doublethink!
__________________________________
Schaum, Colorado Dog. Those pedo priests have more to fear from God than from the police and law.

Mark 9:42 "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck."

Given that molestation helps create the next generation of pedophiles, or otherwise messes them up with regard to pornography, sexual appetite, possibly homosexuality, etc., pedo priests who molest young Catholics are in danger of God's wrath. I can attest to being molested, too.

Take a long walk off a short dock, as mom used to say.

"My argument is based in part upon what marriage is and always has been considered, until very lately. My argument is based in part upon biology. My marriage is based in part upon sociological commonsense. My marriage is based on what actually works and doesn't work, and on the pre-PC DSM."

---------

Ryan,

Now we're getting somewhere. You are finally trying to make a reasoned secular argument for discriminating against gays. The problem is your conclusion doesn't logically follow from any your premises.

Let's take 'em one at a time ...

Tradition is not a valid argument. Otherwise slavery and segregation would still be legal.

Biology works against your argument also. There is no scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a biological trait and lots of evidence that suggests it might very well be. At best, the jury is still out on the biology but we don't restrict marriage licenses or equal treatment under the law for any other biological reasons anyway so Biology is moot either way.

Sociological common sense? Huh? It makes sense to me to give committed families (gay and straight) all the support in the law they can get so they can better take care of themselves and not be a burden on society. In any case, the law should treat people equally. Isn't that the most basic level of sociological common sense?

News flash! Gay marriage actually works! (see MA, VT, Conn, CA, Iowa, DC, etc.) Gay marriage works everywhere it has been legalized and not a single opposite-sex marriage has been affected yet!

Soooo, all that leaves is your religious opinion that discrimination against gays is okay and should remain legal.

Constitutional or not, your religious opinion is not a very persuasive reason for the law to continue to discriminate against gays. You've got to come up with something better than that ... but you can't because your archaic religious opinion is all you've got left.

You Theocrats just don't quit!

Thank goodness the Constitution still protects us from you folks.

"An establishment of religion is, quite simply, the setting up of a national church on the national payroll, with particular benefits or privileges over others. That's all."
---------
Ryan,
That's an extremely narrow (and self-serving) interpretation that doesn't square at all with case law or the concept of individual religious liberty without interference from the government. It suits your argument but it's not very accurate.

If governments were allowed to make religious laws (i.e. laws based solely on religious opinion), individual religious liberty would not exist as we know it.

But if theocracy is your bag, Iran might interest you. They make all kinds of goofy religious laws there and I'm guessing you would probably agree with many of them.

If the Constitution, as you claim, only prohibits the establishment of a national church, why is government sponsored prayer (in public schools for example) against the law?

I am curious where you would draw the line? What other religious laws would you like to pass? Maybe outlaw blasphemy, or atheism or make it against the law not to attend a Christian church.

At what point is government interference with matters of strictly religious opinion too much for you?

Theocracy or Individual Religious Freedom? ... you really can't have both!

Pretending the issue of pedophile priests is a "caricature of the Church" used by Catholic-bashers is no less disingenuous and immoral than Donohue pretending molested little boys were nothing more than gold digging sex- workers the Church later paid for their "voluntary services" I never have and never would take one of the Church's stinking, blood-and-semen stained pennies minted by Satan himself for what one of your "Brothers of Christ" did to me against my will.

As long as Catholics snub their noses at civil criminal law and hide, aid and abet pedophiles among their clergy, I will continue to be their "caricature" of a "Catholic-basher." Have you no shame or guilt for using Jesus' name to hide those who get their crude sexual jollies using and throwing away children as if it were one of their special-dispensation rights God gave to your clergy as the "Pope's Ambassadors"? How could anyone pretend they belong to "Christ's Church" and continue to look the other way?

Round up and arrest the pedophiles you are hiding in your clergy now. Until you do, you are nothing more than immoral hypocrite disciples of the Devil himself and until then may all you rot in the imaginary hell you created to control and manipulate others.

Posted by: coloradodog | November 19, 2009 9:16 AM

"I was stuck thinking of a connection between persecution against Christians in the first century AD and persecution against Christians today. It does happen outside the United States."

Good point. Nigeria comes to mind. The American religious right often equates government neutrality among religions as anti-Christian persecution. I'm not sure if they believe that Christianity deserves special treatment from government because Christians are in the majority, or if they believe that biblical law supersedes secular law, or both.

"Our God dominates the currency, endorses the Pledge of Allegiance, and to an unknowing foreigner might even sound like an official religion, what with Faith Based Community Initiatives and all."

And the name "God" in those contexts amounts to an endorsement of Abrahamic religions because those are government actions. And even when it's not a government action, such as Irving Berlin's "God Bless America," it still blurs the line between faith and patriotism. It implies that there's something unpatriotic about faith in a religion other than Christianity, and one wouldn't have to be an unknowing foreigner to get that impression.

I was stuck thinking of a connection between persecution against Christians in the first century AD and persecution against Christians today. It does happen outside the United States.

Ironically, inside the United States, it is the Christians who do the majority of persecution, seeming to outweigh what they get. Our God dominates the currency, endorses the Pledge of Allegiance, and to an unknowing foreigner might even sound like an official religion, what with Faith Based Community Initiatives and all.

Of course on paper we have no official religion. But I was surprised to learn of the freedoms on paper in the Soviet constitution, that were widely ignored, of course.

And my sociology education clearly taught me that what is "on paper" very seldom is real life. In real life, for example, police have to pick their battles using their limited resources. They actually do let some criminals get off uncharged (usually the minor ones, of course). Never mind law enforcement, total enforcement of every law is impossible.

But yes, persecution is a noun that does not belong to the Romans oppressing the Christians or to anyone persecuting the Christians today. To persecute is an impersonal verb. You are right, Carstonio.

"civil marriage (marriage sans God, but legally binding via magistrate or justice of the peace)"

A minor quibble - from the perspective of government, civil marriage isn't "sans God" any more than it's "sans Vishnu" or "sans Gaia." Using the proper name "God" in this context makes the mistake of treating the issue as secularism versus Christianity, or versus the Abrahamic religions.

"Lay down that legal/political/religious weapon and treat them like human beings. "

Excellent!

"Reverse persecution using the public political system and law as weapons has to stop."

Don't get me wrong - I definitely agree with you and your father on this issue. I just don't understand how it's "reverse." What is being reversed in this type of persecution? I would say that persecution is persecution, no matter which group is being targeted and no matter which group is doing the targeting.

One anecdote on civil marriage (marriage sans God, but legally binding via magistrate or justice of the peace).

Last night I was reading Facebook and I read a Twitter line "(name omitted) has been married fifteen years as of tomorrow and is still in love with her husband."

The love is real even if God wasn't there. It should serve as a reminder during homosexual civil unions, and when they get full parallel civil marriage like that wife (woman) and husband (man), their love will be real too. And that means they are human beings.

Lay down that legal/political/religious weapon and treat them like human beings.

Reverse Persecution = Maintain legal status quo to exclude homosexuals and lesbians from marriage (presumably under the motivation of Judeo-Christianity influence of the legal system). Use the law as a weapon to oppress them. Deny them redress in the political system with a majority vote of oppressers.

My dad was not gay but it was a concept he was able to teach. Christians persecuting Jews (or failing to protect them from Hitler). Christians persecuting each other. Christians persecuting gays, sometimes atheists and free thinkers.

Dad thought when I became a Christian I had became nearly a Nazi. At least in practice. He was really sad.

I am vigilant not to become one. I must also be vigilant to make sure Christianity also means what it says.

Maybe if you looked at Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church you would understand my father's argument better.

Reverse persecution using the public political system and law as weapons has to stop.

"The fact that we have neither the desire nor the capability of generating progeny and our love-making is strictly for the purpose of mutual pleasure does not invalidate our marriage."

I acknowledge that many of the rights and responsibilities that come with legal marriage are vital for childbearing couples. But many others are no less important for couples that do not have children.

Maryland's high court used faulty legal reasoning when it used the procreation argument to reject the legality of gay marriage. First, it provides a legal basis for denying marriage to couples such as Lepidopteryx and her husband. Second, it doesn't recognize that gay couples sometimes do reproduce with biological assistance, and it doesn't recognize that many gay couples and non-reproducing straight couples adopt children.

"Anybody else with me on this?"

I would add a caveat - the term "reverse persecution" doesn't seem to make sense in this context. Would you explain how a reversal is involved? While gays are in the minority, being straight doesn't automatically mean that one opposes homosexuality or gay marriage.

Ryan: "At least, marriage as we have known it is mostly gone. It has been ever since children got to be seen as secondary to the whole thing. The attitude that marriage is not about children has been tied to the attitude of trying to find a spouse "who makes me happy.""

The day my husband and I met, he was sterile and I was in the early stages of menopause. We couldn't make a baby together if the fate of the free world depended on it. Furthermore, he has never had any desire to be a parent. We married because we love each other - we make each other happy. The fact that we have neither the desire nor the capability of generating progeny and our love-making is strictly for the purpose of mutual pleasure does not invalidate our marriage.

Freestinker, the non-Christians have always had human rights to have their same sex relationships legally recognized (in the same way as Loving) and need to be protected from the Christian majority seeking to take those rights away.

It is reverse persecution and I call it as I see it.

Just because I am a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant straight male does not mean my peers own this country and its government.

Anybody else with me on this?

I don't need to own this country to be special. I am special unconditionally. I am an individual.

"My argument is based in part upon what marriage is and always has been considered, until very lately. My argument is based in part upon biology. My marriage is based in part upon sociological commonsense. My marriage is based on what actually works and doesn't work, and on the pre-PC DSM."

---------

Ryan,

Now we're getting somewhere. You are finally trying to make a reasoned secular argument for discriminating against gays. The problem is your conclusion doesn't logically follow from any your premises.

Let's take 'em one at a time ...

Tradition is not a valid argument. Otherwise slavery and segregation would still be legal.

Biology works against your argument also. There is no scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a biological trait and lots of evidence that suggests it might very well be. At best, the jury is still out on the biology but we don't restrict marriage licenses or equal treatment under the law for any other biological reasons anyway so Biology is moot either way.

Sociological common sense? Huh? It makes sense to me to give committed families (gay and straight) all the support in the law they can get so they can better take care of themselves and not be a burden on society. In any case, the law should treat people equally. Isn't that the most basic level of sociological common sense?

News flask! Gay marriage actually works! (see MA, VT, Conn, CA, Iowa, DC, etc.) Gay marriage works everywhere it has been legalized and not a single opposite-sex marriage has been affected yet!

Soooo, all that leaves is your religious opinion that discrimination against gays is okay and should remain legal. Constitutional or not, your religious opinion is not a very persuasive reason for the law to continue to discriminate against gays. You've got to come up with something better than that ... but you can't because your archaic religious opinion is all you've got left.

You Theocrats just don't quit! Thank goodness the Constitution still protects us from you folks.

"An establishment of religion is, quite simply, the setting up of a national church on the national payroll, with particular benefits or privileges over others. That's all."

---------

Ryan,

That's an extremely narrow (and self-serving) interpretation that doesn't square at all with case law or the concept of individual religious liberty without interference from the government. It suits your argument but it's not very accurate.

If governments were allowed to make religious laws (i.e. laws based solely on religious opinion), individual religious liberty would not exist as we know it. But if theocracy is your bag, Iran might interest you. They make all kinds of goofy religious laws there and I'm guessing you would probably agree with many of them.

If the Constitution only prohibits the establishment of a national church, why is government sponsored prayer (in public schools for example) against the law?

I am curious where you would draw the line? What other religious laws would you like to pass? Maybe outlaw blasphemy, or atheism or make it against the law not to attend a Christian church. At what point is government interference with matters of strictly religious opinion too much for you?

Theocracy or Individual Religious Freedom? ... you really can't have both!

I don't think gay marriage will harm traditional marriage one whit. I think it will remind us how precious marriage is and why it is worth investing in and saving (from falling apart, from growing apart, from affairs, from infidelity, etc.).

It will remind us too that gays are human. Facing in a different direction, but make no mistake, human. With the same feelings and dreams and flaws, as we will eventually discover when some of these marriages go bad and we need divorce proceedings, custody hearings, possible civil sanctions in the event of infidelity, etc.

I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON MARRIAGE. I AM SINGLE.

I do know the Bible better than most of the population, short of Bible scholars.
I have read the entire Bible at least three times, perhaps four. There are about 990 chapters in the Old Testament and about 260 chapters in the New. You could read the whole thing at one chapter a day in less than four years. If you are more adventurous, you could read more of the shorter chapters and less of the longer ones and finish in a year.

In one paragraph, the Bible discusses human creation, the fall of humanity, early humanity fallen angels and giants as offspring, and a worldwide flood which only eight people survived. God picked Abraham and his grandson Jacob to become a special people, Israel. God blessed Israel and annihilated its enemies but Israel could never permanently abstain from sin. Eventually Israel split in two, the north lost to history, and the south conquered by Babylon, but liberated (not wiped off the map) by Persia (Iran) to go home and re-establish the temple and religion. Eventually the Greeks became the masters of the region. By the New Testament, the Romans had supplanted the Greeks and the people in "Judea" wanted to expel the Romans as they successfully expelled the Greeks under Judas the Maccabee. Jesus (God's son in human flesh) came to preach permanent remission of sin through Him but the Jews were angry that He did not come as their king, and asked Pontius Pilate to execute Him. Jesus was crucified and was resurrected, preached, and then ascended to Heaven, promising to return. Christians, especially Paul, who as Saul was a fervent Jewish Christian-hater, worked hard to spread the Christian message through letters, and Paul as a Roman citizen went to the Emperor himself to plead the case of Christ. Finally, the last surviving original disciple of Christ, John the Elder, saw visions of what is believed to take place in our present day, accurately describing widely different things such as mushroom clouds, the NORAD bunker, the AH-64 Apache helicopter, tanks, possible use of human microchips or bar codes, meteors, possibly Chernobyl contaminating water, a church obsessed with wealth but spiritually blind and naked, possibly the acting president perhaps in a bunker (kings for an hour), and more.

"The point remains that nothing in the US Constitution or in jurisprudence following it has ever prohibited religious discourse from entering into public debate and policy-making."

I'm talking about sectarianism, as opposed to religion in general. In reality, there is no such thing as "religion." Instead, there are competing religions with different claims of truth. Any argument for a law that relies on any particular reading of any sect's scripture effectively shuts out anyone who disagrees with that reading or who belongs to another sect. And when government uses that argument as the sole basis for making a law, it effectively endorses that sect at the expense of all other sects.

"Who is to judge who is a better missionary or a better dad? Or mom?"

That may be the larger issue. No one can arbitrarily decide what is best for others or for society. How exactly would gay marriage be bad for society? Would it discourage straights from marrying? Would it turn straights gay? Would it result in heterosexuality being illegal? I find it strange that opponents equate gay marriage with society allegedly devaluing the idea of lifelong commitment, because that commitment is what the gay couples appear to be seeking.

Carstonio

"...the Huckabee/Jackson approach essentially closes the debate to people of different religions or of no religion, which is fundamentally hostile to democracy..."

No, bringing religion into a debate does not shut it down. See, religion has entered into this debate, and we are still debating ;-)

What it does do is say that you will have to convince or outvote people who think like me; that has never been the strategy of your side of this argument, which has generally gone right to the courts. Talk about "hostile to democracy."

The point remains that nothing in the US Constitution or in jurisprudence following it has ever prohibited religious discourse from entering into public debate and policy-making.

---

Freestinker,

Reread the relevant post. I never said nor in any way admitted that my beliefs about gay marriage were entirely religious; I said that my "concern and vigor" were informed by religion. That's different than a religious argument. Very different.

My argument is based in part upon what marriage is and always has been considered, until very lately. My argument is based in part upon biology. My marriage is based in part upon sociological commonsense. My marriage is based on what actually works and doesn't work, and on the pre-PC DSM.

I have at no time brought into the discussion anything to do with sacraments, iconography of the Trinity, or other religious bases for my understanding of marriage, precisely because I know that most here do not share my presuppositions on those matters.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Spouse hopping (serial monogamy) is nothing to be proud of. Nobody will make you "happy" forever. Get over it.

Marriage is a two way street, to serve as well as receive. It is no surprise that women have a role to serve husbands, but it is a surprise that men also have a role to serve wives, and the men don't get it.

Get it brother.

"If they can get married and the sex is purely for pleasure and bonding, then why not let the gays marry?"

I didn't say it was a Christian idea. It isn't.

It is already mostly gone. At least, marriage as we have known it is mostly gone. It has been ever since children got to be seen as secondary to the whole thing. The attitude that marriage is not about children has been tied to the attitude of trying to find a spouse "who makes me happy." This selfishness is poison in any relationship.

We Christians would agree about the selfishness is poison.

But missionaries can reproduce spiritually by making converts. They are doing useful work. He can go to a jail and witness to inmates instead of being a dad. (I am not sure whom she witnesses to since they came back here.) (He could also witness through his electrical trade work, maybe after a storm hits, working with other builders.)

Who is to judge who is a better missionary or a better dad? Or mom?

"It has been ever since children got to be seen as secondary to the whole thing. The attitude that marriage is not about children has been tied to the attitude of trying to find a spouse 'who makes me happy.'"

It's a bad idea to make sweeping statements about the motivations of the human race, blindly labeling people as selfish. In particular, we shouldn't assume anything about the motivations of people who get married, regardless of their plans for children. When one argues that marriage is for children, the logical conclusion is that straight couples who are infertile by circumstance or by choice have no legal right to get married.

"The US Constitution does not require a 'reasonable corresponding secular rationale' at all. Nor does any of the subsequent jurisprudence on the matter."

While that may or may not be true, the issue here is the larger principle of secular government. Mike Huckabee and Bishop Harry Jackson are making religious arguments and not secular ones. Ira Chernus in the article below notes that the Huckabee/Jackson approach essentially closes the debate to people of different religions or of no religion, which is fundamentally hostile to democracy. It amounts to saying, "You can't challenge this because it comes from a transcendent authority than can never be challenged."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/24/5976/

I think I will become an Episcopal.

cmarshdtihqcom,

"If they can get married and the sex is purely for pleasure and bonding, then why not let the gays marry?"

Ah, see, Cmarshdtihqcom, therein lies the crux of our cultural problem. Many Christians think that marriage is being eroded in our society. I beg to differ.

It is already mostly gone. At least, marriage as we have known it is mostly gone. It has been ever since children got to be seen as secondary to the whole thing. The attitude that marriage is not about children has been tied to the attitude of trying to find a spouse "who makes me happy." This selfishness is poison in any relationship. Easy access to easy divorce was probably the mortal blow, though. Once no-fault divorce is put to use, you no longer have marriage, but serial monogamy.

Not the same thing.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Alex511,

I have to apologize for deliberately antagonizing you. It was unkind of me.

Perhaps it is best if we take our differences of opinion to the polls with us.

yours,
Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Freestinker,

"Back to my question though ... the 1st amendment strictly and expressly forbids government from making laws based solely on religious opinion."

No it doesn't. Not at all. The US Constitution doesn't say any of that. The first amendment to the Constitution doesn't say that. It says,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

An establishment of religion is, quite simply, the setting up of a national church on the national payroll, with particular benefits or privileges over others. That's all.

"Religious opinions can certainly inform or persuade but in order for our religious liberty to be protected, we must be and are Constitutionally immune from the government imposing purely religious laws on us without a reasonable corresponding secular rationale and you have provided no reasonable secular rationale for continuing civil marriage discrimination."

The US Constitution does not require a "reasonable corresponding secular rationale" at all. Nor does any of the subsequent jurisprudence on the matter.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

That's been, for decades, the chief reason that people who had been "shacking up" decided to get married. It's why people start looking for children within a year or two of a couple marrying."
_________________________________

Minus exceptions, even Christian exceptions.

I have properly religiously married Christian friends. He got a snip job to rule out reproduction before it even started. I am not sure if he had her consent or not. Presumably he did.

They did much missionary work in places like California, coming back with Valley Speak (wifey talking like a Valley Girl, "grody").

She did have a crisis over the lack of children about after 35. They know they can adopt if they wish. In fact the county will even pay college tuition for the foster kids, they say.

My uncle who married at sixty married a menopausal woman, so the snip was a non-issue.

If they can get married and the sex is purely for pleasure and bonding, then why not let the gays marry?

It bothered me enough (as a Christian) to look it up on bible.com.

1.Matthew 19:6 (Whole Chapter)
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Sometimes it bothers me if people close to me divorce (likely to remarry, God could consider that adultery in some circumstances), regardless of our "law".

1.Matthew 5:32 (Whole Chapter)
But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery.

In this case, it seems regardless of our "law", God considers civil marriage fornication. Just like He considers abortion murder.

I'll let Him sort all that out when He gets here. None of that stuff applies to me. God has His own Law and will lay it down when He gets here. A little scary.

But among us who know people with civil marriages we treat the marriages officially enough.

Straights sometimes get married civilly. And their marriages are just as valid. Civil marriage IS VALID.

Tomorrow some friends of mine (and I was at the ceremony, sans preacher) celebrate the 15th anniversary. She's a Shepherd University staff member. They kind of forgot God deliberately to get married. Before I became a Christian I tried to follow her lead. I actually know that she was briefly a Christian. I think the Holy Spirit never gave up on her so when I was impressed with her philosophy I should have been impressed with the Holy Spirit. I became impressed with the Holy Spirit later and got baptized. It's been 16.5 years.

Happy anniversary guys (man, woman).

If they don't need God, neither do the gays. So let the gays get married. The fair minded intelligent college grads like us are already thinking that.

"Actually, the US Constitution doesn't specify anywhere as to what sort of opinions governments may or may not consider in making laws."

--------

Ryan,

Evidently you missed the 1st part of the 1st amendment that reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...".

In other words, laws that are are based only on religious opinion are strictly prohibited.

And as your readily admit, your objections to marriage equality are entirely religious.

fr ryan:

>Congrats to you and your "wife."

That should be congrats to you and your wife. No quotation marks should be around the word wife, as she and I ARE legally married, whether YOU or all the other fundies like it or not. You degrade the term wife when you put quotation marks around it, and you are NOT allowed to degrade my WIFE.

>...It does seem to be a bit neurotic to take stranger's comments "with great offense". I mean, I slept well last night, without any lingering resentment toward you.

Well, now, isn't that just lovely.

Once again, glbt couples are NOT "neurotic". Have a psychiatrist explain it to you.

"I never said any of that - that it was exclusively religious, or that those married civilly aren't really married."

You're right. My point was that religion was not the only factor in creating marriage. Ignoring those non-religious factors enables the view that marriage is exclusively religious.

"It isn't discrimination to say that a turtle can't fly. It's an observation. All the talk is about "redefining" marriage - even Councilman Catania in DC introduced a bill to, in his words, "redefine marriage as a union between two people recognized by law." Until such redefining, marriage has always been understand as the publicly affirmed union of a man and a woman, oriented toward the rearing of children. Marriage has been about providing a steady home for children. That's been, for decades, the chief reason that people who had been "shacking up" decided to get married. It's why people start looking for children within a year or two of a couple marrying."

-----------

Ryan,

Actually D.C. law already recognizes same-sex marrriages that were performed elsewhere, like MASS or CA. So civil marriage has already been "redefined" in D.C. This law just allows all D.C. couples, regardless of gender, to get a marriage license locally. And many gay families have children too, so your argument there favors marriage equality.

Back to my question though ... the 1st amendment strictly and expressly forbids government from making laws based solely on religious opinion.

Religious opinions can certainly inform or persuade but in order for our religious liberty to be protected, we must be and are Constitutionally immune from the government imposing purely religious laws on us without a reasonable corresponding secular rationale and you have provided no reasonable secular rationale for continuing civil marriage discrimination.

Pride. I am Catholic. Born, christened and raised. I am fortunate to have lived the privilege of eighteen years of Catholic education, including undergraduate and law degrees from the Catholic University of America. My Catholic education and life has taught me that the nobility of the Catholic Church can be summed up in the words of Saint Francis of Assisi: “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” The Catholic Church lives these words in its mission of social justice. The Catholic Church provides more social services than any other private organization in the United States. This is preaching the Gospel. Pride.

Living as a Catholic, people at times point out to me various problems with the Catholic Church. Indeed, there are many problems. But for me, the saving grace is the manner in which the Catholic Church lives the Gospel through social justice; caring for those in need. This is what moves me to continue pursuing my spirituality through the Catholic Church. It is the inviolate principle upon which I base my confidence and pride in the Catholic Church.

Shame. On November 12, 2009, I was ashamed to be Catholic. On this day, I read that the Catholic Archdiocese of the District of Columbia expressed reluctance to continue providing certain social services should the District enact a law extending civil rights protections to homosexuals because that law would supposedly compromise the Church’s religious principles. The Archdiocese leveraged its social services, its preaching of the Gospel, to achieve ulterior goals. In doing so, the Archdiocese undermined the one core, inviolate principle that always allows me to take pride in the Catholic Church and to justify problems it may hold. Shame.

As a lawyer, I understand the importance of factual accuracy. So people will argue over whether services are actually being denied and whether this is an issue of civil rights or religious freedom. While these are important discussions, they miss the point. As a Catholic, I know that in life there are few core principles. Regardless of the factual details and actions of the Archdiocese, its words compromised the core principles in which I believe. Its words have undermined its preaching of the Gospel. Perhaps, the Archdiocese should be reminded of the sum conclusion of the Ten Commandments: “Love thy neighbor.”

Carstonio,

Nope. No citation handy.

"In any case, marriage is not an exclusively religious concept. There are too many people who wrongly assert that couples who have civil ceremonies only "aren't really married."

I never said any of that - that it was exclusively religious, or that those married civilly aren't really married. Never said any of that at all.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Ah, Freestinker, you're right. I seem to have read one question and answered another. I've made that mistake before. My apologies.

"Your take on the history of marriage is interesting but it's irrelevant to the question of where OUR government gets the authority to make laws based only on religious opinion?"

Actually, the US Constitution doesn't specify anywhere as to what sort of opinions governments may or may not consider in making laws. For instance, nowhere does it say that a law must be made based upon scientifically determined facts, upon sociological trends determined by random sampling, or any such things.

It talks about needing majority votes or two-thirds votes. If a particular motion receives the necessary votes, that's its authority. Peoples' motivations is entirely aside from the point.

It isn't discrimination to say that a turtle can't fly. It's an observation. All the talk is about "redefining" marriage - even Councilman Catania in DC introduced a bill to, in his words, "redefine marriage as a union between two people recognized by law." Until such redefining, marriage has always been understand as the publicly affirmed union of a man and a woman, oriented toward the rearing of children. Marriage has been about providing a steady home for children. That's been, for decades, the chief reason that people who had been "shacking up" decided to get married. It's why people start looking for children within a year or two of a couple marrying.

Married has never been about getting the feeling that society approves of you.

"Your support for discrimination appears to be based solely on your religious opinion."

Not entirely, but mostly. At least, my concern or vigor on the issue is religious informed. That's OK. The great thing about a democracy is that everyone's view gets to be registered in the balloting, and in lobbying and petitioning, etc. The reason for the view is almost inconsequential, except in as much as one might wish to convince won't compatriots.

You'll find nothing in the US Constitution or law that says one mustn't have a religious opinion, or that one must not allow one's religious opinions to influence one's decisions or input into public decisions.

Moreover, you have theological views as well. Perhaps, "God does not exist," or "God's existence is inconsequential to the management of this country." But those views aren't demonstrable "scientifically" and are based on "blind faith" as much as any contrary views are. The US Constitution certainly nowhere privileges those views over mine.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Alex511,

Congrats to you and your "wife." Take up your issue about neurosis with every printing of the DSM before 1973. I wasn't trying to diagnose anyone in particular (except myself, if you reread). I am not, as you seem to have noticed, a psychologist or therapist of any sort. It does seem to be a bit neurotic to take stranger's comments "with great offense". I mean, I slept well last night, without any lingering resentment toward you.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

"Marriage was ALWAYS considered a religious thing in pretty much every culture"

Can you provide a citation? The book below asserts that the one constant of marriage throughout history has been the acquisition of in-laws.

http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-How-Love-Conquered/dp/014303667X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216667979&sr=8-1

In any case, marriage is not an exclusively religious concept. There are too many people who wrongly assert that couples who have civil ceremonies only "aren't really married."

As a Christian let me be the first to denounce Mr. Intangible's use of a (racial?) slur and call for ethnic discrimination. I read his post carefully and I do not understand the basis for his allegations, but they do not justify what he has done.

Ryan Haber,

Your take on the history of marriage is interesting but it's irrelevant to the question of where OUR government gets the authority to make laws based only on religious opinion?

I can't seem to find any such authority in our Constitution nor in any of our laws?

And you have provided no secular rationale for why civil marriage laws should discriminate against people merely based on their gender or sexual orientation.

Your support for discrimination appears to be based solely on your religious opinion.

God decided to present (Himself) to the human race as male. Maybe because most of the human race in the time of Abraham revered men over women. Maybe Abraham would have paid less attention to a she God? I don't know.

What does sex have to do with spirit? Sex is a biological concept not a spiritual one.

Compassion does not mean lying about what God (male or female or neither) would have us do, take it or leave it (leave it at your peril). It does mean being honest without meanness and with sympathy.

It has to be tough. Doing it God's way would mean a lonely life unto death. I am sure people want to rationalize (I studied psychology) a way out of this so you can have it the Christian way and still have a gay love life.

You can't.

Choose. (Life is short compared to eternity)

People didn't make those rules. Somebody Else did.

"It is impossible to read the Bible honestly and conclude that homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage is God's intention for men and women."

Using that as an argument for keeping gay marriage illegal is Huckabeeism. Since our government is secular and nonsectarian, any argument for making law should be likewise. If one's personal opposition to gay marriage is rooted in a theological stance, one should attempt to translate it into secular principles understandable by anyone no matter what their religion. "My god said so" is not translatable that way so it has no place in the debate over law.

Now, if one is merely asserting that gay marriage is wrong, without necessarily advocating a law against it, it's simply common courtesy to argue from a nonsectarian stance. Why should anyone expect a Christian theological argument against gay marriage to be accepted by believers in other religions?

"But a free country has to presume the non-existence of God, if only for the sake of agnostics and atheists."

We're talking about government and not the country as a whole. Secular nonsectarian government means that it takes no position on the existence of any gods, instead of presuming that any particular god doesn't exist (or exist). Your statement wouldn't rule out the country presuming the existence of non-Abrahamic gods.

cmarshdtihqcom

Sure God doesn't like it
------------------
You're quite wrong about that. She's fine with it.
---------
Btw., She said to tell you that there is no such thing as the "Old Testament" (sic), which, at all events says nothing about homosexuality, as the construct did not exist in biblical times.

She suggests you consult any recent Oxford Study Bible so that you may know that the biblical injunction was against male-on-male rape, which was all the rage in the Near East, with victorious soldiers raping the defeated.

Finally, She wonders that you have grasped so little of the Tanakh construct of justice.

You forget Ross that Christians have challenges to bear. In my case it seems that I am spiritually-romantically compatible only with women with some disabilities. Maybe a neurological connection. Apparently I am neurologically invisible to average women (like some stealth fighter), whom I can make friends with, but that is all.

Perhaps God intends the current woman to be the last one.

Apparently this, and an earlier struggle trying to find the career I have now, are and were intended to help me learn (or become an expert in) compassion.

It is hard to be tough on gay people if they are as lonely as you are, if they do what Jesus says. At least you have a possible way out.

Farnaz,

Most revolutionaries die unfulfilled and unhappy. Most Christian die happy men and women.

You're married?

Peace to all, and good night!

Posted by: rossacpa
-------------------------
Most Christians die happy men and women? And you know this...how?

Married, yes, joyously, and blessed with a great girl child.

A "revolutionary" soon-to-be-ten-year-old she, and very happy since she adopted our neighbor's Wheton terrier, Plautus.

Plautus, btw., is an atheist. Can't say how he'll die, but he's living happy.

In my own lifetime, since grad school even, gay marriage has gone from a concept to reality in five states. I expect it could go to half of the states or more in my life time on the grounds of fairness, just like Loving vs. Virginia (mixed race couple could not marry in 1967, now that was not very loving was it?).

This gay marriage stuff is normal for the 1 to 10% of gay people. It is not be normal for the rest of us. In fact it is distasteful to imagine. But who the hell are we?

Sure God doesn't like it. But a free country has to presume the non-existence of God, if only for the sake of agnostics and atheists.

Theocracy only works with total unwavering mutual religious consent. Translation: Let's start our own Christian country, members only. You are free to join, but membership is not free. Depending on your present lifestyle you may find the price unbearable. I think we'd have to expel nonconformists, and mark them so they can't came back in. The Bible teaches we can't keep bad company if they will not first heed private advice, then will not heed a preacher's advice, and then even will not listen to the whole church. Do not even eat with such a person. And no, God is not a democracy. Don't expect any vote on changing God's laws.

"and count the price you are willing to pay."

God is like titanium. He never rusts. His word never rusts or changes. It is "iron clad" for centuries and cannot change without a subsequent Testament. The New Testament did replace many policies of the Old. But we have no such Testament to cut anyone a break for gay marriage. It would have to come from God, because writing one would make the author equal to God and God would not tolerate such blasphemy.

I don't know why you go from killing Philistines to trying to save their souls. Really.

No break. Sorry.

Farnaz,

Most revolutionaries die unfulfilled and unhappy. Most Christian die happy men and women.

You're married?

Peace to all, and good night!

Farnaz, One of us has spent 30 years practicing various forms of tax-exempt law. One of us hasn't.

Only a child argues that numerical superiority as attested by actual election are not majorities. Only an adolescent argues that because he doesn't like some outcomes produced by highly technical area of the tax law, the law needs to go, regardless of what the implications for the greater good may be.

It sort of like advocating "gay marriage." If I don't like how the universal law applies to me because I cannot do exactly what I want, when I want to, then society must adapt itself to me.

Life never works that way. One who will not act for the sake of the common good has no right to ask the polis to adapt to his peculiarities.

In short, grow up!

Posted by: rossacpa | November 17, 2009 9:23 PM
---------------------------
Only one of us is married to a civil rights lawyer who has successfully challenged legislation at the national level.

Only one of us is sufficiently knowledgeable of history to know that longstanding legislation, traditions, can vanish in an instant.

Only one of us is confident enough, verbal enough to draw upon reason rather than name-calling to support her arguments. And that "one of us" is not you.

You will need much more than that to maintain your religion's free ride, to stave off the national nausea that recent events have engendered.

Farnaz, One of us has spent 30 years practicing various forms of tax-exempt law. One of us hasn't.

Only a child argues that numerical superiority as attested by actual election are not majorities. Only an adolescent argues that because he doesn't like some outcomes produced by highly technical area of the tax law, the law needs to go, regardless of what the implications for the greater good may be.

It sort of like advocating "gay marriage." If I don't like how the universal law applies to me because I cannot do exactly what I want, when I want to, then society must adapt itself to me.

Life never works that way. One who will not act for the sake of the common good has no right to ask the polis to adapt to his peculiarities.

In short, grow up!

rossacpa:

Americans support gay marriage:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Poll-Voters-Support-Gay-Marriage-They-Just-Dont-Want-It-on-the-Ballot-69419617.html

The times, rossacpa, they are a'changin'

That is the compromise reached within the US in 1954 and remaining in effect until now.

Posted by: rossacpa
-------------------
Correct. The operative words, however, are "until now."

More and more Americans are becoming aware of how their very hard-earned tax dollars are being used to subvert democracy both here and abroad, by Christian Fundamentalists and the Roman Catholic Church.

Nonprofit status would be unjustifiable under any circumstances, given the nation's economic distress. As we learn how our money is being used by these institutions, our doling out the money becomes reprehensible.

This will end. I give it two or three more years, at most.

Farnaz,

Regarding tax exempts and their ability to lobby on issues of concern, the congressional and judicial arms of government have repeatedly given their blessings to the regulation established by the IRS. No §IRC 501(c)(3) tax-exempt may expend any effort or money on the election of political officials. Every §501(c)(3), including religious tax exempts, may expend less that half or its revenue on issue-based lobbying. The long-standing safe harbor established by IRC regulations is 30% of an organization's revenue based on a 5-year moving average.

That is the compromise reached within the US in 1954 and remaining in effect until now.

Farnaz said "The majority of Americans do support same-sex marriage."

So you attribute the fact that notable majorities in 31 states have voted down court or legislature-mandated (no pun intended) "gay marriage" because of sunspots? global warming? excessive salaries for sports figures and robber barons?

Your statement is false and ludicrous on its face.

Congratulations to you, Bishop Chane. I had been hoping you would weigh in on this issue.
You are a just man.

The majority of Americans are not willing to live with that experiment, which many believe would be ruinous for civil life and culture.
----------
Wrong. The majority of Americans do support same-sex marriage. Moreover, the majority also support the end of nonprofit status for religious institutions. The current outrage against the Roman Catholic interference with US health care and with same-sex marriage is adding fuel to the end of tax exemptions fire.

Christian Fundamentalists and Roman
rossacpa:
Catholics will not be on the dole for much longer. They will have to find other funding sources to lobby Congress and, in the case of the RCC, the United Nations.

Congress may yet be able to rid itself of these foreign intrusions. All it would take is legislation banning religious institutions from lobbying Congressmen--Separation of Church and State. Perhaps, you have heard of it.

Compchiro: Your argument that gay marriage doesn't effect you, I presume, means you think gay marriage cannot affect the broader culture. That is a statement for which there is no evidence; it's an opinion. The majority of Americans are not willing to live with that experiment, which many believe would be ruinous for civil life and culture. No one can claim his/her personal (and controllable) tendencies has any priority over the concerns of society in this regard.

Your comparisons with the struggle for equality by the African Americans are outrageous and suggests a comparability that isn't there. African Americans over time and throughout the world have usually been accepted in most cultures. The enslavement and diminution by the Caucasians of England, Spain, Portugal, and the United States are those countries' particular national shame that in no way should reflect on the historical achievements of African Americans.

African Americans have no choice in displaying their ethnic and racial identity. Gays are distinguished in their ability to reveal or hide their sexual orientation depending on which will most serve their interests at any given moment.

fr withouthavingseen:

>...A man with an inflated sense of masculinity and a man with a deformed sense of his own masculinity are not exactly complementary opposites. A woman who tries to act manly and a woman who is afraid because she's been hurt by men are also not exactly complementary opposites. They're neurotics. At least, that's how the Diagnostic Statistical Manual Mental Disorders of the American Psychological Association classified them until 1973....

i am a gay Christian woman who married my lovely WIFE last year. FYI, we are NOT "neurotic". We are perfectly sane, we have two cats who make us laugh hysterically, and we love being together. I take your "neurotic" comment with great offense, as would any DECENT person, glbt or straight, Christian or not.

I would strongly suggest that you seek therapy for bigotry, and refrain from armchair diagnosis in the immediate future, like right NOW, as you have no idea of what you are talking about.

rossacpa,

"Otherwise known as majority rule (by large margins)"

Not always large margins. But that is irrelevant. Majority rule or views are irrelevant when it comes to civil rights or the Equal Protection clause.

Hey, I'm a male heterosexual. Gays having equal rights does not effect my ability to enter into a marriage or have a good (in fact it has NO effect on anyone who has a good marriage). But it does most likely violate the US Constitution and that is a problem.

I remember my parent's telling about seeing blacks discriminated against in the mid 1900's. It did not directly effect them but it was nauseating and evil. And as my dad said, one did not be directly discriminated against to see the base evil in discrimination, and that those who supported it were "uncivilised base animals" (his words). And he later saw gays and lesbians discriminated against and said that the same evil was in play. He was straight but he and my mother did their best to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination (I was lucky to have real American heroes as parents).

DwightCollins, as an afterword to Asperger Syndrome and endangered species,
* a significant proportion of Aspies commit suicide (citation missing),
* up to 95% may be unemployed or underemployed (reported on http://www.amug.org/a203 or /~a203)
* the marriage statistics are said to be low (citation missing)
* On http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com, many female Aspies report no sexual desire (I am serious)

Also, an Aspie might not be socially situationally aware and might be in danger without realizing it, from a further Darwinian perspective.

====

I have wondered if there is attraction among neurological lines. I work alongside average women and sail through like the stealth fighter, just like I did in Christian singles, despite matches on education, intelligence, social class (and religion). The only thing that seems to be attractive now is a woman of comparable ability. As a Master of Arts in social research I am forced to conclude that neurology is a far better predictor than anything else I tried...

Freestinker,

"Will one of you Theocrats please explain why any civil contract or civil law should ever be based on religious opinions of any kind?

I'm struggling to understand where the government gets the authority to make laws based solely on religious opinions?"

Actually, you've got it reversed. Marriage was ALWAYS considered a religious thing in pretty much every culture, until the modern West decided to dump religion. It is not a coincidence that we are in the midst of dumping (not just redefining) marriage, too.

Civil governments first started taking an interest in marriage because they saw that it was the building block of society. Good marriages resulted in good families, which resulted in good citizens - Caesar Augustus made this point; but then, the Roman government was very much intertwined with the state religion - paganism. Marriage has always been important to civil governments in questions of inheritance, since before wills were developed, 'illegitimate children' were ineligible to inherit. Also, because adultery was recognized to lead to things like feuds and duels, governments took an interest in restraining adultery. That was the beginning and end of the state's interest in marriage.

In more modern times, eugenic interests gave rise to the beginning of marriage licenses, permission by the state to marry. Similarly, the introduction of the income tax gave the IRS and the states' analogous structures an interest in marriage, as a question of how couples and households should be taxed.

So, by a winding and weird road, the state has gradually crept into and become involved with something it cared little about at first. What started as an interest in maintaining public order has clearly blossomed into something much broader than that minimal interest in an otherwise religious affair.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

My agreement with Alex. No threat to anyone but themselves, or anyone peeping in their window, and then they deserve it.

Thank God for a free country!

We can't make anyone get saved. And yes, the Lord commands Christians not to have sex within their own gender. Ergo, salvation would carry a price: it always does, in general, to stop being who one was, to give consent to God's spirit to change you. And He will.

Hillsman, take a note of male subjugation, because the Bible preaches it, yet you ignore it. The Bible is a shrink ray, it makes everybody smaller. And we DON'T HAVE SLAVERY ANY MORE. The sentiment of the Bible makes clear that we are all equal: slaves and owners (Colossians 3:11). Paul also exhorted slaves to get their freedom if they could. I Cor 7:21

DwightCollins, I am an adult heterosexual male with Asperger. Let me tell you something about "genocide" (non-reproduction). We Marshes are a ****ing "endangered species". The pattern exists in four places at least. My brother and I and two uncles. Brilliant men, computer programmers/Web developers, a scientist, a mathematician. No known offspring and little or no success in mating pairs. At least two of us are on antidepressants for that reason. One married: at sixty, to an elderly woman.

The cousins aren't doing much better. One is married but hasn't added any kids to the one pre-existing. The others are as single as the rest of us. (Their off-the-record mating status is unknown)

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE GAY TO END THE GERM LINE. Just different. I have even felt not human. Lately I have started dating a former Ms. Wheelchair (some state). We seem to grant one another more leeway it seems.

Will one of you Theocrats please explain why any civil contract or civil law should ever be based on religious opinions of any kind?

I'm struggling to understand where the government gets the authority to make laws based solely on religious opinions?

Postal1,

It is my hunch that you have long since given up trying to understand the Bible, and have decided to accept the parts you like and ignore the parts that you do not.

I do not believe that Jesus felt passionately about gay marriage; moreover, I do not believe he ever addressed it. Lastly, I do not believe that I said he did either of those things.

Gay marriage was a non-question in Jesus' day, just as the question, "May one microwave one's cat?" was a non-question during the Revolutionary War. Nobody had dreamed of such an abomination.

Homosexual behavior, of course, happened lots. It also was a non-question, but more in the sense that we feel, "Is it right to have slaves from Africa?" is a non-question. That is, it had been asked and answered in the past. In Jesus' day, the Torah's teaching on the issue of homosexual action never seems to have been questioned. Jesus certainly didn't.

Jesus' teaching on marriage - that it is a public and permanent arrangement between complementary opposites - male and female - who in their very complementarity image the infinite God - implicitly excludes "gay marriage." A man with an inflated sense of masculinity and a man with a deformed sense of his own masculinity are not exactly complementary opposites. A woman who tries to act manly and a woman who is afraid because she's been hurt by men are also not exactly complementary opposites. They're neurotics. At least, that's how the Diagnostic Statistical Manual Mental Disorders of the American Psychological Association classified them until 1973.

That's not a judgment on anybody's character. Neurosis isn't so bad. I'm kinda neurotic. I don't mind someone identifying that in me.

"But that does not preclude compassion and fairness and justice for others."

Fairness and justice are grounded in truth, or else they are not grounded at all. The question of distributive justice, giving to each what he deserves, is simple, "Has he a right to X?" It is not about being nice, but a simple question of fact. A man hasn't the right to marry another man because such a thing is impossible - that's not what marriage is. No less a public luminary than Gore Vidal (himself in a long-term gay relationship) believed exactly this same thing.

"I hope some day you will be able to fully understand the passage you quoted about having your heart of stone replaced with a heart made of flesh. Jesus would want that to come to pass for you and I pray it does."

I concur! Thanks for your prayers. I'll return the favor.

Your brother in Jesus,
Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Hillman1,

I asserted that David Catania must not care about poor people to put such extraneous conditions upon the delivery of aid to them; just as many have asserted that the Church must not care about the poor to be willing to abandon them over some extraneous principle.

It is Catania and his crowd that are unnecessarily trying to bind the "principle" of accepting gay marriage to the principle of caring for the poor; they are then dumping the matter on the Church as if the Church has cooked up this controversy.

I stand by those facts and that logic. You will wait a very long time, perhaps, sir, but you will receive no apology from me. It is not a lie, nor am I am liar. If you wish, we can discuss the matter of my integrity in person.

yours,
Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

when most people talk about gays...
the first thought is what if their sons were being violated by other men...
rarely does anyone think the same about two women...
all they see are older gays preying on the younger boys and turning them...
and that is why gay marriage is a threat...
can't you see the future of a family put out by the fact that their son is gay and their family line ends with them...
to many that is genocide...
Posted by: DwightCollins

Dwight,
There is much more to my heterosexual marriage than what combination of orifices, organs, and objects my husband and I employ when we get nekkid.
Tell me, what older woman violated you when you were a boy and "turned" you heterosexual? There was none? So what makes you think that gay men (or lesbians) are "turned" as children? Perhaps that's just the way they have always been, just as heterosexual is just the way you have always been.
As for ending the family line, some gay men DO father children by employing IVF and surrogate mothers. Others carry on the family name by adopting children. How will allowing same-sex partners to legally marry reduce the number of homosexual people who opt to reporiduce or adopt? Or do you think that as long as your gay son can't marry his boyfriend, maybe he'll go out and find a nice girl to have a sham of a marriage with?

excuse me miss....

"fr rubiconski:
>Gay marriage is a threat to the health and well being of the American and world population. This is how out of touch gay marriage is and a farce. ...
Please explain, in your own words, just how gay marriage is a "threat to the health and well being ..." I am a gay Christian woman who married my lovely WIFE last year, and we are not a "threat to the health and well being" of anyone.
Posted by: Alex511 | November 17, 2009 12:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment"

when most people talk about gays...
the first thought is what if their sons were being violated by other men...
rarely does anyone think the same about two women...
all they see are older gays preying on the younger boys and turning them...
and that is why gay marriage is a threat...
can't you see the future of a family put out by the fact that their son is gay and their family line ends with them...
to many that is genocide...

Compchiro said "Bigotry, intolerance, ignorance and/or fear. That plus a complete lack of understanding of Constitutional protections."

Otherwise known as majority rule (by large margins)

Hillman:

You are unusually dense or (as usual) stubborn. Go back and read what I wrote -- twice.

Divorce which Jesus specifically condemned in the Sermon on the Mount, overturned the law on divorce that Moses received on Mt Sinai. Jesus also incorporated the whole Mosaic law into his teaching, which includes the various condemnations of homosexuality in the Pentateuch as in the quotes I cited. NB: Christ's moral teaching demands more than the Mosaic law in some cases, but it never demands less.

But we also dealing with differing orders of evil. Divorce truncates or ends the moral good of heterosexual marriage, to which most of humanity is vocationally suited. It is an evil that truncates but does not destroy all the good in marriage.

Homosexuality, a sign of the disfigurement of Creation that entered thru human primordial sin, is an intrinsic evil that was never meant as a natural state for any human being. Therefore, it cannot be made good by the addition of any real or apparent good, so long as the attraction finds its expression in a manner that is unchaste.

Divorce only exists where once there was a good. Homosexuality connotes the absence of any good.

Annulment as you know, is not the same as divorce. The Church to its discredit, has often not observed this dictum when the rich and powerful were involved. Mea culpa and Long Live Archbishop Burke!

fr rubiconski:

>Gay marriage is a threat to the health and well being of the American and world population. This is how out of touch gay marriage is and a farce. ...

Please explain, in your own words, just how gay marriage is a "threat to the health and well being ..." I am a gay Christian woman who married my lovely WIFE last year, and we are not a "threat to the health and well being" of anyone.

hilman1,
"There is absolutely NO instance of Jesus mentioning homosexuality. Not one."

um, yah he didn't mention pornography or incest either...so by your logic he condones those things too?

is that the best YOU'VE got?

timray,

"yeah and in every state where it has been on the ballot it went down to defeat for a reason"

Bigotry, intolerance, ignorance and/or fear. That plus a complete lack of understanding of Consitutinal protections.

"Go back and read what I wrote: Divorce, as the RCC has always held, is an evil that end a moral good, where homosexuality is an intrinsic evil that nothing can render good."

Nonsense.

Jesus specifically forbade divorce. In His own words.

So by definition the RCC also forbids divorce. Oh, actually, no, they don't even do that. They allow annullments.

But they don't recognize marriages from divorcees that have gotten divorces but not annullments with the church.

Yet they offer those married couples health care benefits. Even though it is against their religious beliefs.

And yet they refuse medical benefits to gay couples, even though Jesus never mentioned gays or gay marriage. And Jesus never withheld healing.

Care to justify the Church's discrepancy? Why can they go against Jesus's own teachings on divorce and offer health benefits to divorcee married couples, but not to gays?

"So you do not think Jesus addressed homosexuality? How about "I came not to do away with the law, but to fulfill it;" or "I will not destroy the least part of the law."

Given this, no I don't think Paul's condemnation of the homosexuality is just an opinion."

Really? That's the best you've got.

There is absolutely NO instance of Jesus mentioning homosexuality. Not one.

As for your ridiculously generic Scripture quote, then you must believe ALL Old Testament laws and all of Paul's teachings must be followed? Including his approval of slavery, subjugation of women, etc?

You really can't have it both ways. Either you follow all of Paul or you don't.

Which is it?

Hillman said "Funny. That's not how Jesus saw divorce. He forbid it.

And yet He NEVER mentioned homosexuality, even though it would have been rampant in Roman society in Judea."

Go back and read what I wrote: Divorce, as the RCC has always held, is an evil that end a moral good, where homosexuality is an intrinsic evil that nothing can render good.

So you do not think Jesus addressed homosexuality? How about "I came not to do away with the law, but to fulfill it;" or "I will not destroy the least part of the law."

Given this, no I don't think Paul's condemnation of the homosexuality is just an opinion.

Bishop Chane asks why religious organizations object to the social implications of DC's proposed legislation. As a Catholic, I object because Chane's (and the City Council's) dichotomy forces me to consider what I believe to be utterly privatized and how I act to be utterly public. Unlike Chane and the COuncil, however, I am not schizophrenic: the guy who goes to Church Sunday is the same one who works Monday, and should not be expected to divest himself of his religious convictions because he enters the public square. If I do not believe that two men can marry, then why must I accept the social definition of marriage (especially since the Chane's and City Councillors of the world babble perennially about homosexual "marriage" being a "private" choice) when it comes to treating them publicly as "married?" Chane and company may believe that religion should be stuffed away in the sacristy, incapable of exercising influence on the way people ACT, but that is not the concept of Christianity I know.

A thought for the day

What comes unnaturally (even grossly) to most of us comes naturally to some others.
Humans are a complex species.

Why stand in their way in a "free country?"

Actually Paul indicates that he was trying to spare Christians grief by encouraging them not to marry. The persecutions were about to happen and loved ones were about to die. I Cor 7:26,28

Volkmare is correct to critique I Cor 7:8-9. A better explanation of why a single never married person should not marry (but may marry) is found in I Cor 7:32-27

RCVinson64, no problem. We can carry our crosses. We have a Holy Spirit helping us carry them. I am not worried for my ego what you decide. We are worried for your eternal destiny.

I am very sorry Colorado Dog. No Christian would rape anyone. I had a Mormon (and not a good one) teenager molest me when I was eight. I am sorry for your friend for having feelings God would never let him express. Aside from counseling him never to express his feelings, your friend should have been accepted. Under the religion I do not get to "express my (heterosexual) feelings" either unless and until I get married (everyone is sexless while single).

Would Jesus have performed miracles to reorient sexual orientation toward the opposite sex? I know the official Bible does not say so.

I wish my Greek-speaking college classmate Christian sister was reading these blogs with respect to pais and the meaning of the slave of the centurion disputed to have been a gay lover. I wish she would lay these word meaning issues to rest...

rossacpa said: "Paul's alleged diminishment of the married state is misunderstood because it is out of context. Paul's earliest epistles were written with expectation that Jesus' second coming would occur with in the lifetime of the first Christian generation so business, marriage, family life, long-term plans were considered inappropriate. In the second and third generations, believers realized that Christ's return was not imminent, so people began to live out normal lives with families."

So, then, if Paul was wrong about the 2nd Coming of Christ, then why on earth could he not have been wrong on his view of homosexuality?

yeah and in every state where it has been on the ballot it went down to defeat for a reason....time to rid ourselves of chump theologians

Rubiconski,

"Gay marriage is a threat to the health and well being of the American and world population."

That is a false statement. It is opinion (a fool's opinion at that) with absoutely no basis in fact.

"This is how out of touch gay marriage is and a farce. "
The only farce is you.

"How many referendums, propositions and elections do you need to realize that Americans are not okay with gay marriage. Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it was put to a vote. Can't take a hint? Guess what? People don't approve of or want 'gay marriage'. "

People do not get to vote on or need to give their approval to civil rights (and according the US Supremem Court's Loving ruling, marriage is a civil right.) If people had had a chance or right to vote on civil rights blacks would probably still be sitting inthe back of the bus and schools would still be segregated. AND interracial marriages would be illegal in msot states. The reason we look at those things now as normal is that the peolpe at the time did NOT have the right to vote on it and instead the US Supremem Court correctly interpretted the 14th Amendment to grant equal right and equal protection under the law, which is the same thing that the gay/lesbian community is justly demanding now.

"People are increasingly sick of this being pushed off as "normal". People are sick of having this shoved at us."
The same thing was said by segregtionsists. the "people" were wrong then and they are wrong now.

" Accept your fate and move on. "
That's what they told Dr. King. Luckily he refused to listen to teh mindless idiots who said that to him. The LGBT community is not likely to listen to your mindless foolishness either.

Those who adhere to the ideas put forward in this article place themselves is moral danger.
Posted by: MCMasotti
---------------------------------------
OoOOGGAAAAHH BOOOGAAAAHHHH, McMasotti. What's your sweet Christian God of Unconditional Love going to do to me next?

Rape me at 14 by one of your Brothers of Christ?

Splatter me with blood at the age of 17 from a gay friend blowing his brains out because his loving Mormon family and THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST couldn't accept he for what God made him!

Condemn me to 28 years of a marriage from hell because a woman who promised she wouldn't shove her Mormon religion down my throat lied to me and tried to do it anyway?

Watching the Country I once loved and volunteered to fight and die for become a hateful, intolerant, homophobic, theocratic Jesuslandia?

Bring it on. I'm pretty tough from your Christian love already.

I dunno. Sounds more like a congressman than a bishop to me.

"Divorce is a civil or religious recognition that a marriage, an intrinsic moral good, did not reach its natural end and fulfillment. "

Funny. That's not how Jesus saw divorce. He forbid it.

And yet He NEVER mentioned homosexuality, even though it would have been rampant in Roman society in Judea.

Funny how you pick and choose what you like from the Bible.

Those who adhere to the ideas put forward in this article place themselves is moral danger.

Natecar

You mention religion accepting the changing world we live in.

Do you realize that as a world falls into apostasy (as ours is once again doing), a true religion is not going to follow it into the depths of sin?

You are only fooling yourself if you think it will.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Dear Bishop Chane,

What an enlightened, loving and thoughtful addition to the debate about gay marriage! Thank you for standing up for equality. :)

Dear Bishop Chane,

What an enlightened, loving and thoughful addition to the debate about gay marriage! Thank you for standing up for equality. :)

SUGGESTION:

Let the Episcopalian Church take over the social services of Catholic Charities... and let's see...

The nerve to lecture other religions when the author's church itself is in total shambles.

Clean the speck off your eye before you clean others.' RUDE !

The article is not just a very credible and believable piece.. specially coming from a person whose denomination is still breaking down..LOOK IT UP... but I appreciate the input.

After reading many comments, I am reassured that the demographics are against all the homophobes and bigots writing in on this subject. Most who oppose equal rights for gays are older, while the young are more open, accepting and less biased.
The article presents a clear and logical basis or a religion accepting the changing world we live in.
Any organization that ties itself to an anti-gay position may be successful in the short term, but is dooming itself to irrelevance in the long term.

Gay marriage is a threat to the health and well being of the American and world population. This is how out of touch gay marriage is and a farce.

How many referendums, propositions and elections do you need to realize that Americans are not okay with gay marriage.

Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it was put to a vote. Can't take a hint? Guess what? People don't approve of or want 'gay marriage'.

People are increasingly sick of this being pushed off as "normal". People are sick of having this shoved at us.

This is stupid. Accept your fate and move on.

The comparison of divorce and homosexuality is inappropriate. Divorce is a civil or religious recognition that a marriage, an intrinsic moral good, did not reach its natural end and fulfillment. Homosexuality, which, when it ends by being genitally expressed, is always an intrinsic evil. No good, not even "marriage," can render homosexuality intrinsically good, It is always morally evil. Rather, one creates a mimicry or marriage which itself is intrinsically evil.

Paul's alleged diminishment of the married state is misunderstood because it is out of context. Paul's earliest epistles were written with expectation that Jesus' second coming would occur with in the lifetime of the first Christian generation so business, marriage, family life, long-term plans were considered inappropriate. In the second and third generations, believers realized that Christ's return was not imminent, so people began to live out normal lives with families.

CalP

You have some interesting points.

But one should note that because marriage is the highest ordinance that is available to man in this life, it only makes sense that a priest should ordain that marriage.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

I hope many people read Mr. Chane's comments, because they provide an excellent example of how far the Episcopal church has fallen. I left more than a decade ago, after finding it impossible to attend a church that so freely misinterpreted Scripture and openly questioned basic issues of morality.

Moral decline always accompanies doctrinal decline, and vice versa. A church who ordains as bishop an individual who denies the Resurrection of Christ really shocks no one when it then ordains as bishop someone who is openly gay. Where there is no true doctrine, where everything must be interpreted in light of changing trends and "evolving" social norms, the entire faith experience becomes pointless. That is why the Episcopal church is shrinking, and Catholic, Orthodox, and many evangelical Protestant communities are expanding.

Some of those who have commented above have given good explanations for why gay marriage is antithetical to authentic Christianity. To those, I will merely add the following: True Christianity cannot be molded and shaped to fit one's personal desires. Jesus offers life to anyone who will subordinate his or her personal will and follow Him. You cannot pick and choose doctrines to suit yourself. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, joined for life. Those who argue otherwise pervert the meaning of Scripture.

For those of you that may say that the quote I gave of 1 Cor 7:8-9 is not accurate, here is the corrected translation of verse 9: “But if they cannot abide, let them marry: for it is better to marry than that they should commit sin.”

Mark
Always seek the truth.

It is good to read that a man of the Church, A Bishop, presents this modern (actually old view) of marriage. Pauls's letter to the Corinthians did state that it was best that a man did not marry, but rather than burn (experience sexual urges) he should marry. As I recall, he explained that when a man marries, he carries out the wishes of his wife, and ditto the wife for the husband, which means that they would not be following God's will.

I am also pleased with your reference to Matthew 19, where Jesus said those words that have become so important to Christian marriage "what God hath joined together, let no man rent asunder". However, if one continues to read that reference in Matthew, it would show that Jesus, probably addressed homosexuality immediately following, but he used the term "eunuch" instead of homosexual, which might not have been a word used at that time. He said that not all men can receive this message, and that some are born eunuch's from their mother's womb; some are made eunuchs by other men, and still others become eunuchs in the service of the Lord (the priests I guess).

The major problem with the arguments of the Christian Church about marriage stems from the fact that the Church refuses to acknowledge that there could not have been any "Christian marriage" before the Christian Church was formed, after Christ's Crucifixion. The marriage that God referred to as one that should not be rent asunder was "natural marriage" or marriage by "knowing".

The best guide would have to be the Ten Commandments, but the marriage reference is only about covetting a man's wife, which is more a comment about adultery that could lead to divorcement.

It is also good that you reference the 13th century as the time the Catholic Church became seriously involved in marriage, which became a sacrement that must be carried out by Priests around the 16 - 17 century.

One other reference that would be helpful, would be the fact that homosexuality exists in the rest of the animal kingdom, which cannot be attributed to sin and morality.

I am very thankful that the Episcopal denomination is one of the fastest declining. From Genesis to Revelation, scriptures is clear: sexual relations are to be reserved for marriage and marriage is necessarily heterosexual. One can look around and see the disastrous consequences on society by straying from this norm.

OK, 1 Cor 7:8-9 says:
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

I don’t see the correlation that marriage is “…an inferior state”.
In these scriptures he does not belittle marriage. Instead, he encourages celibacy outside marriage as he has done: “…even as I.” Then he says that if you cannot control the urge (contain), you should get married.

Throughout scriptures, marriage is held as the highest ordinance. Paul would not belittle it by calling it “…an inferior state.”

Therefore, with all due respects, this argument does not hold up your cause.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

I Cor 7:8-9

You said "How do they square that claim with the Apostle Paul's teaching that marriage is an inferior state, one reserved for people who are not able to stay singly celibate and resist the temptation to fornication?"

Where does he say that?

Mark
Always seek the truth.

The Bible put people to death for working on Sunday (Numbers 15:32-36)
________________________________

Do not let people make rules for you about eating or drinking or about a religious feast, a New Moon Festival, or a Sabbath day. These things were like a shadow of what was to come.

Colossians 2:16-17.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.

Romans 14:5-6

You see, in Acts 15:29, some things in the Old Testament simply didn't make it into the New.

It amazes me that people can be so progressive on some subjects and so regressive on others. The same Bishop Chane who advocates for gay marriage (and I agree with his position) is the man who told me, as a Jew, that his tradition has "transcended" my faith tradition, (implying that my relationship with my G-d is invalid because his religion has superceded mine) and that Islam was less objectionable because at least they "respect Jesus," unlike Judaism. The appalling disrespect of calling Judaism a faith that has been transcended does not seem to occur to him - the lack of respect involved in telling someone that their entire faith tradition is invalid does not occur to him, yet he is publicly concerned about the lack of respect given to gay men and lesbians. I think it is great that he advocates on behalf of the right of gays to marry, but setting himself up as some kind of civil rights advocate when he holds such bigoted beliefs about Jews seems to me to be a bit of a reach.

"...God's love can be reflected in the loving commitment between two people of the same sex and of those who do not find God there."

This is really a red herring. The statement in fact is 100% true. Still gay marriage is an ontological impossibility.

How so? Like this:

Marriage is not the right of an individual. It is the right of a pair of individuals; i.e., it is a social right.

So is a gay relationship the same, and therefore equal to, a heterosexual one? Clearly not--the former simply lacks the complementary, physical attributes for the relationship to be a biologically identical relationship.

So, whatever a gay union is, it is NOT what a heterosexual relationship is--whatever it may be called, and therefore incapable of a "right" to be the same as a heterosexual union.

Note that this argument does not depend on religion, just the basic biological facts, ma'am. So why do gays want to be what they clearly are not?

To paraphrase Episcopal Bishop Stacy Sauls, once you approve of birth control, abortion, and divorce, it's not all that hard to support gay marriage.

Yeah, 'cause all those other things did so much to strengthen marriage...

To paraphrase Episcopal Bishop Stacy Sauls, once you approve of birth control, abortion, and divorce, it's not really hard at all to approve of gay marriage.

Yeah, 'cause all those other things have done so much to strengthen marriage...

As an Episcopalian and a member of a parish within the Diocese of Washington, I want to say thank you, Bishop Chane, for acknowledging that same sex couples deserve the same legal rights and protections my husband and I have always taken for granted.

"What will Catholic hospitals, a major employer in the healthcare sector, do? "

They will do what all grownups do - they will follow the law.

Just like they follow the law and offer health care benefits to spouses that have been divorced before and not properly annulled in a Church ceremony, even though they consider that a sin as well.

Bishop, thank you for your support.

The Bible also says that working on Sunday is a sin -- punishable by death. Eating insects is an abomination and sin -- poor John the Baptist, done been sent to hell for eating locusts. The really sad part of this argument is that people still use religion to dehumanize and punish other human beings for being born the way we are born. Jesus understood and addressed this -- it's just a shame he couldn't dispel it. And it's a shame that the U.S. government allows this type of religious hatred and discrimination to dictate its laws. Unbelievable.

Thank you Bishop Chane for bringing our loving creator back into the picture. And shame on those who disparage the love of Christ by mistreating others. God loves us as much as God loves you, without exception or argument.

I'm hoping that both the DC government and the local Catholic Charities can compromise on this issue. I do fear that the DC government is digging its heels in too hard.

However, what I fear more is when same-sex marriage becomes legalized nationwide. Those against same-sex marriage need to realize that the demographics are against them - the younger generation is more accepting of same-sex marriage than older generations. Equal rights nationwide is only a matter of time. What will Catholic hospitals, a major employer in the healthcare sector, do? They may be operated by the Catholic Church, but they employ many non-Catholic employees. It would be much harder to swallow a national exemption for Catholic hospitals to discriminate against people in same-sex marriages. And given that while you can make a reasonable argument that abortion does end a human life, it's hard to make a reasonable argument that allowing same-sex marriages threatens everyone else's marriage.

It is written-"That which you do unto these the least of my servants,you do also unto me".If you command someone to love you,or bribe someone to love with promises of a great life to come,or use pity and sympathy to evoke love.That is not love,for love is spontaneous and freely given unconditionally,with no expectation of a reward of any kind.Not even of expecting it to be returned.You can not command love.Nor can you threaten with fear of punishment to make someone love you.Sometimes commandments are issued to demonstrate the folly of trying to use force, in all it's many forms.It sometimes takes many many years for individuals and nations to learn that might is not right.Fear is not freedom.Love has no promises.Feed the hungry,heal, the sick,give warmth and shelter to those who are cold.Do all these things firstly in your own lands,and all will be well.Who then can judge you to be other than a righteous nation? Support your new President,for he is only trying to do these things.Regards,Jordan'

A lot of people agree with providing all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples but then object to calling it "marriage," often because they see it as a religious institution even though "marriage" is actually a civil institution that churches or other religious groups bless. (A minister marrying a couple is often also acting as an agent of the state.) Nevertheless, "marriage" in most people's mind refers to the religious/spiritual state.

So here's an idea:
We change the laws to replace each reference to "marriage" to something like "civil union." Everything else would remain the same (rights, benefits, responsibilities, etc.). Religious groups could bless (or not bless) whatever marriages they wanted, but the state would have the same legal institution for everyone, whether gay or straight, but simply call it a "civil union."

A good husband would remember to be a good servant, not watch football all Sunday. Slaveowner? Forget it. His conscience might tell him they were all equal. They'd get an honest living and not by force from someone else's labor.

No, Hillsman, Mr. Couch Potato Head watching the Super Bowl while his wife cleans house all day, and Mr. Slave Owner, are both poor Christians.

By trying to be "most" they are least....
and she is better than he is and the slaves are better than he is....

(in the sight of Jesus)

Maybe they will get treasure in Heaven....

Chuckle if you want.

If you aren't saved though it won't be a luaghing matter.

Everybody's a slave, Hillsman. Those who want to be first must become least (Luke 9:48) and humbl (Matt 18:4)

People oppose gay marriage I think because they do not conceive of any form of marriage other than Christian.

The world has many types of mating rituals as well as religions.

A powerful form of civil union able to take on the IRS and override the wishes of parents at the deathbed is the first step. A CU for all intents and purposes under the civil law that is totally equal to the legal protections any husband man and wife woman would enjoy.

And then a marriage in a church.

I don't expect any support from Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. I expect hostility. As a Christian I would fight nonviolently to oppose any attempt to attach the Christian label to gay marriage. Or to hatred. Read I John 3:15.

We still have Buddhism, the Unity of Humanity, Marxism, and perhaps lesser known religions like Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, if they would be willing.

Or resurrect the faith of the Greeks or Romans which lauded homosexuality?

If you can't think of any marriage ceremony other than Christian, you might be a redneck.

Christopher Marsh
Master of Arts
Sociology
Marshall University

"Obeying the Bible is a b-tch. I'd rather be fornicating. But the Lord knows what is good for me and I trust Him. I am not sure I will ever be married."

--------

cmarshdtihqcom,

OK ... but nothing says civil laws should ever conform with anybody's religious opinion. Religious opinions are always completely irrelevant to civil laws unless you are advocating theocracy.

"Acts 15:29 concludes a lengthly controversy over exactly how much of the Jewish law the Christians were to obey. Forget the shellfish. Forget the cloth with two kinds of yarn. Forget menstruating women in public.

But don't forget sexual sin"

Okey dokey then. For the time being we'll ignore the fact that the Old Testament verses about homosexuality are often either misunderstood (Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitability, attempted rape, and for pagan excesses, none of which included consensual homosexuality) or were included specifically as part of pagan temple or worship rituals.

How about the New Testament verses only, then.

You know, Paul's admonition to the slave, to return to his master?

Or Paul's insistence that women be subservient to men?

How do you casually explain those away?

pdogglimhotmailcom:
"Bishop Chane, I pray to God that He would open your eyes to the truth of His Holy Bible. You are leading thousands and thousands of people into Hell with not only your misinterpretation, but blatant disregard for the Word."

Wait a minute. You're telling a *Bishop* that he doesn't understand the Bible? I guess we can conclude that you must be the Pope or at least an Archbishop.

Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." I'm expecting an article next week from you, Bishop Chane, on how "The devil's not Real" or "Its okay to be Sinful, as long as it makes you Happy".

Posted by: pdogglimhotmailcom

What is a wedding ceremony? It is a blessing to go ahead and do what wedded couples do, have sex.

If any Christian church is even having a gay wedding ceremony is it encouraging gay sex, giving a blessing to a relationship which will all but certainly* be sexual.

* The People's Alamanac (1978) lists some notable heterosexual sexless marriages out of the billions performed in human history. That, however, places the odds at maybe 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of 1%.....

As a lonely man, incidentally, Bishop, I take no pleasure in saying that gay marriage is unscriptural. I am truly sorry for the immense loss gay Christians must feel.

Thank you this spoke to the issue perfectly.
It seems everyone is loosing site that marriage is a civil issue and not a religious one. The US is not a Christian nation. We are a nation of many religions one of which is Christianity. Therefore we do not have to follow Christian law as if it were civil law. Our constitution was not written as a religious document.
Since marriage is a CIVIL law and the US is not a Christian state Christians have no right to make or dictate any civil law. They can make all the religious laws they want for their followers but need to stay out of the laws of this nation.

Sir,

I have been saved 16.5 years. If you had to describe me i am somewhere in the vicinity of Baptist-Methodist, certainly Protestant, but I would date (and am dating) a Catholic woman who presumably loves and fears Jesus and would bring others to Him. Maybe more than I do?

Politically I hope gay marriage passes. I can believe in what is Caesar's versus what is God's. This is a free country and not everyone is a Christian. Those who are not Christian must be protected from our persecution, and forgive me for my language, Bishop.

You cannot compare a gay marriage to an interfaith marriage.

I have been counseled against interfaith marriage. It has been hard trying to hard a woman who would give me a chance. Maybe this one will. Our last pastor, a woman, has a son married to an unbelieving Chinese woman and does not want to see me make that mistake, convinced it would hurt me as it has hurt her son.

Christians do have the liberty to make and stay in an interfaith marriage (I Cor 7:12-14) but must let an unbelieving spouse go if they wish (15-16).

But make no mistake, Christians have no right to same sex marriage. Romans 1:26-27.

This is important so read carefully. The New Testament did replace most of the Old Testament, but not the part you want, Bishop. Acts 15:29 concludes a lengthly controversy over exactly how much of the Jewish law the Christians were to obey. Forget the shellfish. Forget the cloth with two kinds of yarn. Forget menstruating women in public.

But don't forget sexual sin.

Screeching halt.

It almost worked out well Bishop. We almost had gay marriage. We almost solved that lousy catch 22 that made people lonely or made them sinners.

But we didn't.

You would have us think only some churches disagree with gay marriage.

Only those that read their Bibles and follow them.

My brother, you do not seem to reading yours. Your friends do not seem to be obeying it.

Obeying the Bible is a b-tch. I'd rather be fornicating. But the Lord knows what is good for me and I trust Him. I am not sure I will ever be married.

If it is any consolation to your gay friends, myself and some straight Christians feel the same things: loneliness, sexual hunger, wondering if God has forgotten us, thinking we will never find anyone. The only difference for your friends is that in their case, if they obey Christ, they are correct: there is no one for them.

I appreciate Bishop Chane’s large spirit and personal courage in taking on the predictable response of the Catholic Church regarding same-sex marriage.

Yet strictly speaking, what Bishop Chane or Pope Benedict or the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem or the Ayatollah Khameni believe about same-sex marriage is of little interest to me. (There is an Egyptian cleric right now who claims that homosexuality threatens the very throne of God. I never knew God was so vulnerable). As a citizen of Washington DC and the United States, I do not comment on whether the Church should extend the sacraments to those who have not been baptized. I have no opinion on whether the priesthood should be open to women, or to non-celibates, and I would be very reluctant to comment on what the Almighty thinks about the Sunni-Shiite rift. Those are matters pertaining to organized religion and none of my business.

Like some other comments here, my point is that there is a wide distinction between civil and sacramental marriage. It’s natural for religious leaders have strong opinions about the former; whatever their opinions are about the latter, they have no business promulgating them any more than I have telling them whether cardinals should retire at age 55.

America is a peculiar land. Having inherited a wise republic which clearly separates Church and State, millions of its citizens blur the line every day confusing the two. But the debate over civil gay marriage or civil union or whatever you want to call it is a civil debate, not a religious one. It should be supported for gays and lesbians simply because they’re people too, and the right to marry stands so clearly at the intersection of what almost all of us would define “the pursuit of happiness.” I’ll let Bishop Crane speak for the Almighty. For me, the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights implies that rights cannot be claimed for some while denied to others.

"...there is no truth apart from the Word of God."

----------

pdogglimhotmailcom,

That is, of course, strictly a matter of religious opinion.

A better question is why you think any civil laws should ever be based on religious opinion?

Wouldn't that be theocracy?

"Compared to these issues, gay marriage pales by comparison. I would like to see all religious groups focus on what is important. Can we do that?"

A lot of Christians are doing just that - helping those in need.

Sadly, though, some see fighting gay people, literally destabilizing their lives and denying them health coverage, etc., is more important than feeding the hungry, combatting treatable disease in Africa, helping those who've lost their jobs in the US, etc.

Says a lot about their priorities. And none of it good.

How much has the Religious Right spent over the past decades in fighting gay people? Hundreds of millions?

Think of all the good that could have done.

Given the choice between saving an AIDS orphan and fighting to make sure a lesbian couple suffers needlessly in their old age, what would Jesus choose?

Did anyone notice the article reporting that more than 49 million Americans do not have access to an adequate food supply? Is anyone aware that the unemployment rate in the U.S. is close to 11 percent? Is anyone aware of the millions of children without health care? Does anyone care that more than 100 veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are committing suicide each month? Compared to these issues, gay marriage pales by comparison. I would like to see all religious groups focus on what is important. Can we do that?

"I mean, referencing, uses the Greek word "pais" which in the context of Matt 8 and Luke 7 should be correctly translated as "servant or slave"

The text uses the word 'doulos' when the centurion refers to his slaves, and pais when he refers to this one special young man.

Like it or not the term pais was frequently used to mean 'companion' or 'beloved'. Couple that with the fact that centurion used a totally different word for his slaves, and you got a strong case for gay lover, albeit probably owned by him, as was the custom at the time for many Romans, as the centurions in Judea were required to remain single, so many took male slaves as lovers.

Why would the centurion refer to all his other slaves as slaves, and this one as his companion?

And do you really expect English versions drafted in Victorian England to refer to anyone as a gay lover?

And homosexuality amongst Romans was blatant in Jesus' Judea. Yet He didn't condemn it even once.

Wouldn't you think He'd get around to it, at least once, in the years that He preached and taught?

Yet he did get around to divorce. He condemned it pretty strongly.

So are you out there arguing that we should allow churches that take taxpayer funds to discriminate against married couples that have been divorced?

No? Why not?

And, it's interesting to note that even if the pais references was just a slave, as you suggest, Jesus didn't hesitate to heal him. No questions asked.

Wouldn't that be a pretty direct 'condoning' of slavery?

So, in your theory, since Jesus healed a slave with no questions asked why wouldn't the Church be in the position of providing medical 'healing' no questions asked as well?

I mean, isn't slavery a sin?

Or would you suggest that it's better than being gay?

Thank you to Bishop Chane for this timely, thoughtful and reasoned piece.

Thanks also to jsclms for giving the needed reminder to the all the legalistic pharisees posting here. Jesus made it quite plain in Matthew 22.

Mr Haber,
I don't recall Jesus ever saying a word about two men having sex or getting married, either for or against.
If we was so passionate on the issue, as you seem to believe, you would think he would have mentioned it somewhere in there.
Yes he endorsed a man and woman becoming one flesh. So do I! But that does not preclude compassion and fairness and justice for others. That is what Jesus was all about in my bible.
I am not sure which bible you are reading.
I hope some day you will be able to fully understand the passage you quoted about having your heart of stone replaced with a heart made of flesh.
Jesus would want that to come to pass for you and I pray it does.

Mr. Haber:

I'm still awaiting your apology for bearing false witness against David Catania, claiming that he doesn't care about homeless people.

Bearing false witness is a sin, right?

And you claimed he doesn't care about homeless people.

Which is simply not true.

You know, a lie.

So your apology and retraction?

Thank you Bishop Chane.

Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Thank you Bishop Chane for bringing reason and compassion to this discussion. Human rights and civil rights are not negotiable to the ballots of the majority. Thank you, and I hope that more people who don't agree with the conservative right will also speak up!

Like Bishop Chane, I am unable to follow the Catholic Church's logic (or the logic of any who object to the proposed DC law for religious reasons). Legal marriage is a civil issue; sacraments are a religious issue. If you have the church sacrament without applying for a marriage license for the government, you aren't legally married. If you get married at the courthouse, you aren't married in the eyes of the Catholic church. The Catholic Church wouldn't want the government to tell them who they can and can't give sacraments to; they should provide the same courtesy to the government to decide government matters, such as this civil rights issue.

Amen and Thank you Ryan Haber. I am an Evangelical Christian, who grew up in a Buddhist family...there is no truth apart from the Word of God.

Thank you for sharing the history of marriage in the church. Far too many claim that the concept that originated in the 1800s is "the way it's always been." It seems that these traditions only extend as far back as our grandparents' grandparents.

Oh, and Bishop Chane, one last thing:

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever," (Heb 13:8).

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Bishop Chane,
Without getting into the legality of the matter, I would like to address your theological argument. I find it very telling that in your argument for Christian acceptance of marriage, you only once invoke the words of Jesus Christ, nor of any of His immediate disciples, nor of any of the 1950-year long tradition they built, nor of the 1000 year tradition of which He was the culmination. That one quotation you give is dramatically incomplete. Here it is in full:
“He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder,” (Mt 19:4-6; cf. Mk 10:5-9).
In Mark’s parallel passage, Jesus explains why the Mosaic Law provides an exceptional permission for divorce: “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment,” (Mk 10:5). After the coming of the Holy Spirit into the Church, we live in the age of Grace, Bishop Chane. The prophecy given by Ezekiel comes to pass: “A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” Supple to the movements and power of grace, human weakness can be transcended. The movement of the Spirit is not to be taken as permission to do away with the moral code of our forebears. Our Lord said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them,” (Mt 5:17).
If you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, how can you seriously argue away his words as culturally-conditioned? Has it occurred to you, Bishop Chane, that your words might be culturally-conditioned? Do you claim for yourself a transcultural point of view that you believe our Lord did not have?
Your denomination was founded, sir, upon the convenience of going along with a king who wished to put away his wife when he found her inconvenient to his lifestyle. Your denomination was in 1930 the first to permit the use of contraception at the behest of social activists like the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, though contraception had been condemned by all Christians since the Didache (ca. AD 100) as useful only to prostitutes, and useless to Christian families with faith in God to provide for them. Should we be surprised that your denomination is the first to go along with this cultural fad as well?
The apostles themselves pointed out, concerning our Lord’s words on marriage, that it is not an easy path (Mt 10:19). But then, our Lord warned that the path “is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few,” (Mt 7:14).

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Finally! The Voice of Reason in Religion!
Thank you, Bishop Chane!

"After all its very existence is an evolution out of Judaism" said CharlesaDavison1, Judaism is in turn an evolution of the cult of Yaweh. There are still elements of Yaweh cult worship in the Old Testament. To argue that the Bible is an absolute authority is to ignore the reality of its' creation and evolution over time. Do we still stone adulterers? Do we still hold slaves? Do we practice polygamy? I had bacon yesterday, did you?

We don't worship the Bible, we worship God, and celebrate God's love for all of us and our relationship with Him. The entire Protestant movement grew from the notion that ones relationship with God is personal. This is all part of the evolving understanding of what it means to be a Christian, and now has stood for nearly 500 years. In fact many of the most vocal critics of gay marriage are Protestants. I see a certain irony there.

For myself I believe that folks have lost sight of the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage. Religious institutions have no business telling the government how to operate. The religious institution of marriage has become too entangled with the civil contract of marriage. It's the civil contract that affords rights and status that many of us seek. It's entirely up to the religious institution to manage it's rituals, it's up to the government to enforce the rights of all it's people. Where religious institutions have dominated government bad things have happened. Witness countless wars, burnings of heretics and unspeakable oppression in the name of God (or Allah or whomever). I don't care if the LDS doesn't recognize my marriage so long as my spouse can call the shots at my funeral, and pull the plug if necessary.

I can't pretend to know Gods' will, and thus don't presume to judge as so many others seem to, but I can say that we are all Gods' children, and all are loved by Him. I believe that, my FAITH tells me so.

Hillman1, which version of the Bible are you reading? Probably Bishop Chane's version where it only talks about "love" and all mention of sins are conveniently ommitted so as to not offend anyone. The story of the Roman Centurion you are distorting *cough*.. I mean, referencing, uses the Greek word "pais" which in the context of Matt 8 and Luke 7 should be correctly translated as "servant or slave." I am a Doctor (Oral Surgeon) and a Missionary who has studied Greek for a few years. Also no Evangelical Christian translation (ESV, King James, New King James, NASB, The Message, New Living or NIV) translate that word to mean "gay lover".

Alex511 wrote: "We are United Methodists, and our MARRIAGE is fully recognized by our congregation."

---------------

Therefore, according to their logic, people who object to your Christian marriage (like AGAPN9 and ROSSACPA) are by definition opposed to Christian marriage.

How ironic.

"The community cannot have it both ways. If you want our help, you have to receive it on our terms."

Really? That's how Jesus did it? Before he healed anyone he required that they sign up for a whole list of prerequisites?

Oh, wait. No. He didn't. He healed anyone that asked. Including, interesting, the gay lover of a Roman centurion.

Sad that His followers won't follow suit.

Like it or not medical coverage is the 'healing' of our time. And you are actually advocating withholding it because someone is gay.

"You illustrate the most threatening points of DC's proposed statute: That some younger and weaker Christian brothers and sisters will conclude what is permitted by civil law is also permitted within Christ's Church."

-------

ROSSACPA,

If that's a problem, which I seriously doubt it is ... it's certainly not a result of the DC law. It's a result of the inherent weakness in Christian homogeny. So unless you are advocating theocratic law, you can blame the church for that, not the state.

"Despite his well reasoned logic, Bishop Crane omits the fact that the Bible describes homosexuality as a sin."

And it forbids divorce. And approves of slavery, even going to the point of instructing runaway slaves to return to their masters. And it repeatedly puts women in a second-class category.

And, of course, Biblical marriage was full of incest, forced marriage of underage girls, and polygamy.

The second you start demanding that institutions that take public funds can discriminate against divorcees, can reinstitute slavery, can foerce 'Biblical marriage' on all, and can treat women as second class I'll grant you leeway on the gay issue.

Here's a few more Bishop Chane articles I'm expecting him to write: "The Christian argument for Illegal Drug Use", "Jesus and Buddha were Best Friends", "How to be a Happy Lukewarm Christian", and "The Bible doesn't Command, Merely Suggests."

"When the Catholic Church comes down on the side of tradition and Christian belief, they are called haters and bigots and told to stay out of the discourse lest they forfeit their tax exempt status."

Not really. Nobody said the Catholic Church doesn't have the right to be hateful and stunted. In fact, most would defend their right to do so.

It's just that they can't use public funds and discriminate, and they have to follow the law like everyone else when they take public funds or conduct public business.

They can still rant and rail all they'd like.

fr rossacpa:

>...While you and you partner may have some participation in the life of the Church, you must realize that the only marriage that can be recognized by orthodox Christians ...

We are United Methodists, and our MARRIAGE is fully recognized by our congregation.

>...In all charity I must warn you that any suggestion the a same-sex union can reflect a marriage founded on the that of Christ and his Church is perverse, blasphemous, and heretical. You may not enter into the heavenly city while pretending you and your partner reflect Christian marriage...

"In all charity, I must warn YOU to MYOB". Christ is in our MARRIAGE. Is He in YOURS??? Deal with the FACT that someday we WILL have Marriage EQUALITY in all 50 states.

Bishop Chane, I pray to God that He would open your eyes to the truth of His Holy Bible. You are leading thousands and thousands of people into Hell with not only your misinterpretation, but blatant disregard for the Word. Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." I'm expecting an article next week from you, Bishop Chane, on how "The devil's not Real" or "Its okay to be Sinful, as long as it makes you Happy".

Interesting. When the Catholic Church comes down on the side of tradition and Christian belief, they are called haters and bigots and told to stay out of the discourse lest they forfeit their tax exempt status. I assume the folks who make that claim will also condemn this "bishop" then for also taking a public political stand? Seems not as i read comments like "courageous" regarding his stand. It's actually not.

Contrast and compare the inclusive love of Jesus in Bishop Chane's position to the hateful exclusion, intolerance and hypocrisy of the Catholic Church which bashes gays in the name of Christ while hiding and protecting gay pedophiles in its clergy from criminal trials and prison where they belong.

In the preface of old bibles it is written,"Herein is contained the mind of god".In Books god is a word, an idea.In reality god is an experience that can not be described or even spoken about. This is because words in and of themselves have no meaning.Words serve to point to reality.If you ask me what my cup of coffee tastes like, the key word is like, and I could go on and on telling you what it is like. But to know the coffee, I would have to pass you my cup and you would have to drink of it.This example is true of any situation.Words point,but they are not the reality of what they point to.Sometimes religion does more to separate man from god than any other organization.It is written,"The kingdom of heaven is not a place,it is within you and among you".I might add that the same is true of hell.You are such beautiful beings on a beautiful planet and you have unlimited potential.It is also written "do your laws not say that ye are as gods?" The truth is not contained in words,but it is hidden in plain sight.Will you continue to persecute and kill each other over words? Regards,Jordan'

INTHEMIDDLE wote:

"The Episcopal Church long ago ceased to be a Christian denomination and has become a liberal arm of the Democratic party supporting everything from abortion to homosexual marriage."

-----------------------------

In the middle of what? Donohue Catholic hatred and intolerance?

You would be quick to call me a Catholic-basher if I wrote:

The Catholic Church long ago ceased to be a Christian denomination and has become a right-wing arm of the Republican party supporting everything from discriminating against gays and to hiding, aiding and abetting criminal perverts in its clergy.

AGAPN9 aaud 'I am a gay CHRISTIAN woman who married my lovely WIFE last year, and we thank God each day for His presence in our FAMILY."

You illustrate the most threatening points of DC's proposed statute: That some younger and weaker Christian brothers and sisters will conclude what is permitted by civil law is also permitted within Christ's Church.

While you and you partner may have some participation in the life of the Church, you must realize that the only marriage that can be recognized by orthodox Christians must reflect the Divine marriage of Christ the Bridegroom and hsi Bride the Church. This is a feminine Bride configured to Christ the masculine Bridegroom.

In all charity I must warn you that any suggestion the a same-sex union can reflect a marriage founded on the that of Christ and his Church is perverse, blasphemous, and heretical. You may not enter into the heavenly city while pretending you and your partner reflect Christian marriage

People want the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian organizations to give their resources to the secular community when our doctrines on compassion and giving to the poor agree with their concepts and needs. Unfortunately, when our doctrines strongly contradict popular concepts, many communities want to take our money and press the mute button on our teachings. The community cannot have it both ways. If you want our help, you have to receive it on our terms.

Finally, the biblical Jesus, who confronted both the political and religious hypocrites of his day, would never let himself be blackmailed into becoming a permanent agent of any corrupt government.

What exactly is the place of religious beliefs/standards/faith in discussions of public policy? Many of the great social justice movements in this nation's history (abolitionists, prison reform, civil rights, etc.) have involved Christians (and others) motivated by their religious beliefs. I would argue that people's religious/moral/ethical beliefs should definitely play a part in motivating them in public policy discussion.

However, religious arguments by themselves are not the most appropriate (or useful) ones for a multi-cultural and multi-faith society such as ours that also holds up a separation of church and state. People of faith might support a certain position based on their beliefs, but public advocacy has to involve more secular arguments for why that position is best for the larger society.

As I remember it, "Bsp." Chane's communion came about because a man called Henry could not convince the Catholic Church to let him divorce his first wife so he could marry his true love who he later had executed for witchcraft and incest so he could marry his real true love who died so he married his true and real true love whom he had executed so ... .

If you would not ask AIG for financial advice, why would you seek counsel from the Anglicanism on marriage?

AGAPN9,

This debate is about civil marriage law, not religious marriage doctrine, so although religious arguments may be persuasive, they are all completely irrelevant to the question.

fr agapn9:

>...Most good christians wants gays to be treated with dignity and fairly in the court system.
So civil unions are fine....

No, they are NOT "fine". Why don't people understand that MARRIAGE EQUALITY is simply asking for the RIGHT of glbts to marry the legal, non attached, consenting adult of our choice? We don't want to marry farm animals, kids, or siblings.

It's not rocket science.

I am a gay CHRISTIAN woman who married my lovely WIFE last year, and we thank God each day for His presence in our FAMILY. Do YOU?

beautifully written. thank you.

Thank you Bishop Chane.

To RLShearer: Yes, Bishop Chane omits the Old-Testament passage that specifically describes homosexuality as sin (along with many other things, like eating shellfish). But his scriptural reasoning is sound.

You are incorrect in stating that "None of the changes in the Church's view of marriage through history ever conflicted with Scripture." You must have missed Bp. Chane's point in the second paragraph: that the most significant way we have deviated from Scripture over marriage is on the matter of divorce (Jesus' teaching is fairly clear on this matter - much more so than anything having to do with homosexuality).

How come the DC Catholic church is holier than that in Massachusettes, Connecticut and New Hapshire. Perhaps because there are more thinking Catholics in those states than in the little district that has a Catholic minority. How dare they threaten the city by refusing to perform the services that they are well paid to administer. I'm amazed that they have any money to spend on this issue after paying off all those kids molested by the celibate priests. I guess that's what you can expect from a bunch of old men running around in silk and satin dresses.

The ten commandments prohibits the practice of killing. Why has the church not sought a nationwide ban, or constitutional amendment, banning the death penalty? Do they suggest that God gives them special license under "certain" circumstances to kill those who have killed others? Circumstances they are relieved from restrictions set forth in the New Law (New Testament)?

If divorce violates the declarations of Christ, why is divorce still legal in this nation? Are Christians who have gotten a divorce hell bound sinners?

If, under law, marriage is considered a civil union that can be officiated by and made legal by a public official is it not discriminatory for that same public official to not marry a same sex couple because of their disagreement with their lifestyle?

Discrimination is discrimination no matter what race or religion it comes from.

It is always has been and always will be wrong.

pofinpa,

"a national referendum is needed to bury this subject. if the MAJORITY of our CITIZENS vote,so be it if not,so be it. stop whining more important needed to be addressed other than minority,special interest BS"

Majority OPINION is not a valid basis for EQUAL rights. Ypou can be pretty much guaranteed that IF desegregation had been put up to popular vote in the 30's, 40's, 50's and early 60's that AFrican Americans would still not hve a vote, still not be able to be served in many eating establishments, still be sitting in the back of the bus and still be attending substandard public schools. The court made a specific point that equal rights is not up to popular vote. This issue (same-sex CIVIL marriage) is not different. Especially since just as interracial marriage in no way adservsely effected the marreaiges of same-race couples or the institution of marriage (which was one of the arguements for prohibitting it) same-sex marraige will have negative effect on opposite sex couples or the institution of marriage.

The Episcopal Church long ago ceased to be a Christian denomination and has become a liberal arm of the Democratic party supporting everything from abortion to homosexual marriage.

That said, Bishop Chane's interpretaion of scripture is at best sophistry and at worst grossly flawed.

It is impossible to read the Bible honestly and conclude that homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage is God's intention for men and women. Romans 1, for example, states that homosexuality results from the suppression of the truth about God. Jesus Himself endorsed the institution of marriage and warned about sexual immorality, which to a 1st century Jew clearly included homosexual acts.

Bishop Chane may think of himself as tolerant, compassionate man but, in fact, he is endorsing a use of human sexuality that is destructive and against God's will, as revealed in Scripture.

Of course, the alternative is to simply disregard the Bible. Perhaps Bishop Chane should be honest and admit that he does not believe the Bible is the Word of God, rather than twist it to say something it simply does not say.

Homosexuality is causing a schism in the anglican and episcopalian churches and comes now an episcopal bishop ( not catholic for those who do not know) to further inflame the issue.

Is now Bishop Chane lecturing the catholic church? or just catholics in general?

Does the Washington Post and some of the more rabid city council members think they will just win this argument by promoting ignorance and confusion in their publication?

Jesus said - "Male and female He created them - Genesis.

Jesus in that text affirms the insolubility of marriage and that it be between and a man and woman exclusively.

The issue for Christians and gays do not understand this - universally is the sacramental nature of the act.

Most good christians wants gays to be treated with dignity and fairly in the court system.

So civil unions are fine.

But what is overstepping is saying that I as a cleric or christian can redefine Jesus's words to fit the times.

I cannot speak for God and neither can the Bishop.

If God wants the sacramental act of marriage to be between a man and a woman I can't change God's mind or reinterpet God's teaching to make you happy - sorry.

If we could do that then John the Baptizer and Jesus and all the martyrs died in vain.

God wants all people to find salvation - to love and be loved in the fullest sense of the word.

But it is "Obedience that I seek and not sacrifice".

religious beliefs ,arguments pro/con has no right to dictate law in this country.a national referendum is needed to bury this subject. if the MAJORITY of our CITIZENS vote,so be it if not,so be it. stop whining more important needed to be addressed other than minority,special interest BS

If only more Christian leaders would follow Bishop Chane's logic.

Despite his well reasoned logic, Bishop Crane omits the fact that the Bible describes homosexuality as a sin. None of the changes in the Church's view of marriage through history ever conflicted with Scripture. Sadly, many in the Anglican church no longer appear to view Scripture as God's word.

Now the auhtors sounds and reads like the almighty..UNBELIEVABLE !!

But BRAVO.. we should hear more from this side of the discussion. Encourage your local/area. regional and national church leaders to do the same.

Bravo to Bishop Crane.

Although I am not a Christian, I applaud his cogent and well-reasoned argument.

Christian beliefs and principles have been evolving and changing since its inception.
After all its very existence is an evolution out of Judaism.

I sincerely hope that this simple well thought out argument is copied and distributed far and wide, it might even change some minds.

Thank you Bishop Chane! I'm glad that we have an Episcopal Church official speaking out publicly in the papers on this issue. We need more of this.