Time will tell, and the Episcopal church in the U.S.A is far and away the most liberal of the World
Anglican Communion. It appears that the English are heading that way too, along with the liberal wings of Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians, who are no doubt watching developments with interest and concern.

I say let the great experiment continue, at least in the churches. No denomination which has gone liberal has ever gone back, and in the U.S.A. they have lost 40% of their membership since the 60s.
Parishoners don't get their needs met in liberal churches.

Most Christians have compassion for gays and probably have gay freinds and relatives. Most Americans know someone who has died of AIDS, etc.
Most Christians in this country probably do not believe that gays are bad people.

I do believe that, as in Australia, there is a backlash forming against gay activism. My heart breaks for Episcopalians, as they have in the name of fairness and compassion thrown love and reason
and faith out the window.

Anyone advocating hate and violence toward gays is not following Christianity, but are those who push
it on other people's children doing so?

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

quote:

I say let the great experiment continue, at least in the churches. No denomination which has gone liberal has ever gone back, and in the U.S.A. they have lost 40% of their membership since the 60s. Parishoners don't get their needs met in liberal churches.

Most Christians have compassion for gays and probably have gay freinds and relatives. Most Americans know someone who has died of AIDS, etc. Most Christians in this country probably do not believe that gays are bad people.

I do believe that, as in Australia, there is a backlash forming against gay activism. My heart breaks for Episcopalians, as they have in the name of fairness and compassion thrown love and reason and faith out the window.

Interesting scenerio, MM, where basically the free market is involved in deciding this question. Sounds darn democratic to me.

And I think you nailed it when you said the backlash isn�t necessarily against gays as much as it is against the radical gay movement; the one that implies that other than total acceptance of gayness is tantamount to being a mean-spirited bigot. So let�s put all our cards on the table: Gay people don�t like being called perverts any more than straight Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin because, duh, it says so in the Bible, like being called homophobes or bigots. Some are, but surely the overwhelming majority are not. And perhaps in fairness we might also acknowledge what sure looks like a fair amount of anti-Christian bigotry coming from various gay groups.

But, at least from where I sit, there does seem to be some irreconcilable differences. Gays want to be accepted as normal and Christians (at least a great many of them) wish to continue to preach that homosexuality is wrong -- or at least undesirable or unhealthy for an individual to engage in. But sometimes it seems the gay issue goes beyond acceptance until it takes on the flavor of a militant assault on traditional values and on heterosexuality itself. I mean, why should, for instance, the good name of an organization such as the Boy Scouts be drug through the mud if the point is to promote tolerance?

I must say that ideologically I�m in favor of gay people being given equal protection under the law. But I think it�s time for their leadership to try some new tactics in terms of seeking cultural equality. They might start by admitting, instead of denying, some of the shortcomings associated with gayness such as rampant promiscuity as well as the totally avoidable AIDS epidemic brought on by such behavior. Also, I think it would be in the gay movement�s best interest to take a reasonable and rational approach to the issue of gayness itself. Although from case to case we might never know for sure what is learned or chosen behavior and what is genetic, to deny the reality that there are innate advantages to heterosexuality and that many gay people have gone straight and have found better lives does not serve the gay peoples� long term interests.

All good points, monsieurs Brad and Michaeli.

News Flash . . .

Canadian High Court Clears Way for Gay Marriage.

"This is a victory for Canadian values," said Alexander Munster of Canadians for Equal Marriage.

Uh huh.

"Canada is a pluralistic society," the court said. "Our constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life."
- from this link

Government plans would see the definition of marriage changed to the "lawful union of two persons," rather than the "lawful union of one man and one woman."
- here

Brilliant!

IOW, marriage has now become a totally meaningless relationship.

Wanna marry your sister? Your mother? Go to Canada.

------

Seriously now, I've done a lot of thinking on this lately, especially after reading some of our exchanges above and some of the articles cited on this thread. Where I've come out is with a deeper appreciation of the traditional understanding of marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman that is fundamentally oriented toward procreation. This doesn't mean there aren't other goods in marriage, only that even those derive their meaning, to some extent, from the procreative dimension (e.g. tax breaks, inheritance laws).

The only reason the state ought to have any say in this issue is because it is in the interest of the community and its government to help support parents in their raising a next generation of citizens. Only a heterosexual marriage satisfies this interest of government; therefore, only heterosexual unions ought to be considered as lawful marriages.

What about homosexuals, their desires, their right to be in committed relationships?

I have no objection, just let's not confuse this with the traditional understanding of marriage and the reason why the state recognized and dissolved such. Once the procreative orientation is lost, the only good that government has is in trying to appease vociferous and pushy citizens who want the benefits heterosexual couples receive, but not the responsibilities. It seems to me that legal arrangements and commitments re. inheritance, visitation rights, etc. can be made by homosexual couples without considering themselves "married." Perhaps some kinds of "packages" could even be arranged -- sort of like those kits you can purchase to make your will, or to state your intentions in the case of medical emergencies.

Response to Helminiak's book on the Bible and Homosexuality.

Daniel Helminiak has been one of my favorite writers on spirituality, theology and the human sciences through the years. He recently published a book entitled What the Bilbe Really Says about Homosexuality that has taken the position that many of the biblical condemnations of homosexuality were not based on moral principles concerning the acts per se, but other matters like hospitality and conventionality. Helminiak is not alone in making these points, and there are many other moral theologians who, adopting approaches that do not rely heavily on natural law, find homosexuality to be an a-moral factor. What is emphasized instead as morally relevant are values such as authenticity, trust, gentleness, and commitment in relationships. The Catholic Theological Society of America had made the same points in its blockbuster publication on Human Sexuality in 1977.

Oliff and Hodges' response provides balance to the discussion. Without denying Helminiak's nuances concerning Scripture and hospitality, conventionality, etc., I really do think homosexuality is condemned as immoral both explicitly in certain texts, and implicitly in its overall view concerning the relationship between sexuality and marriage. See this essay on Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality for a good review of the biblical context and the principles involved.

"Canada is a pluralistic society," the court said. "Our constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life."

Okay, I'm going to be honest. I laughed at that statement. It's the kind of thing Rush lampoons on his program all the time. Now, I want to see the hands of all those out there who prefer that constitutions be "dead trees", that facilitate "unprogressive" interpretations and that accommodates and addresses only the unrealities of modern life. Okay, that's one, two, three, four�no, just kidding. Of course, no one is likely to agree with my proposed statement. Now, let's try this:

How many of you think the words in any formal contract or document should be allowed to be interpreted by the people in power or people with an axe to grind in any way that suits them at the moment? Good. No hands. How many of you are willing to reject someone's supposed "realities of modern life", particularly if that reality is one that is not a reality at all (at least yet) but is a dubious proposed agenda that a certain group hopes to become reality (especially if we're not paying close attention). Okay, not quite as many hands as I expect but that was a bit more complex. You have to grant that debunking the political prestidigitators is not easy work.

Maybe gay marriage is a good thing, maybe it's not, but we beware those who would use this issue not for gay marriage, per se, but as a stepping stone to instituting a radically "progressive" (euphemism for "socialist" or Marxist) sort of government, the king of which no freedom-loving man or woman would want to come within a thousand miles of. I'm sort of stuck being so close to the border and all.

"We must war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed." 1848 - Moses Mordecai Marx Levy, alias Karl Marx

"From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." 1920 - Winston Churchill

Where I've come out is with a deeper appreciation of the traditional understanding of marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman that is fundamentally oriented toward procreation. This doesn't mean there aren't other goods in marriage, only that even those derive their meaning, to some extent, from the procreative dimension (e.g. tax breaks, inheritance laws).

I think too that one should see this as yet another assault on our institutions. That is not to say that this particular assault isn't justified or reasonable, but do keep in mine that there is just a slight possibility of disingenuousness from the other side on this matter.

I hear what you're saying about the procreation aspects of marriage, Phil, but I would counter by saying that we have rightfully evolved from the state of forced or arranged marriages (for purposes of power, heirs, political arrangements, etc.) and have elevated marriage as representing a union of love. Therefore it could be said that love between two gay people could rightly be accommodated by marriage.

But although I have said that I think there's little likelihood that the institution of marriage will be destroyed by allowing gays to enter into it, I think it only right and proper to point out how silly this whole issue is at heart. At times it seems like we're arguing over whether we should give people the right to call apples "oranges". To me it's the same thing as if I wanted to be silly enough to insist that I owned, and not rented, the place where I live (and it is a nice place indeed). Let us come to terms and let me say therefore that I wish � nay, demand! � to be known as a homeowner and not a renter.

There's a biological fact inherent of women and men and families and children that isn't going to change and that shouldn't change. We might play with the language to fool ourselves and feel equal but if we truly believe that men and women and procreation and children and families are not vital institutions worthy of protection then we are not building UP society with fairness in regards to this gay marriage issue. We are merely tearing something else down in our impetuous zeal for retribution, not rights.

Phil said: The only reason the state ought to have any say in this issue is because it is in the interest of the community and its government to help support parents in their raising a next generation of citizens. Only a heterosexual marriage satisfies this interest of government; therefore, only heterosexual unions ought to be considered as lawful marriages.

From Culture and What Courts Can't Do
By George Will

quote:

When Massachusetts' highest court asserted that same-sex marriage is a right protected by the state's constitution and entailed by recent U.S. Supreme Court reasoning about the U.S. Constitution, the president vowed to "do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." His vow implied two empirical premises for which conclusive evidence is lacking.

One is that law can do what the culture � immensely powerful and largely autonomous � has undone.

The other is that the social goods and individual virtues that marriage is supposed to buttress are best served by excluding same-sex couples from the culture of marriage, lest that culture be even more altered than it recently has been.

More than 40 percent of first marriages in the United States end in divorce. Cohabitation by unmarried heterosexual couples has risen rapidly, from 523,000 in 1970 to 4.9 million today. Procreation outside of marriage, although the seedbed of millions of individual tragedies and myriad social pathologies, has lost much of its stigma now that 33 percent of births � including about 60 percent of births to women younger than 25 � occur to unmarried mothers.

So the "sanctity" of American marriage is problematic. The crucial question is: Because the public meaning of marriage � the reason there are laws about it � is procreation and child rearing, what would be the consequences of altering the public meaning of marriage by including same-sex unions?

quote:

But the decline of marriage � and the rise of what are no longer called illegitimate births � has occurred during four decades of mostly peace and prosperity.

Some reasons for this are unclear; others seem impervious to legislative remedies. Therefore one cannot confidently assert the consequences of expanding or preemptively restricting the definition of marriage. But one near certainty is that establishing the right to same-sex marriage by judicial fiat rather than democratic persuasion will retard and perhaps reverse growing tolerance of homosexuality.

Society has steadily accommodated widespread adoption and child rearing by same-sex couples, the sympathetic portrayal of homosexuality in popular culture and the extension of employment and related benefits to same-sex couples (as one-third of Fortune 500 companies already do). But remember, until the Supreme Court ripped abortion policy away from legislatures � arenas of persuasion � America was more or less amicably adjusting conflicting views: In the five years before Roe v. Wade (1973), 16 states with 41 percent of America's population liberalized abortion laws. After courts put abortion policy � as they may yet put marriage law � largely beyond political debate in the states, bitterness became constant.

However one falls on this issue, thinking such as that of George Will's has lead me to the firm conclusion that, unless given an extraordinary reason to do otherwise, issues such as gay marriage should be handled via legislation and not the judiciary. And while the state might reasonable offer support for marriage I think it's become clear, particularly given years of harmful social engineering and entitlement programs that have worked to actively undermine marriage, that a more "hands-off" approach by government on such institutions is for the best.

I hear what you're saying about the procreation aspects of marriage, Phil, but I would counter by saying that we have rightfully evolved from the state of forced or arranged marriages (for purposes of power, heirs, political arrangements, etc.) and have elevated marriage as representing a union of love. Therefore it could be said that love between two gay people could rightly be accommodated by marriage.

I understand your point, but mine was not addressing that angle so much as the reason why the state has been in the marriage-recognition business all along. I wasn't arguing for or against the morality of gay unions, or whether marriage ought to be about love or procreation. My point was that the primary justification for the state's involvement in recognizing such unions all along has been because of the procreative dimension of marriage. Once that focus is lost, there is very little reason for the state to be involved in legitimizing romantic unions, imo.