I believe we'll still have both the unitarian universalist church and the universal life church too.

Chickens are braver than the Catholic Church.

True miss luela...

Ok then...Hows about the Robotic Cathartic Church ?

Or better yet...

The Retarded Constipated Church...

Yeah...That does sound better. :)

Tom please do not compare people who are cognizant of their surrounding and generally good natured to those of extensive evil, malice, and retribution who don't even know what the word cognizant means for that is a reality to simple for them to understand.

Hi Geoff,

I'm not sure I follow the point you're making. By all accounts it looks as if the parish simply sent a letter. The National Catholic Reporter alludes to this in their piece, too, where they say that the pastor of Prince of Peace church merely sent a letter.

The point I was trying to make was that informing somebody who has volunteered for the church for fairly important positions -- Eucharistic ministers, lectors, etc. -- simply via letter is cowardly, if that's what happened. From a few published accounts, that's what it looks like.

Thanks for the comment, of course!  Sorry if the original piece disappointed you.

I may have been a bit harsh in my original comment, but I think you should get this straight before speculating. And if you do have it straight, you should have made that clear.

I of course agree that it would have been cowardly, but if that is not the case then you are questioning this parish inappropriately, with a method I have seen far overused by lazy conservative talking heads. Don't use innuendo to make points you don't have the facts to back up.

is sad that back in the day people had you view on african americas being allowed to marry, then vote, then be treated as equal. "I am not pro integration, but they should be able to worship their god."

That was a line many of the southern baptist used because they refused to consider christian african american people to be christians because of their skin color.

Aside from that example, if you do not believe gay people should have the same civil rights as you do: to be able to marry, establish their families as a married family, to secure their futures, to raise their children with full adoption rights, to not be fired for who they love as compared to how well they work, be not be dishonorably discharged because of who they love, to not be judged by the person they love but by the content of their character... You dont support that. Yet you dont feel it is extreme if you discriminate??? If you do not support all and the above mention then you do discriminate. End of story.

Well, in my opinion, we need for those who supports equality to be aware of the churches that supports equality AND also be willing to relocate to said churches.

That would be a start.

And as for the catholic churches that opposes the poop...Its past time for them to break away and sever all connections to the poop and the vaticon.

zzzzzZZZZZZz

You done yet? Oh good you are.

Do you forget that there are christians who do not support your stance? Pastors who will tell you they fully support marrying normal couples like same sex couples? Also in the history of mankind there has been same sex marriage throughout the world. It wasn't until the rise of the catholic church when same sex couples were looked down upon. Also marriage was never about god or religion, it started as a contract to sell goats for daughters it is still a contract to establish families and kinship not procreation. Learn you facts before you post. Otherwise face the laughter of people who do.

Now if you dont mind please continue to speak so I can fall back to sleep and catch up on the many hours I miss having to study for my psychology and patholoy exams that I have every two weeks.

Well let's talk facts then -- if you can keep yourself awake for a few minutes. Go ahead and cite the evidence for the society in which the the state sanctioned same sex marriage.

I frankly don't care if there are Christians and pastors who don't support my "stance." I was asking for anyone to validate scripture since it needs no human validation -- including mine. It simply says what it says. Taken in the context of this story, i.e. the conflict between same sex marriage and the Christian faith, do you suggest that the church simply discard both its history as well as scripture to accommodate the current trends of a wayward culture? If one professes Christianity, one must also recognize the authority of scripture, on which Christianity is built.

According to the record of scripture, God ordained and blessed human union, as stated in Genesis, between a man and a woman. He has never sanctioned any other kind of human sexual interaction. I suggest that you sleep too much and, possibly, may be a bit too lazy to inspect the facts beyond what you desire them to be!

By the way, you failed to address the meat of my post; the part about surrendering all to become a disciple of Christ. There is no other way, you know. Paul the Apostle wrote, "Awake oh sleeper, rise from the dead and Christ will give you light!" The alarm clock is ringing, Chris, can you hear it? Desire truth and you will find it -- if you desire it with ALL of your heart. ho hum.

There is no response to what you call the "meat" of your post—you are taking a religious stand and proselytizing, whereas the discussion on this site is more concerned with legal definitions and debates.

For the record, over the past 2000 years, Christians have believed all sorts of things and supported all sorts of political positions. The kind of fundamentalism we see today in America would have been condemned as idolatrous by early Christians because they believed it was impossible to know God in any real or practical way, let alone have a "personal relationship with him." Moreover, the kind of overwrought emotionalism which has been so in vogue in evangelical churches for the past couple decades, with pastors and worship leaders crying their eyes out or swooning with the Spirit, was, in earlier centuries, seen as the most immature and most shallow kind of spirituality possible by most great theologians and Christian leaders until about the 19th Century. Even the Bible was not regarded as the infallible word of God until a hundred years ago. Before then it was understood to be a collection of instructive stories.

I don't say any of these things to attack anyone's faith, but I do think it's important to realize that religion is always a human creation—God, being infinite and incomprehensible, cannot be pinned down to a particular set of political positions or personality traits. And for the record, there are NO marriage rites described in the Book of Genesis, heterosexual or otherwise. There are lots of marriage customes mentioned, including polygamy, arranged marriage, and other sorts of machinations we would consider decidedly less than savory today. But God never once came down, in the Garden of Eden or elsewhere, to lead anyone through any vows or bestow his blessing on any marrying couples. This, like all other rituals, is a human institution which developed and continues to evolve for human purposes.

And finally, allow me to point out one more time that what's being discussed on this site is CIVIL marriage, not a religious ceremony. No one is suggesting that any church should be forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to. We are talking about rights and legal standing. The churches make their own rules, and the religious people lived by what they believe. As a country, this is not what we legislate.

Stop trying to redefine the gay marriage movement (as a "redefinition of marriage") and actually concern yourself with something that matters. Human happiness, for example.

ROTFLMFAO...

Mr. jms...You remind me of a retarded troll on toxic...

Anyways...Your whole post is so full of bullshit...It aint even worth responding to but since Ive written this much...I might as well.

It aint just about marriage equality...Its also about equality overall.

Congratulations on recognising what this article is about...At least your not totaly brain dead...Maybe.

Anyways...If you truly believe that becomming a christian or rather, in your case, a bible thumper means giving up your freedom to be who you are then you really are brain dead.

Christian: I appreciate the civility of your comments.

However, I am commenting on this particular article, not the site. The article is explicitly about the clash between Christian doctrine and same sex marriage, otherwise I would not have commented. There is an obvious conflict between the God of Christianity and the god that people would rather have exist. The God of Christianity longs for deep and meaningful relationships with His creation. This was the motivation for coming in Christ; to reveal Himself and to provide a method of returning to Him.

You stated, "...they believed it was impossible to know God in any real or practical way, let alone have a "personal relationship with him." Even a cursory review of the earliest writings of the church, starting with the gospels and the letters in the New Testament, reveal that this deep personal relationship was normal for true believers. Indeed, when you consider the millions who died for their faith -- not a political stance, but an uncompromising love for God -- you will quickly realize that a "religious" or "political" movement was not their motivation. They could not renounce the presence of the indwelling Spirit of God in Christ. I would venture that you have not studied church history. Start with "Foxx's Book of Martyrs."

You stated, "God, being infinite and incomprehensible, cannot be pinned down to a particular set of political positions or personality traits ..." This is your personal opinion. He gave His word expressly for the purpose of revealing His personality and "pinning Himself" to His word. This is what the practice of covenant, i.e. the New Covenant (Testament) is all about! What kind of God would He be if He left His creation to grope in the darkness for His truth? (See Hebrews 6:13-20, For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself … In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath …”) He has no problem "pinning Himself" down because He doesn't lie or change His mind as men do.

You stated, "there are NO marriage rites described in the Book of Genesis, heterosexual or otherwise..." Please refer to Genesis 1:27-28: “So God created man in his own image … male and female created he them. And God BLESSED them …” (emphasis added). Yes, He did bless their exclusive union contrary to man's subsequent customs, etc. And this was the first human union of creation. If one does not believe the creation account then we have no basis to continue in this line of discussion. But we are talking about Christians and the church in this particular article, are we not?

If a civil union and its accompanying rights are what you want, then get them. Just don't call it marriage. In California, civil unions are already the law but that wasn't good enough! Curious.

I've enjoyed our dialogue, albeit we are both a bit wordy. Please forgive my passion.

Luella: The Beatles said that "Happiness is a warm gun." Of course we know that there are many definitions of happiness in the world and even more ideas on how to how to get it and keep it. However, the Word of God proclaims that "in the presence of the Lord is fullness of joy!" I will trade my temporal, dependant happiness derived from the stuff of life for fullness of joy derived from living daily in the presence of my Lord, the eternal God who never changes.

Thanks.

Thomas Mc Hugh: I am trying to hold a civil dialogue with all parties. You have made it tough.

To address your single comment of substance, let me simply refer to Jesus' words about "conformity." He said:

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:24-26)

By the way, this requires daily vigilance as the nature of man is to preserve his life, i.e. all the stuff he wants. I struggle as well but the love of God compels me forward. Nothing in this life compares to the joy of loving God and experiencing being loved of God that I would be required to trade. (Not that God would stop loving me, but that I would not be experiencing that level of relationship with Him due to my choices.)

Regards. 

JMS, let me be the first to say that not only are you full of shit, you are a bigot, and a liar! Personally, I'm done being nice, and I'm done treating people like you with kids gloves.

Why do I say this? Because the likes of YOU and YOURS challenged the "everything but marriage" bill in Washington State by placing it on the ballot. As it stand, currently those in favor hold the lead. HOWEVER, it is so razor thin a majority that absentee ballots may overturn that majority. Therefore, by saying that people such as yourself support "civil unions" (which btw - in California, they do NOT provide ALL of the benefits, responsibillities and protections that are offered for marriage - do some research next time before you make a fool out of yourself again) which you and people like you clearly do not!

You already know that there are civilized societies that already allow same-sex couples to marry - Canada, Netherlands, hell even your precious "chosen land" - Israel - accepts same-sex couples who are married outside of the country as being married in the eyes of the law. These are among several others.

So excuse me if I don't buy into your whole bullshit "religious" argument.

Dave:

Don't Christians have a right to their beliefs? Don't they have a right to reflect those beliefs through the legislative process? Don't you do the same with your convictions?

"Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

I support your right to an opinion and to take action in the ballot box accordingly, but you say I am a villian for doing so? Who is the bigot? Who is intollerant? You would that my opinion as relfected in the voting booth be done away with because it conflicts with your world view. I don't understand your reasoning, Dave. I don't understand your hostility.

I simply don't agree with the cruxt of this particular article which has to do with same sex unions and acceptance by the church. I didn't write the article! Why do so many of you posting to this thread keep going back to the idea of civil rights? The article I commented on is all about the CHURCH saying "NO" to same sex marriage! The church says no to a lot of things, otherwise it would not be THE CHURCH!

As an aside, Dave, all state acceptance of same sex marriage is recent, not traditional (not that everything traditional is good, so please don't give me that "well slavery was traditional, too!" response.).

Regards.

"Don't Christians have a right to their beliefs? Don't they have a right to reflect those beliefs through the legislative process? Don't you do the same with your convictions?"

According to the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. NO!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

While you have a right to believe whatever malarkey you want to believe that does not mean you have a right to legislatively or by mob rule ballot initiatives, enforce those beliefs into government or into the peoples lives.

Now wait a minute, Chris. You are not being honest here. first, you are quite selective in your quote of the the 1st Amendment. Try the whole phrase: "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.

Now let's discuss motivation. Are you telling me that your political positions are something other than reflective of your beliefs? And are you further asserting that those beliefs were formed in a vacuum? I think you need to reconsider your position on my right to dissent in regards to your belief system.

Not only do I have the constitutional right to believe what I want, I have the right to excercies my beliefs and vote in accordance with those covictions, as you do.

Just because my beliefs conforms to what is viewed as an organized system of belief, i.e. Christianity, it doesn't disqualify me from the political process. What you are advocating is discriminatory at best. I don't have to buy in to your belief system, Chris.

All law is someones version of morality, Chris! The government is not establishing Judaism just because it agrees with "thou shall not steal!" Hence, just because a law runs in concert with one of the myriad of world religions, including the religion of atheism, agnosticism, etc., doesn't mean that religion is "established under the meaning of the first amendment. All laws are based upon a form social morality!

Regards

So it is a moral imperative to deny and deprive normal, loving, couples of their humanity, their dignity and their civil rights, because you think who they are is immoral?

How is allowing gay people to marry enforcing a religion on you? Also your people who dislike gays do not peacefully protest. Their words of hate contribute to the high rates of hate crimes against LGBT. In a court of law we call that complicity. Lets not even go there with the high suicide rate among LGBT teens because of such societal oppression.

Further more your religious groups that support this apartheid against us LGBT are in third world countries enforcing their religious bigotry and recreating the Holocaust against LGBT people.

As i said you have a constitutional right to believe in whatever Malarkey you want to believe in. However you do not have a right to create unconstitutional ballot measures that abridge the first amendment, the establishment clause, the 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and the 5th amendment's Due Process Clause. All of which you and your people do when they continue to oppress us LGBT people.

Finally the laws in this country are not established to dictate a moral imperative. That is as false of a concept as people who say this country was founded on Christian principles. The law is created to protect society from itself. It is secular in nature and was establish as such. There is no secular reason or logic that back up the claim that denying LGBT citizens equal protection under the law, and equal opportunity under the law harms society. If you want to use Rome as an example, just from a historical factual standpoint: Gay people were imprisoned for 20 years for being who they were as the Catholic authority swept over the country, disintegrated their military and took over Rome with outside mercenaries for hire, destroying Rome. It wasn't the gays that destroyed Rome. It was the Catholics. Funny thing is I see a repeat in history in this country with the reborn agains trying to take over our military and our government with their "This is a Spiritual war" rhetoric.

To JM S, Thomas Berg, Alex Walters and however many other alternate personalities you have... I supppose you need three different personalities to handle the overly abundant bullshit that rumbles up from inside your sick little heart. Ok... You ask if Christians do not have a right to their beliefs. Of course they do. So do others, such as myself, have a right not to believe. The point of the first amendment was not to give Christianity an advantage, you schmuck. It is meant to make religion irrelevant at best. Who cares what your motivation is, except that your motivation is clearly based on privileges you feel you have but you do not. There are still bugs in our system that your ilk is trying to take full advantage of in the most insidious ways. The one big bug allows civil rights issues to be put to a public opinion test - that's just crazy. But you and your church are trying to exploit that to supplant our constitutional democracy with a theocracy run by your own religion. The Catholic Church has been funding these referenda and paying lobbyists to influence civil rights legislation. This is done on the basis of religious discrimination which runs directly counter to the idea that we were all created equal, with unalienable rights. So there you have it. Oh, and You SUCK!

Miss jms...

I could care less whether you act civil or not because nothing youve said thus far is civil.

Religious and prejudiced yes but not civil.

Sure you can act as jesus would but that doesnt mean you have to stop thinking for yourself...Although with you being so strongly against equality, its abundantly clear that your not acting as jesus would.

Jehovah perhaps but not jesus.

Mr. berg...

Welcome back...Those of us who choose to base our reality on logic and common sense not to mention love have missed you.

Why ?

Because we always take sadistic pleasure in hammering idiot bible thumpers here.

Anyways...The only folks trying to define marriage in any way are you bible thumpers which makes your foolish statement above exactly that...Foolish.

Hey everybody! Isn't it great to see Thomas Berg supporting the points that JM S makes? Good to see that one has company in hostile territory, isn't it?

I just wonder, where is AW or ALEX WALTERS? He would surely be supportive too. 

YOU WANNA KNOW WHY?

CAUSE THESE THREE WRITERS ARE ONE IN THE SAME!

YEAH! - LIKE THE TRINITY!

THREE! THREE! THREE GODS IN ONE! 

Who knows how many other personalities this douche bag has?

Best not to engage him... He just wants to provoke and be bashed. You know how these masochistic Christians are...

It is because of issues like this that I vowed, many years ago, never to set foot in any church or other house of organized worship again as long as I live...

PHILIP CHANDLER

I'm sorry, loan Lightoller, but isn't this story about the conflict between the Church, Christian doctrine and same sex marriage? I am commenting about this article. Why the hostility? where have I run a foul of the topic?

Regards.

Because you parroted the rhetoric like a perfect little sheep, that has been acid dripped into your mind by your shepherd.

Only when a person reflects on the words of his pastors, instead of simply absorbing them, does he or she learn the true intents of evil in the guise of good.

Why does every discussion of our civil rights up in here always degenerate into so much boooorrrrinnnngggg religious drivel? The subject is CIVIL rights! Even though it has nothing to do with the bible or religion we have already heard everything the bible has to say about homosexuality and same-sex marriage over and over aud nauseum. 

It has gotten so bad that, as soon as I hear the first bible verse in any conversation, I want to stand up and shout: GIVE ATHEISM A CHANCE! PLEASE!!!

Cut out the religion and you don't get bogged down in any of this tiresome nonsense which has, in fact, bogged down dialogue and stymied the progress of civilization for, literally, thousands of years!

Sometimes it seems to me that we may have actually outgrown such superstition and fears as have always formed the basis of christianity and the Catholic Faith. Sometimes I feel like they have finally started to lose their grip on people's minds and their credibility as anything relevant to the 21st Century.

But then I become totally embarrassed all over again seeing all of it come vomiting up in dialogue and arguments over same-sex marriage. Really makes me ill. Sorry.

COME ON RELIGIOUS FOLKS! GIVE IT UP! YOU HAVE BOGARTED THE CONVERSATION LONG ENOUGH (every conversation).

WE HAVE HEARD EVERYTHING YOU EVER HAVE TO SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY AND SAME  SEX MARRIAGE MANY TIMES OVER.

NOW WHY DON'T YOU DO THE RIGHT THING AND PLEASE, GIVE ATHEISM A CHANCE!