Actually, I'm a former Roman Catholic.  I used to work for a Catholic peace and justice organization, but don't really identify as Catholic anymore.  If anything, I occasionally go to services at a United Church of Christ (UCC) here in Boston.

That is, when the lure of Sunday morning political programs or breakfast doesn't steer me away...

The one truly irrational thing that rational people (like us) consistently do is expect all people to be as rational as us. Is that a safe assumption to make about people who comb through a 3,000 year old text with many obvious inconsistencies and insist that parts of it are the literal words of god while completely ignoring other parts? Adam and Eve - that's literal! But no hair cutting or shellfish? Well... a bygone era, other rationales at work, I don't look cute in long hair...

If we were all rational people, we would see that if we could get beyond whatever irrational prejudices we harbor, legalizing gay marriage is good for everyone: it would pump money into the economy and provide additional security to GLBT parents and their children  - not to mention that research strongly suggests that countries that legalize gay marriage often see a trend of healthier hetero marriages. (Your guess is as good as mine on why that one happens but empirical data is empirical data).

Here's hoping for generations of rational people on their way...

My opinion on this is typical right wing. The only reason to allow or not allow any two people to marry would have to be religous in nature. Government can pass no law establishing religion. Allowing people to marry has to be up to the individual religion, government has no authority to restrict it. The only role government has in this is recognising a legal contract between two consenting adults.

Michael.....while I walked away from Geneva to Canterbury, you walked from Rome to Geneva.....and in my native tradition as well.

We'll continue on our very similar pilgrimages, Michael, and who knows, someday we might share two different meals together with my family.

Cnarlie.....say classic right wing, and I see Barry Morris Goldwater, a Churchman, who believed that libertarianism meant that marriage was a civil contract issued by the state to all classes of persons recognized to receive it according to state law.

Goldwater was not a Dominionist theocrat , like Dobson and most GOP neocon politicians like George W. Bush, who for the most part, are neo-conservatives. They define marriage as a solely theological term requiring canonical approbation in order to create a civil law.

Neo-conservatives are usually in agreement with neo-liberals, like President-elect Obama, who believe that men and women should alone as a class enjoy marriage, and that the new construct "civil u n i o n " should create an inferior civil status that is separate but unequal....the new Jim Crow....that would have made Mr. Obama an illegitimate issue to legal strangers in 1961 in half the states of the USA.

Sarah - there are " rational contextual theists" like myself who know when to examine texts and understand it contextually to the times and culture and scientific knowledge extanct in the world. I do not believe in a first century cosmology in the 21st to have any validity whatsoever.

I have many friends who were raised in theistic households who are today " rational agnostics or atheists" as a result of the fundy literalism they were raised to believe.

There is a difference between what some view " the Bible says" and what I say when I mean " what the Bible reads."

Biblical contextualists are usually liberal Christians. We have many important relationships with those whose beliefs are compassionate, loving, humanistic and not at all theistic.

Quoting Charlie Reed: "My opinion on this is typical right wing. The only reason to allow or not allow any two people to marry would have to be religious in nature. Government can pass no law establishing religion. Allowing people to marry has to be up to the individual religion, government has no authority to restrict it. The only role government has in this is recognising a legal contract between two consenting adults."

I'm liberal, and left wing, and I agree with this.  The government, by law and in the interest of freedom and "civil rights," should NOT disallow civil union.  That should be a right deserved by all humanity, however, "marriage" is a religious ceremony.  Therefore, the churches themselves should be able to decide who they "marry."  I'm not too worried about that, because I know MANY churches that WILL marry my long time partner and I, if the government ever gets their act together and approves civil unions nationwide, as they should.  The contract of a civil union is the legal aspect that the government needs to be accountable for.  The marriage certificate comes from the religious sector which the government has no control over (or should not).  I also might add, that the churches/religion should have no control or say over the government stance on civil union.  As you know, separation of church and state has to go BOTH ways.  Government has no say in church/religion, AND vice versa.  However it seems, many churches don't quite like it that way.  They want their "separation," while still having their noses in politics trying to control decisions there, as well, based on their "beliefs." 

Raymond, I couldn't agree with you more. Though a cultural Jew/spiritual atheist myself, I see a lot of good in all holy texts - assuming we can read them for what they are: historical documents that have been shaped by the times in which they were written as well as all the hands that touched them as they were passed down through the centuries.

Lori - the marriage certificate are issued by the States of the USA. Churches may provide Matrimonial Certificates that never have the force of law in the United States.

The Commonwealth of MA, and in all states of New England, is where I have the LEGAL AUTHORITY to sign MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THOSE STATES.

The term JIM CROW CIVIL UNION IS A NEW LEGAL TERM.  It is an attempt by the RIGHT WING to confuse the fact that Marriage is a civil and legal term and that Church ceremonies are NOT necessary.

LEFT WINGERS informed and aware of the issues, Lori, want CIVIL MARRIAGE for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. If you go downtown to the MARRIAGE LICENSE BUREAU , you will find that office in the City or County Clerk's office....not your church, synagogue or mosque.

OTHER COUNTRIES, LIKE CANADA, OUR NEIGHBOUR fully understand that JIM CROW CIVIL UNIONS and CIVIL MARRIAGE are not at all the same thing.

I'll tell you what, Lori, when grandparents exchange their civil marriage certificate for a Jim Crow Civil Union certificate, I will go for it.

The answer is simple from this clergyman's perspective. STOP GIVING ME A LICENSE FROM STATES TO SIGN MARRIAGE LICENSES. MAKE MARRIAGE A CIVIL ACT FROM A JUDGE OR JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.

THEN, GO TO THE MINISTER OR PRIEST OR RABBI OR IMAM OF YOUR CHOICE FOR AN    O P T I O N A L  CEREMONY CALLED THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY OR MARRIAGE WITH NO LEGAL RIGHTS.

Lori, another fact I forgot to mention.

I called the states involved and had my name removed from the City and County Clerk's records for clergy legally allowed to sign Marriage Licenses in those states.

I tell those who want me to officiate at the Sacrament in Church, I tell them that I no longer sign the certificates. I tell them to visit the judge and justice of the peace to get legally married. I will then review their certificate, and see if they meet the canons of our Church for me to proceed and "bless" the existing marriage.

Raymond, I don't know if you and I have an argument with each other or not.  I'm not a rocket scientist, and I don't understand a lot about the law.  I think perhaps, though, that you misunderstood me as saying that I don't think all adult human beings have the RIGHT to (consensually with the legal stipulation of age of consent and age to enter into a contract, or permission of parents, otherwise) marry whomever they love.  I do NOT think that.  Everyone should be entitled to this, black, white, Asian, Latino, gay, straight, disabled, etc., etc.

What I was trying, with a typical layman's lack of knowledge on the matter, to say, is that the Church should butt the heck OUT of law and politics, basically.  And the law....should do likewise with the churches.  Those two things were called for to be separate for a REASON.

I am as ticked off as one can POSSIBLY be about my marrying my lifelong partner even BEING an issue in this country.  By legal and Constitutional standards, it never should have been, nor ever should be.  Writing discrimination into the Constitution via amendments that take away or deny rights is deplorable, in my opinion.  Just so we have that clear.

Now, on the issue of marriage....honestly, the entire problem would be LEGALLY solved if we just simply quit using the word "marriage" (that the religious are so attached to) as a LEGAL description of the union.  Sure...call yourself married, but on legal forms, EVERYONE that is married should just call it a civil union, and it should come with all the rights that the relationship, commonly referred to as "marriage" has, whether a "church" has "blessed it" or NOT.  Again....churches should have nothing to do with the legitimacy of a legal contract in the eyes of law.

This is just my uneducated layman's opinion, so if I haven't used the correct legal terms in describing it, I'm sorry.  I'm just trying to make a point, really, about the Church's involvement in the legal process where it should NOT be involved.  If the government stepped in and told pastors that they could no longer perform baptisms, or that priests could no longer perform confirmations, I bet that wouldn't go over too well.  In kind, the Church has no business telling the government that they can't make laws that protect the freedom and CIVIL RIGHTS of ALL citizens.

The majority should never be allowed to dictate law for the minority.  That is how we end up with idiotic laws like the old law that prohibited African Americans from marrying European Americans, and assorted other idiotic things we have in the past allowed.  The majority dictating law for the minority REEKS of dictatorship, Hitler, and the massacre of six million Jews, if you ask me.  It is ENTIRELY unacceptable.  The government should protect the minorities, not allow the majority to "lord it over them."

Lori......I do not want to create " a tempest in a teapot" for yet another same-sex couple and family who live in the United States -ostensibly outside the two only marriage states....or maybe even the two other "Jim Crow Civil Union" states.

I truly understand the need for families like ours to grab anything that gives us even twenty or thirty per cent of the opposite sex rights and privileges of American citizens who are heterosexuals.

I get angry, Lori, when I know that my spouse is a citizen of Canada, and has EVERYTHING that we are still fighting for. Thank God that OUR son is both American and Canadian.

I get angry when I file a MA Income Tax filing and say that I am "married" but when I file the US IRS filing, I am single and a legal stranger.

I am passive aggressive when politicians want to give me what Southern White Racists gave blacks in 1890 and later with Plessy v Ferguson and Jim Crow laws emanating from that SCOTUS decision.  Hey, they found a term I call Jim Crow-style Civil Unions because they want to give me COLORED PEOPLE RIGHTS.
Imagine now if you are a BLACK GAY OR LESBIAN COUPLE OR BI-RACIAL COUPLE?

Hey, Lori.....should we look forward to the day when they give us FEDERAL AND STATE JIM CROW CIVIL UNION RIGHTS?  Well, if the Right Wing wants it while passing federal and state amendments to forever deny us true civil marriage, I personally want no part of institutional apartheid.

CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY !!!

I also apologize profusely for belittling you or your thought processes. That was never my intention. You are my sisters. Both my spouse of 32 years ( we have been living together and partnered monogamously for 32 years and legally married in ON for five years, and have a 6 year old son.)

I think that gay rights should be allowed.
Who are you to judge who anyone can be with.
I think that as long as you love someone
it doesn't matter.

First off I just want to say to you all that...before you guys try to qoute scripture's you should really go in depth and read the whole old testament as well as new testament. I just want to point some things out to you guy's to make you think about what the bible is really about.(Point 1)In the beginning God created heaven and earth.(People's first thought of this statement is how do we know that there is a god and that he created.)Well I am glad you asked. Firstoff we know that God created because there is creation.Think off it like this. If you look at a picture ask yourself how did the picture get there, well the picture got there because there was a creator of that picture and the picture was built by design of that creator.
So seeing that you and me did not make ourselves manifest out of thin air  nor can we do that today or seeing that there isnt any evolution occuring from ape to human being right now. We were created by God. So we know there is a God because there is creation and he is the creator. We were made by design the same as the painter that painted a picture.

(Point 2)

Now chew on this.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE BIBLE IS REAL.
 
Well I am glad that you asked.The reason we know the bible is real and was written by God is because of bible prophicies.God says in his word that he fullfils his word so that we might believe.So now we know that a true and living God has inspired men to write the 66 books of the bible because. He has to prove himself to us. How does he prove himself. Threw Bible Prophicies.

There are no other religous books that have confirmed prophecies to a T (I mean every last prophecy) has been fulfilled
and I encouraged you please please try to prove me wrong. The only thing that comes close to bible propchies was nostrodamus  and all of his prohecy's were inaccurate and you had to guess at what he was talking about when he spoke. Unlike the bible which gives you complete accurate detail about prophecy for example, The bible fortells the destruction of Israel.

Now, In Deuteronomy 28:49-52
  The lord will bring a nation against you from faraway, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, a fierce-looking nation without respect for the young or pity for the old.
 
They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destoyed.They will leave you no grain, new wine or oil ,nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flock until you are ruined.

Now the romans oppressively ruled over the land of Israel for a century before the Jews waged two wars for inpendence, the first beginning in 67 AD and the second begginning about 132 AD. Both  wars resulted in great destruction to the land and people of Israel.
 
(One of many Prophecies fullfilled)

 There are many more but, I wanted skip all the way to our era.

Now one of the most outstanding prophceis that God fullfills is the re gathering of Israel.
(Ezekiel 34:13) says

I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries and I will bring them into thier own land.I will pasture them on the mountians of israel, in the ravines and in all the land settlements in the land
( This was writtenBetween 593-571 BC)

Israel became a nation in 1948.
 So what does this have to do with anything you ask.
Well again I am glad you asked,but I wanted you to realize that there is a such thing as God and that there is a such thing as Heaven and Hell. I just want to let you know that God destroyed a whole nation of people in the land of Sodom and Gamorah because they gave them selves over to strange flesh. (GAYS & LESBIANS)
The thing is God created Adam & Eve not EVE&EVE and Adam & Adam. So the thing is God is an Holy God. A God of order . So I just wanted you to think about this then I am done. If all that I have wrote is true then what if you go to hell because of what you think is okay oppouse to what God says. I didn't say all that to condem you I said because God loved you enough not to let you stay in sin. that he gave his only begotten son so that we would not be bound to his wrath against people that only wanted to please them selves and not serve God. What I am saying to you today is that God plainly says in his word that it is wrong to be given over to the same sex and he also says that they shall have no part in the kingdom of heaven so. This is the reason why Jesus died so we can be forgiven for mistakes that we have made against a perfect and holy God and he gave his life for that cause. So I would ask you to really research and study the bible and find out not only what It says about Gays but about Liars adulters blasphemers killers pleasers of selves thieves and everything. because the truth is if we don't repent and except Jesus then we are all doomed to hell.


GOD BLESS
AaronRobinson

Raymond you STILL are not understanding, apparently, that I'm AGREEING with you! 

THIS is the paragraph I think you're misunderstanding THIS time:

"Now, on the issue of marriage....honestly, the entire problem would be LEGALLY solved if we just simply quit using the word "marriage" (that the religious are so attached to) as a LEGAL description of the union.  Sure...call yourself married, but on legal forms, EVERYONE that is married should just call it a civil union, and it should come with all the rights that the relationship, commonly referred to as "marriage" has, whether a "church" has "blessed it" or NOT.  Again....churches should have nothing to do with the legitimacy of a legal contract in the eyes of law."

What I'm SAYING here is....that HETEROSEXUAL "married" couples should not have "marriages."  We should ALL get civil unions, PERIOD, whether gay OR straight.  And they should all have the same rights that a "marriage" now has.  People can call themselves "married" if they want to, but it won't denote a legal definition of the relationship.  "Married," in my opinion, is not a LEGAL term, nor should it ever HAVE been.  I wonder what all those hetero couples would think if they were told..."Okay, your marriages are no longer.  They are now called 'civil unions.'  You can have the same rights, but it's not going to be CALLED a "marriage," because that is not a legitimate/legal term."  I bet THEY would freak the heck OUT.  But...in reality...that IS probably how it should be.  For governmental purposes, it is a contract.

We're quibbling over a name.  I don't give a hoot what it's called, as long as it's CALLED the SAME THING for EVERYONE, and comes with the EXACT same rights.

Are you trackin' with me at all??  Or am I just not making any sense to you?  See....I see us agreeing.  But every time you respond, I feel like you're arguing with me.  I am pretty sure we both WANT the same thing.  The only difference I see, is that you're worried about the WORD itself, and I'm not, with the exception of....it must be called the SAME thing for BOTH kinds of couples and have the SAME rights.  I think that the heterosexual married couples should have a taste of what it feels like.....all "marriages" should simply be called "civil unions," and all civil unions come with the SAME rights as any OTHER civil union.

Obviously, this word "marriage" that many of the religious mindset proclaim is so "sacred" to heterosexual couples....hasn't been treated very sacredly.  Their divorce rate is horrific.  Forget their infidelities.  They don't know how to "do" "marriage," obviously.  So why don't we just call ALL legally bound relationships of this manner "civil unions."  Period.  All the same rights, none of the "sacredness" of the word "marriage" that has been so unsuccessful and obviously somehow tied to religious thinking ANYWAY.  If they think the word "marriage" is so sacred....I'd like to know why they treat it with such disrespect.  Most of the gay couples I know have been together FAR longer than ANY of the heterosexual couples I know, other than my own parents.  My parents have been married for 46 years.  THEY are a RARITY anymore.  Sacred?  Pffft.  It's a WORD.  I think the gay community has FAR more respect for the "sanctity" of a lifetime commitment than the majority of heterosexual couples.  Partially, because we have been denied recognition of the validity of what we have, and it has actually made our bonds much stronger as a community.

Essentially, that is what they are saying to US.  So let's take their "word" away.  Call all "marriages" civil unions, give them ALL the same legal status, period.  If you want to "marry"...do it in a church.  But as far as the government is concerned...it's all civil unions.  Do you GET my point???

Aaron Robinson....so I take it that you still believe that you shouldn't eat pork, that you should have many, many, many concubines, that stoning is good, need I go on?

Secondly...I've read the Bible cover to cover three times, thank you very much.  My question to you is, do you understand the SPIRIT of The Word?  I was brought up in a Southern Baptist home by two parents (male and female) that are still together.  I was "born again" when I was nine years old....September 10, 1972, to be precise.  I was baptized the Sunday after.  In my teen years I participated in youth group and sang in the youth choir AND the adult choir.  In my 20's I led women's ministry and sang with the worship team of our very very LARGE church.

I know what the "Bible says."  I know QUITE well that evangelicals have a tendency to use it to manipulate, quote out of context to control people, not taking into consideration what particular situations were being spoken of, etc.  I have heard "Christians" come up with some of the MOST un-Christ-like doctrines by twisting and contorting scripture that you can even BEGIN to imagine....all the while completely IGNORING the words "IN RED."

Before you start attempting to take the toothpick out of your neighbors eye....you'd best check for the log that might be in your own.  Self-righteous judgment is NOT condoned in the scriptures and you will BE judged as you judge.  You might also want to consider that whole secularly entitled "Golden Rule," and do unto others as you would have them do unto you bit. 

What is the greatest?  The greatest of "these" (go read the WHOLE chapter, my friend) is LOVE.

As a matter of fact....why don't you just go re-read the words of Jesus in the New Testament....yes, ALL of them.  This is the Christ that YOU are claiming to follow?  My question then is this....why are so many who call themselves Christian, so unlike Him? 

You do not preach people in to the Kingdom of God.  You do not scare them in, or threaten them in, or manipulate them in....you LOVE THEM, AS THEY ARE.  If you have issues with them, you'd best be praying for God's perfect will in their lives and not shaking your finger at them lest you find yourself judged as you are judging.

Just a thought....or two or three.

Lori.....

You and I agree that we should have equal justice under law.

You believe that something is better than nothing, and that Marriage is just a word with no real difference than Union.

I disagree and tried to explain to you that Jim Crow Civil Unions is a Right Wing strategy to forever remove real Civil Marriage rights from a Class of Person, you and I, who should enjoy full rights.

I tried to explain that the Right Wing used this strategy on straight Black Americans and it worked in providing them second class rights for nearly a century. I won't live that long to see it in the USA, but it is fully operative in Canada and other nations worldwide.

I am saying that IF they offer me federal Jim Crow Civil Unions with the hook that I give up Civil Marriage, I would work diligently to DEFEAT IT, because it is more than a WORD.

And that is arguing with you, then so be it LOL, because that is how I think as well as feel. 

Lori-

I have been an ordained clergyman since 1972, and I could not have given a more heartfelt and sincere response to Aaron Robinson. Of course, I know the Dominionist apologetics, but in the end, it is about what the Bible reads and not what someone believes that it "says". That is the theological argument. The legal argument is simple. They have none. We have the right to equal justice under law. Religion has nothing to do with it. Marriage is a legal before it was or is a theological term.

Raymond, we STILL agree, and NO I do NOT think that AS IT NOW STANDS that marriage and civil union are the same thing.  I'm saying throw the whole "marriage" word out the window, call it ALL civil union, gay OR straight, and equal rights for ALL.

Civil Union is a term, just like marriage.  Both of them, as they now stand, are ways of separating.  Okay...since I'm terrible at making myself clear, let's say this....

Give "marriage" an entirely NEW name, say oh....let's just call it "United."  So instead of heterosexual couples getting "married," they could now get "united."  AND....gay couples can ALSO get "united," and have the same exact rights under the law....same NAME for our union, and same rights.  How's that?  That's what I'm trying to say, but somehow not getting through to you.

I do NOT want a "civil union."  I want freaking equality.  Sitting on the bus, and sitting on the bus but having to sit at the BACK...are NOT the same thing.  Ask Rosa Parks.

NOW do you get what I'm saying?  I think we're just not communicating with each other very clearly.  I do not WANT a "marriage" the way the heterosexual people have been "married."  They have ZERO respect for the union, other than thinking that the title of it, itself, is somehow "sacred."  I also do not want an UNEQUAL (in name AND meaning) "civil union."  I want something better than EITHER....TRUE equality under the law, with the same NAME for the union.  Do I think that should be called "marriage?"  Nope.  I guess that's where we disagree.

I think heterosexuals have so sullied the meaning of what "marriage" is, that the word ITSELF is ruined for me.  I do NOT think it would be bad to start with a "clean slate," and not only rename the union of two people, but make it an equal right for ALL under the law, as it should be.  As long as that word "marriage" is stuck on it for BOTH gay and straight couples....the religious will insist it is for them ALONE.  (They are even LESS bright, most of them, than I.  So they cannot seem to wrap their minds around equality under the law and the use of a word they THINK belongs to THEM.)

Of course, as you so eloquently stated in the post above this....none of this actually SHOULD have ANYTHING to do with religion or the church.  You marry via the law, period.  If you were to "marry" without the legal documentation, you would not BE married.

"Pastor Warren admits that he's got many gay friends, and has been over to a number of their houses to have dinner."

Wow, to survive dinner he must have lightening reflexes to dodge the gay laser bolts shooting from their eyes. 

Yes, with some gay men and lesbian women, the "Stockholm Syndrome" is alive and well.

California, where Saddleback Church exists, you find many Log Cabin Republicans or those individuals who vote Republican and who actually support those who oppress them.

We know that about one in ten gays and lesbians, vote GOP and for Bush.... I remember a quote years ago, when Reagan defeated Pat Brown, the father, for governor of CA. Remember that this was 1966.
" I can forgive them for being gay," said one older lady, " but I can't forgive them for being Republican."

Warren attracts those gays and lesbians who are closet members of Congress, their staffs while at home, or those who actually are engaged in self-loathing RW religionism. Unfortunately, this is a rather bitter and destructive alternative to loving and gay affirming Christianity.

:

The whole "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" is what gets me. Whatever happend to seperation of church and state? Everytime we debate gay marrige in debate class, who ever has to oppose it always loses because one can't hide in religion when it comes law. It just bugs me that people have hid behind religion for so long when it is basically illegal to do so.

Priscilla.....

In many countries of Europe, where Catholicism was the majority faith system, there came a time when anticlericalism was translated into a clear separation between civil law marriage and with optional religious ceremonies.

So, if you live on the Continent of Europe, you go to the mayor at City Hall, and you get legally married. Later that day, or the next day, you have an optional Church ceremony where you become "married in the eyes of the Church".

The Catholics and other faith systems decide who is "married" or "who can marry" in their eyes that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CIVIL LAW.

Here is the segue to you, Priscilla....English Common Law stated that the Church of England in North America was the Official and Established Church. Clergy were allowed to marry for both the Church and the Law. THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

In Canada, the United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination, was gay affirming and confronted the other Protestant denominations (including the Anglican Church of Canada) , the fundamentalists like the Assemblies of God, and the Roman Catholic Church mutual opposition to same-sex marriage laws.

The Legal Eagles did the same, and eventually, the provinces, one by one, said yes, and two years after that started, the nation passed a Federal Marriage Act.

THE ANSWER : I have said it before. Civil Marriage should be officiated ONLY by civil magistrates....judges, mayors, justices of the peace etc.... CLERGY SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN LICENSES TO SIGN LEGAL DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS THEIR OWN CHURCH DOCUMENTS.

Until and unless "Grandpa and Grandma" and other heterosexuals want to SURRENDER their civil marriage documents and get a JIM CROW CIVIL UNION DOCUMENT instead, then everyone in this country should have FEDERAL and STATE CIVIL MARRIAGE.

The Heterosexist Secular Right Winger and the Dominionist Theocratic Right Winger both want the secular civil word " MARRIAGE"  because they do not want to admit that it is a legal matter first and last.

Keep up the good work, Priscilla....

PS- Although I can have one any time anywhere, I now refuse to officiate a civil marriage, by signing a legal document in the Church. I tell those who want the Prayer Book service, I will do so and note it in their parish register, but I want them to PREVIOUSLY GET MARRIED BY A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE and have him or her sign the legal piece.

Regarding churches and their role in government. Obviously churches have no place in deciding government policy. This is one of the most important reasons people of many religions have been able to work side by side to build a country like this (it's a work in progress). Churches do have every right and obligation though, to express opinion, set doctrine for members, and even recommend political action. Government does not always recognise these rights, but they nevertheless exist.

For the past two days, the LGBT community is experiencing both anger and betrayal at the invitation of the Right Wing Religionist-in-TIME, Dr. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California, to give the invocation prayer at the Presidential Inauguration on January 20, 2009 at the Capitol steps, Washington, DC.

Dr. Warren hosted both Senator McCain and then Senator Obama for the party nominees' televised discussion one-on-one about spiritual matters. McCain was prepped but Obama was ready with his heterosexist message on marriage, without elaboration on what he has promised our community - as deficient as it is.

The now President-elect Obama then went on the " down low" and recorded a message for NO on 8. Meanwhile, Warren took the Obama heterosexist remark as proof that he was YES on 8.
The result was that both sides were given the green light to vote for him, regardless of how they voted for Proposition H8.

President-elect Obama describes himself as African American. He is in fact a bi-racial man. His parent's marriage was illegal and a felony in a remaining 16 states when he was born. When he was born, his parents were considered felons and he an illegitimate issue or "bastard" in still many states of the USA.

The reasons were religious, according to the Right Wing fundamentalists, who said that God opposes racial intermarriage...an abomination against God's will.....sound familiar? Yet, with political calculation that we will vote for him without prejudice to what he accomplishes for us.

The message, to this gay same-sex married father, is an admonition. Expect hate crimes and ENDA maybe. No to DOMA, and DADT if there is not one iota of opposition. An "iota" - for a theological reason....how appropriate a word.

This is the second neolib, DLC, "Democratic" President - disdainful of the ideological legacy of our party - and prepared to again betray the LGBT struggle for civil and human rights.

Cry, the Beloved Country. It makes me wonder why I should not accept the facts, and join my Canadian spouse and our dual national son, and emigrate full time to Canada. I have ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES THAT THE FASCISTS IN MY COUNTRY WILL NEVER GIVE ME...AND WHERE MY POLITICAL FRIENDS ARE FALSE.

A quick surf of both LGBT and " Liberal " blogs brings you what you'd expect.........outright deep blue anger on LGBT blogs.....and the liberal blogs get the ST*U you queers....to the one I rather enjoy .....there is a " subtle and underlying method to his madness." " Give him a chance, he will continue to satisfy all Americans."

Please excuse me, I have to attend to some " motion discomfort"....for it is my commode and not my "hope" that runneth over....

Raymond, it would be our loss. We need fertile minds such as yours. Be patient, I believe there is change in the wind. As a heterosexual speaking of gays in the third person, I can tell you that people (both lefties and righties) have far more open minds torwards this subject than in my youth. Re: the subject of the "right" holding down african americans, Allow me to remind you it was overwhelmingly democrats persecuting blacks. Republicans were anti-slavery, anti jim crow, pro civil rights act and pro voter rights act.