The Supreme Court’s ruling is a “frightening departure” from long-held norms about marriage and family, said Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena.
“I am saddened that people are comparing this favorably to the historic decision in California that reversed the ban on interracial marriages,” Mouw said by e-mail. “That courageous decision was a wonderful step forward in the cause of justice. This verdict is not that at all. It undermines what many of us firmly believe is the very foundation of a healthy social order….”
The Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena said she is thrilled that her church, which has been blessing same sex unions for 15 years, will soon be able to offer official wedding rites.
“It is a very exciting day,” said Russell, who had her union with her partner blessed at All Saints last year. But she acknowledged the continuing efforts to outlaw same-sex weddings.
“It is not the end of the story by any means,” she said, noting the court’s decision means homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection under law. “But it is a huge step nonetheless.”
[i]The Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena said she is thrilled that her church, which has been blessing same sex unions for 15 years, will soon be able to offer official wedding rites.[/i]
But isn’t this a violation of Windsor and DES? Can she do ‘official rites’ apart from being ok’d by General Convention, which has declared a moritorium on such rites?
TEC doesn’t give a hoot about Windsor or DES…….and neither does she!
[blockquote]But those beliefs are of a religious – and not secular – nature, making any law establishing a litmus test for marriage a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantees about the separation of church and state, said Grubbs of the Throop Church.
“Our religion is in favor of (gay) people getting married, and they are saying that under someone else’s religion, that is wrong,” said Grubbs. “There is no secular reason for that position, so it must be a religious test and a violation of the First Amendment.”[/blockquote]
What an astonishing statement from a learned minister of the ?Gospel.
In any case, be advised. This line of attack is a favored strategy of SSM advocates. Many of them are sincerely convinced that there are in fact no rational, secular grounds for opposing SSM. You can blame our educational system for that. However, just as many are aware of strong secular arguments against SSM, but are but quite happy to portray their opponents as irrational bigots when it advances the cause.
It frightens me, frankly. I suspect some SSM advocates won’t be happy till they’ve stigmatized their opponents legally and socially.
I don’t understand. Susan Russell herself has promoted the belief that “The term marriage
has historically referred to the union of a man and a woman and
we (Integrity/Claiming The Blessing) do not propose to change that definition” ( Claiming the Blessing Theology Statement (written in 2003), answer to question 6 of the section titled “Eight Frequently Asked Questions About Blessing Relationships”, which asks “But isn’t blessing a relationship the same as the Sacrament of Marriage? Why will this rite go into the Book of Occasional Services and not the Prayer Book?”)
But now it sounds like she does indeed propose to change that definition. What happened? Did a ruling by a secular court change her theology (and a theology that, in written form, is less than 5 years old)?
It would certainly be interesting to see what type of fundraisers All Saints Pasadena might have if California legalizes prostitution!
Oh, and another obvious error in the article where it states that All Saints has been blessing same sex unions for 15 years – Bishop Bruno has stated for the record that no same sex blessings occur in his diocese. The author must have made a mistake here.
And finally (I’ll force myself to stop after this), this article is by far the most appropriate spot for Susan’s quippy one liner :
Thanks for this, Kendall … I missed it and it’s in my hometown paper!
As for the comments so far, how about I take ’em in order:
1 – “The Windsor Report” is a “report.” You can’t “violate a report.” And DES (by which I assume you mean Dar Es Salaam) was a primates’ meeting … interesting to read about but with no jurisdiction here.
2 – Cennydd — for once we agree.
4 – Re: 2003 … that was then, this is now. We are committed the full inclusion of all the baptized in all the sacraments and marriage equality was certainly part of that goal.
And finally (I, too, will force myself to stop!) — as far as “Windsor Compliant” I’ve never said I was … and, therein, lies the rub.
[blockquote]Re: 2003 … that was then, this is now. We are committed the full inclusion of all the baptized in all the sacraments and marriage equality was certainly part of that goal. [/blockquote]
Gay agenda? What agenda? You all are just being paranoid about the intentions of the gay rights movement.
If the petition now being circulated to amend the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex “marriage” qualifies for the ballot in November……and I believe it now has the required number of signatures……and if the Constitution is amended in November…….this decision will be rendered moot, and we’ll return to square one.
What then, Ms Russell?
They will first have to get around the inevitable lawsuit by the gay activists to nullify the petition.
The issue will be returned to square one. This behavior will not succeed as a public mandate by a four to three vote, even in California. For Christians, there is no place for SSM because the outward sign doesn’t lead to spiritual grace. It leads, rather, to confusion. That’s what we are experiencing now. Confusion.
Well, as I said before, the Calif. courts, so ruling, are in violation of the First Amendment. Why is this so difficult to understand? When will it be challenged on this ground? for I fail to see how the Calif. ruling can stand in the face of such a challenge. Repetitive in Maine
Re: 2003 … that was then, this is now. We are committed the full inclusion of all the baptized in all the sacraments and marriage equality was certainly part of that goal.”
Heh. [i]Classic[/i] TEC Progressive Activist behavior. ; > )
The cool thing is that they’re so clear and above-board about the bald lying.
So the thing to ask oneself — if one is a moderate because the conservatives have long known it — is about what three years from now will they say “that was then, this is now . . . [insert latest fad here] was certainly part of that goal.”
Susan,
Are you willing to violate the Canons of the Church and the BCP to perform a gay “wedding?”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
T-1-9’ers: This is not just some kind of political disagreement, though that is how the issue is framed and is how it must be represented in the public square. Do you seriously believe (as I do) that Susan Russell and her lover (similarly, Gene Robinson and his friend) are in serious spiritual danger before Almighty God of forfeiting their place in the Kingdom of God if they continue as they do?
If so, our first task is to plead with them to repent and return to Gospel faithfulness to the life Chrict calls us to.
Susan Russell can do anything she wants. Of course, it doesn’t happen in Jon Bruno’s Diocese. Not with his permission.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
If TEC bishops don’t give a hoot about the Windsor Report, then they shouldn’t be going to Lambeth, right? It is clear that Bruno doesn’t. I look forward to the news that he’s declined his invitation.
Allow me to make here a characteristic point I keep harping on at every opportunity at SF and T19. This lamentable Supreme Court decision is simply the latest in a countless number of examples of the fundamental challenge we face as orthodox Anglicans in the western world. Namely, the challenge of somehow morphing into a radically counter-cultural, post-Constantinian kind of church. Given our 1500 year tradition of being in the cultural “mainstream,” it is naturally extremely difficult for us, with our state church heritage, to even imagine what it would be like to become an aggressively evangelistic, confidently sectarian minority group. But that’s exactly what must happen.
We must somehow relearn how to be stand against the world, for the sake of the world and its salvation. The Global South can help us there, as our brave brothers and sisters in so much of the southern hemisphere face persecution and hardships all the time for the sake of Christ our Lord. But perhaps we can receive no less help from the pre-Constantinian era of church history.
Personally, I welcome Susan Russell’s candid and admirably forthright comments above. I find them refreshingly honest, and quite representative of many liberal leaders in TEC that I know, both lay and ordained. They don’t give a hoot about Windsor, the Primates, or the AC as a whole, except in so far as it relates to what they really care about, the agenda of supposed social justice and equality that they hold so dear.
And that is another reason why the New Reformation is absolutely necessary. A house divided against itself cannot stand. But personally, I’m increasingly confident that this 21st century New Reformation will end up being even more bitter and divisive than the 16th century one. Fortunately, it looks like no one is going to get burned at the stake on either side this time, but there will be plenty of other ways of laying down our lives for the sake of the true gospel and the true church. And I’m increasingly sure that this New Reformation is just as fully justified and necessary as the original Protestant Reformation, and it will be just as beneficial and life-giving in the end. “Let goods and kindred go…”
The Christendom era is over. This CA Supreme Court decision is one more dramatic sign of it, one more nail in its coffin. But a whole new and exciting post-Christendom era is just beginning. Thanks be to God!
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of high commitment, post-Christendom style Anglicanism of a radically sectarian, Christ-against-culture sort.
[i]Re: 2003 … that was then, this is now. We are committed the full inclusion of all the baptized in all the sacraments and marriage equality was certainly part of that goal.[/i]
So words, for Ms. Russell, are for gaining political power rather than conveying truth. Indeed, [i]there is no right or wrong, only power, and those with the will to use it.[/i]
“Integrity” indeed!
`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master — that’s all.’
The word “integrity” once meant something. Now, however……..
Words, Ed, Cennydd (17. 18. & 19),
Right spot-on correct. Which was what I tried to say in #1.
As to SR’s statemetn that you “cannot violate a ‘report'”, it was more than a report, it was a step on the road to maintaining the Anglican Communion. Susan Russel just stated she has no interest in maintaining the communion or holding to any agreements made by TEc or Lambeth, and instead chooses a social position over the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
Gordian (13), you, too, are right spot-on. Which is why I pray for those in TEc leadership, deceived by a ‘false gospel’ to repent and for God to protect those under their ‘shepherding’ from that false gospel.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Wow – not that many of us would have assessed Integrity’s motivation or honesty any differently in the first place, but Susan Russell’s brazen admission of “by any means necessary” is shocking. At least we now know, from her own “pen,” that anything the political activists within the GCC claim isn’t worth the paper on which its written.
Fight on within the GCC if you must, but if you have children, please, please – for their sakes – keep them as far from the organization as possible.
Perhaps Susan Russell’s frank admission above may be due to feeling intoxicated with the euphoria of achieving a long-sought victory. But regardless, she may come to regret letting the mask slip and revealing herself quite so openly. But it’s up to the rest of us to make sure her words come back to haunt her.
David Handy+
New Reformation: I am wholly in agreement with you in 16 and I am at a loss why no one else has agreed with you. WE must adopt a different attitude or we will be lost and helpless in a defensive mode that simply guarantees our demise. We will simply become a large number of aging Christians whose affiliation will perish as we perish. BUt how do we move into a new position, a new way of thinking, a new approach to showing the secular, SusanRussell world, that the world of the Christian spirit is real, powerful, present, and at last inescapable, t hat denying God’s presence is head-in-the-sand? How?
One thing I can be certain of, lowering the net to bring more people to the tennis courts to play will only destroy the game, not train more players for the rewards of the sport. The standards cannot be lowered; indeed, they must be reasserted. We must speak of self-discipline, of the benefits of training for the pleasure of the game which can never be known otherwise, we must speak of competence, and we must be ready to leave those who have neither the will nor the discipline to remain idle bystanders. Inclusiveness is a vanity and a fool’s errand because it can only lead to the erosion of identity and the spread a slack self-indulgence – which is precisely where America is now. Larry