While visiting the Diocese of El Salvador, I learned of yesterday’s ruling by the California Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to receive a California marriage license. With efforts already underway to place a constitutional amendment on November’s ballot banning such marriages, it is clear that this issue will continue to permeate our political life.
I support the Supreme Court’s decision and oppose the likely effort to amend the constitution. At a federal level, the constitution has only been successfully amended to expand rights, not remove them, and it follows that California would maintain a similar posture.
While supporting the rights of gays and lesbians, I am mindful that our church has not yet made the decision to bless same-sex unions. We are in the midst of a challenging but vital conversation about holy relationships in this diocese and indeed across the communion. I ask all people of the diocese to hold the court’s decision gently. Prayerfully remember that God has placed his children, who share different perspectives on same-sex relationships, next to each other in church every Sunday.
As Archbishop Rowan Williams said, “our baptism puts us in solidarities not of our own choosing.” Let us be good stewards of these solidarities and teach each other, and the wider community, how to listen and learn from each other as we accept the Court’s decision to allow equal access to the institution of marriage.
–(The Rt. Rev.) James R. Mathes is Bishop of San Diego
For many of us the Rock of Christ is the only solidarity…all other ground is sinking sand. In times like these we must gather at the foot of the cross.
Hmmm. Is it just me or does this logic sound like this: “because the secular courts bless same sex relationships it’s only a matter of time before the church follows. Meanwhile let’s all get along.” ?
#3. I’d say that’s about right.
Once again, we see our role as to instruct but never to learn. It’s theologically pathological. Absolutely no capacity to learn or to be told.
I appreciate Bishop Mathes’ counsel to hold the court’s decision lightly… a posture that seems right to me.
So let’s just accept the court’s decision. Caesar has spoken so let’s all just abide by what he says. How anemic. The blood of the martyrs doesn’t flow very thickly through the veins of Mathes.
RE:”…our baptism puts us in solidarities not of our own choosing.” Let us be good stewards of these solidarities and teach each other, and the wider community, how to listen and learn from each other as we accept the Court’s decision to allow equal access to the institution of marriage…”
What a safe and terrible answer…not to mention episcobabble!
It is tragic that the members of the diocese of San Diego have as their apostolic father one who will not stand with God’s Word, the Tradition of the Faith, and the clear moral law down through the ages. Small wonder that bishops are losing honor and dignity whenn they cannnot stand!
[blockquote]At a federal level, the constitution has only been successfully amended to expand rights, not remove them, and it follows that California would maintain a similar posture.[/blockquote]
Well, as a political science major and amateur poly-sci scholar and as someone who has spent time in law school, that is a somewhat flawed understanding of constitutional law. Granted that the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights, I can give the examples of prohibition (though ultimately repealed), most of the amendments stemming from the civil war (which gave freedom to ex-slaves, but took rights away from slave owners), and the amendment to limit the term of office for a president to 2 elected terms or a maximum of 10 years limits power. Not to mention the 16th amendment which established the federal governments right to extend its power over the individual in the form of an income tax.
And I dare say, these bishops will be screaming bloody murder if the Supreme Court comes back in favor of individual gun rights (a la 2nd Amendment) which is likely.
This is not a counsel of moderation, it is a counsel of temporizing, wht we have seen TEC do so well so often. And it works, now doesn’t it?
And so we have the bishop, in oleaginous tones, advising us in pastoral postures that what is now, is right.
This is infuriating, all the more so because his tone is the condescension of the victorious to the defeated. LM
Bishop, please exlain how it is possible to have a “conversation” when one side has been acting unilaterally for 40-50 years with impunity. The House of Bishops has sadly become (with exceptions) a House of Cowards that has abdicated its leadership role. Its preoccupation with secular matters has been perhaps the single most important factor in TEC’s internal decay.
Can’t you hear the gloating in his voice? If the referendum doesn’t stop the Calif Supremes, we’re dead. Larry
Mathes must mean like the solidarities unilaterally placed upon the Anglican Communion by the engineered election of VGR to allow General Convention approval rather than Standing Committee approval and bishop approval which would have had a different outcome than that sought by the engineers. Right? So the backroom engineers are equal to the California Supremes? Wow. That’s a step up for them and one down for the Supremes.
Turncoat.