…at the Islamic Society of Orange County, Imam Muzammil H. Siddiqi told his congregation during Friday prayers that the high court’s decision was a severe disappointment and goes against Islamic teaching.
The ruling “is a violation of God’s law,” Siddiqi, an authority on Islamic law, said in an interview. “I hope all people of faith — Jews, Christians and Muslims — speak up against this.” At Lake Avenue, a large and diverse church that is part of the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, Waybright told worshipers that he did not want to be “self- righteous or condemn anyone.” Still, he said, “it’s my responsibility . . . to keep pointing you to God’s way.” The Bible, he noted, makes clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.
A mile or so away at All Saints Episcopal Church, the Rev. Susan Russell led a between-services forum on the religious, legal and political ramifications of the court’s decision.
“The justices have ruled in favor of the sanctity of marriage and against bigotry,” Russell declared, as the audience cheered. “This is good news for all Californians.”
But even though All Saints has been blessing same-sex unions for more than 15 years, the ruling unleashed a wave of uncertainty.
“At this point in the Episcopal Church, our prayer book still defines marriage between a man and a woman,” Russell said in an interview. “There’s some question about whether we can, within the canons of our church, extend the sacrament to same-gender couples.”
“At this point in the Episcopal Church, our prayer book still defines marriage between a man and a woman,” Russell said in an interview. “There’s some question about whether we can, within the canons of our church, extend the sacrament to same-gender couples.”
I thought the canons only were to be followed when convenient to bash the reasserters……
So much for the Left Coast! It sitting on the boundary of the social and continental plates, I’m glad I don’t live there waiting for the next earthquake.
Shsh! The Bishop of Los Angeles [i]doesn’t know about [/i] same-sex blessings in his diocese. This will be a big surprise to him.
‘…our prayer book’ still defines… What about what Holy Scripture, God’s Word, says?
……….?
…….?
…?
Ok. So I have said this twice before, but I still would like to know. Is there anyone in Cal who will venture on whether the referendum has a chance of passing. A lot hangs on this. The complete victory of the Susan Russells of the US is a scary prospect and will have serious consequences, far beyond anything Mass ever had. Larry
If Susan Russell would only open her Bible, if she has one, she would find the answer as to whether the Church can bless such an act. These so called priests that do not follow the Bible are nothing but minions of the enemy, satan and are not Christian Priests. They represent the attacks on God’s people that are nothing new, and will continue. Christians must stand firm in the faith and reject the teachings of these evil and vile servants of satan.
Definition of Episcopalianism: The belief in Anything but what would embarrass you at a faculty cocktail party.
Be still my soul…
1. The Romans have weighed in on the California Supreme Court decision.
2. The Muslims are weighing in.
3. The liberal Episcowhackos are weighing in.
Oh, where are the orthodox Anglican deacons, priests, and bishops?
Ralph, since we’re dealing with mainstream news sources, it’s possible that conservative Anglicans just aren’t being asked.
Ok, I don’t understand. TEC has not rulled in favor of same-sex blessings yet everyone (including All Saints’, Pasadena) has been doing them for years. Yet, Ms. Russell is pondering whether or not they can now do ss marriages? Why wait?
The role of the California Supreme Court is to interpret Constitutional law and to make judgments in the civilrealm. It does not interpret religious texts. Thus its authority extends to civil marriage law and not to sacramental practices that are properly left to religious authorities.
Part of the problem in religious marriage ceremonies in the United States is that we call upon our ministers and priests to perform a dual role of being the officer of the State as well as being a minister of the Church when it comes to marriage. I think the best way out of this problem is to clearly distinguish those two functions. Do a religous marriage cermony in the church and another civil rite at the Court House.
In the UK, there are two marriage rites…..only ONE of which is required: Religious and Civil. The first IS, and the second ISN’T, the last I heard.
#5 — Larry … our numbers tell us that Californians are more reluctant to write discrimination into the Constitution than they are to live with marriage equality. (Which doesn’t mean we won’t mobilize to defeat the initiative.) Hope that answers your question.
Larry Morse, as a lifelong (almost) Californian, I can say that the marriage amendment definitely has a chance of winning. Although the whackos get the headlines, there are yet large bastions of conservatism in the state, and these folks get out and vote.
That is not to say that I am predicting the outcome. It could go either way.
Pray.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
By the way, the California Supremes ruling actually improves the chances for passage of the initiative. Rather than fighting a theoretical situation, the initiative will have demonstrable results.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Does anyone have a sense of how the presidential race will intersect if the initiative is on the ballot? For instance, would an Obama candidacy tend to bring out a greater number of younger voters who are more likely to oppose an initiative? Or would conservatives be more likely to vote for Bob Barr on the Libertarian ticket rather than McCain if the initative is on the ballot?
Brer Rabbit, let us pray that Susan Russell is wrong. But I fear…
Well, #11, it’s about time I heard someone else besides myself say that the Supremes are violating the First Amendment. Marriage is a sacred commitment because it is spiritual. The legislature and the Supremes can only touch civil partnerships precisely because t hey are civil. There MUST be two ceremonies, one civil and one religious. What is necessary is for the legislature to pass a law that civil unions are only between a man and a woman. Neither you nor I nor the courts can decide what a church will do. If TEC wants to marry homosexuals, two-three-four at a time, no one can stop them save their own canons…. and we know what THEY’RE worth.
But I see by the other blog entries that England is going to same way as California. Get to know despair. The left wing has control of the culture and has for years. What will change it? I cannot think of anything that has such power save economic disaster. A genuine recession will call the Bright White and Overpaid back to reality, and we will see a new conservatism appear.
Russell- “official blessing”; Bruno – “none in my diocese” Right!
Russell’s money quote: “in favor of sanctity of marriage and against bigotry…” While I thank Ms. Russell for her candor, it is impossible to have a conversation with someone who starts from the position that anyone who disagrees with her is a bigot.
The reappraiser campaign has been classically Machiavellian, while remarkably devoid of defensible reason. Their advances have been achieved by bullying, intimidation, political misdirection/ misrepresentation [e.g. D-039 and C-051], and obfuscation/ disparagement of anything/one that does not support their agenda. The other side of the movement is the “proof” based on how “nice” proponents are. Of course that proves nothing, as many of us have known (e.g.) adulterers who seemed to be really nice folks. But that had nothing to do with whether adultery is acceptable in the church. This total rigidity of reappraisers is as extreme or even more so that the worst of the much-maligned “fundamentalists”. So what is the point of an indaba?
The bottom line is that reappraisers want to tell God what the rules will be rather than listening to God to learn the rules.
#17 Br_er Rabbit writes: Well, #11, it’s about time I heard someone else besides myself say that the Supremes are violating the First Amendment. Marriage is a sacred commitment because it is spiritual.
I did not mean to say that the California Supreme Court acted in violation of the First Amendment. Indeed it is the principle of religious freedom based in the First Amendment that constrains the State (whether by a court, executive action or legislature) from dictating how religious organizations interpret their sacred texts and organize their rites.
I am from Maryland where members of our legislature introduced the Religious Freedom and Marriage Protection Act this last year to acknowledge the rights of religious organizations, and at the same time to enable the State to extend equal protection of law to same-sex as to opposite-sex couples in civil marriage. How and whether a religious organization chooses to perform same-sex or opposite-sex religious marriages is quite a different matter, and beyond the control of the State.
But #19, that Calif. Supremes have just interpreted a church’s religious text. That is EXACTLY what they have done. They have said that marriage is a civil right, in essence, and in so doing have superimposed a civil principle on top of a religious principle, saying that they are fused into a single entity, which is precisely what the constitution set out to avoid. I doubt that you are I are in any real disagreement. Larry
I did not have a “right” to get married, but I DID have a choice 45 years ago, and as far as I know, that right versus choice exists in all states and territories of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution of the State of California, as far as I know, which guarantees anyone the right to marry.
#20. Larry wrote that Calif. Supremes have just interpreted a church’s religious text. That is EXACTLY what they have done. They have said that marriage is a civil right, in essence, and in so doing have superimposed a civil principle on top of a religious principle
The decision by the California Supreme Court last week was based on intepretations of consitutional principles and precedents from earlier court decisions. The legal discernment that civil marriage is a civil goes way back. In the California courts there is the Perez decision from 1948 that overturned bans on interracial civil marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court in the Loving v. Virginia case in the 1960s (also dealing with interracial civil marriages) articulated that concpet of marriage as a civil right.
My point is this again. Pardon the repetition. That there is no such thing as civil marriage. There are civil unions. These are legal partnerships with the rights and responsibilities spelled out. This is NOT marriage, which is a spiritual matter, not a civil matter, and is outside the purview of the state. When the justice of the peace “marries” two people, he is only establishing a civil union, not a marriage, and this distinction should be made clear and absolute. Marriage is not a civil right; civil unions may well be. Larry
#23. Hi, Larry- Yes, I can appreciate the distinction that you are making. Unfortunately, I don’t think civil laws in this country make the same differentiation. In my own home state of Maryland, there are some 400 distinct rights and privileges that pertain to opposite sex couples who are married. These are civil protections.
Would you favor legislation that would make the type of distinction your suggest? Such a bill was introduced this year in the Maryland legislature so that every time the law refers to marriage or marital spouse the terms “domestic partner” would be used. This would seem to clean up the semantics of the matter so that marriage is confined entirely to a church ceremony.