But the richness of these quotes highlight the great failure of the piece. Where are the equivalent quotes from the many religious adherents who oppose redefining marriage as a union between same-sex couples?
When 75 percent of the people taking a position in an article about the religious response to redefining marriage support the change, that’s just ridiculous. California has more Roman Catholics than any other state in the nation. I believe that almost one in three Californians is Catholic. California also has more Latter-day Saint temples than any other state in the union save Utah. The idea that the reporters would highlight three Jewish rabbis (all of whom somehow support redefining marriage as a union between same-sex couples), an Episcopal priest, and a Unitarian Universalist Church but only one Christian clergyman who holds the traditional view of marriage as a union of one man and one woman? It would be laughable if it weren’t so offensive and inaccurate.
Back when a Massachusetts court changed the legal definition of marriage to permit same-sex couples to marry, one media critic described the general coverage as “upbeat.” Acting like 75 percent of the clergy are embracing a legal redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions would have to qualify as more of the same.
[blockquote][b]“At this point in the Episcopal Church, our prayer book still defines marriage between a man and a woman,†Russell said[/b] in an interview. [b]“There’s some question about whether we can, within the canons of our church, extend the sacrament to same-gender couples.â€[/b][/blockquote]
Someone tell me again they don’t have an agenda and that they aren’t using a Christian Religion as a vehicle to get validation for their own sinful wills to become crediable in the eyes of society? I will point you to TECUSA, Corp. point by point and case by case….there can be no denying it! The people here in California have spoken on this and this was not therir voice. Their voice said at election time, “Marriage is between a man and a woman…period!” But 4 activist supreme court judges, akin to KJS, VGR and the majority of the HoB said, “We know better than all of you and we are overturning your voices and vote.” They did what judges are not suppose to do and that is legislate from the bench. But, who’s gonna do anything about it? Just like who’s gonna do anything about KJS and comapny? We have a huge problem within our Anglican religous system and our judical system when we allow rogue clergy and politicans to over run the sytem and ignore resolutions, votes and most of all the majority of voices that clearly have said and say [b]”NO![/b]
“The justices have ruled in favor of the sanctity of marriage and against bigotry,†Russell declared…..
Translation; “If you don’t agree with me (us) you are a bigot.”
Two very real possibilities:
1. Amendment of the Constitution of CA to limit marriage to that of a man and a woman; supported by 60 to 70% of the voters.
2. Recall of several supremes who have moved to legislate against the will of the people.
It will take a while, and may not happen, but this item is a hot-button even in CA, so there is a significant probability for both actions.
“to get validation for their own sinful wills to become crediable (sic) in the eyes of society”
romans 2:1 !