California’s six most senior Episcopal bishops Wednesday unanimously declared their opposition to a constitutional amendment on the statewide November ballot that would ban same-sex marriage.
The bishops argued that preserving the right of gays and lesbians to marry would enhance the “Christian values” of monogamy, love and commitment.
“We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights,” said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.
Bruno, flanked at a news conference by fellow clergy members and gay and straight couples, added: “We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage.”
By going on the record against Proposition 8, which would reverse the California Supreme Court’s decision in May to legalize same-sex marriage, the bishops waded into a volatile political and religious controversy.
Gay marriage has strained the Episcopalians’ international body, the Anglican Communion, with hundreds of bishops from Africa and elsewhere threatening to break away over attempts to change church doctrine and practice.
The issue has created theological fissures in other Protestant denominations, including Presbyterians and United Methodists, with some Methodist ministers in California pledging to perform wedding ceremonies in defiance of their national church.
Any of you fence-sitters out there wonder what will be on the agenda for the 2009 General Convention hosted in the front yard of these apostates?
Wow, what a surprise! 🙂
However, as if anyone needed any further clarity, I guess this eliminates any doubt about TEC complying with all that talk from the ABC about a moratorium.
Does this leave any doubt that the heretics of California and TEC had no intention of complying with any moratoria? Every one of the so called bishops, and don’t tell that just because they were consecrated that they are in fact bishops, should be tried and removed from ministry.
They have denied Christ, the authority of the Bible and the Church. They are anathema.
All is well.
It’s odd when ‘..[i]Jesus’ ethic of love, giving and hope.”[/i] is used not just to excuse grave sin but to promote it as well. Funny but I don’t think the Bishops meant that from love for our brother we give witness to the life changing power of Christ to become a new creation filled with hope for our place in His kingdom.
Kendall … We’ve got a video up of the whole press conference if folks would like to “tune in” … [url=http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3479034/9679598]No on 8 Press Conference[/url] … and hear what everybody had to say.
Wow! Makes one wonder about all of that “listening” that went on at Lambeth…
Oh, wait, did I say that already?
M-O-R … A-T-O …R-I-A …never! (Sung to another famous California export prior to californication). Ah, Lame-beth could have had this catchy tune for its theme as well.
Oh, that’s right, it DID. ‘Cept the words were J-A-M…B-O-R …
inadabadavEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEda. And it only cost the poor of the world and the MDGs how many pounds?
Love the green-ness of the former Anglican Communion.
Bye the by, I just noticed in my local supermarket that there is a cheap wine called “Indaba.” Well. Larry
“We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights,” said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.
Of course, one might doubt the bishops’ qualifications to comment upon constitutional rights, as it would not necessarily be within the scope of their training and expertise.
Furthermore, if the initiative passes, civil recognition of same sex unions would no longer be within the scope of constitutional rights, even within California, as the state constitution will have been amended. (That, after all, is the entire purpose of the intiative).
I will vote “yes” for Proposition 8…….unashamedly.
You may want to read the very powerful comment from Rev Al Mohler in response to the Millstone Bishops of California.
I think the bishops would do well to read the rites for the Consecrating of Bishops found in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer versus the same in the 1979 book. The differences are obvious. And just in case these six bishops haven’t got a copy of the 1928 BCP close at hand, perhaps some mail…..email included…..detailing those rites and their differences…..should be directed their way. And they need to be reminded of what these rites and their vows mean!
This whole fiasco started when the churches started to ordain women. Next was the ordaining of homosexuals and then gay marriage.
Lutheran-MS, please don’t confuse an issue of polity (on which poeple can debate but which is never described as sin) with acts clearly declared to be sinful and an abomination.
right on, hanks!
Bishops, as citizens, are right to ensure that gay people have the same rights as everyone else. The alternative is bigotry.
There may be supernatural reasons why God doesn’t want gay marriage (I don’t believe it myself, but I’m willing to speculate). But as far as polity, bishops have a right to speak out on behalf of his/her constituents.
It is theologically possible to believe that the church should advocate for the civil rights of gay people while also restricting the formal blessing or keeping church records of marriages. I don’t hold that view, but I can comprehend it.
I submit, that if reasserters advocated for the political rights of gay people, they might gain the trust of some reappraisers in the church sphere.
Always drifting the way the political wind blows. I wonder about our Bishops…
“Bishops, as citizens, are right to ensure that gay people have the same rights as everyone else. The alternative is bigotry. ” might be better as:
“Citizens are right to ensure that gay people have the same rights as everyone else. The alternative is bigotry. ”
The fact that bishops might be citizens is adiaphora.
Here are some other groups whose rights you have to protect in order to avoid being a bigot.
Alcoholics, Kleptomaniacs, Nymphomaniacs, Pedophiles (APA Rind study), adulterers, polygamists…
sigh…
It is a very simple concept. Love the sinner and hate the sin. We are all sinners, no one of us has any more value in God’s eyes than another. That being said, the idea of a “political right” to sin or of establishing credibility by acceptance of and endorsement of sin is anathema to Christians.
We are all sinners and the flesh calls to all of us in different ways.
Withasword, so you seem to think that homosexuality is an addiction or a lot like theft, or a sickness. You are entitled to your view. Many reasserters think of homosexuals like murderers. This is clear much of the time.
“sin” unfortunately, is unhelpful as a particular public policy. We can tax sins to discourage them (possibly a good idea). We can fund the government to provide the mechanisms to protect human life and property. But in the end, big government is not about forcing other people to live the way you think they should believe, because of your views on the supernatural.
I might believe that the flying spaghetti monster has dictated that those who eat pasta are a lot like kleptomaniacs and murderers. If you eat Pasta, you are a sinner, because you murder things made in the image of the almighty creator. I love you, but you eat pasta, and thus, are a sinner, and I cannot allow you to have civil rights.
John Wilkins wrote:
Bishops, as citizens, are right to ensure that gay people have the same rights as everyone else. The alternative is bigotry.
Gay people are always welcomed in the church, but sin is sin. The church by welcoming gays, shouldn’t condone the gay lifestyle by blessing, marrying or ordaining gays. It is still a sin. We are all sinners and we need to recognized that fact. The reappraisers in any church are wrong.
John,
People vote based on their world view. In my world view, you have just as much value as I. I have a set of guidelines laid out for me by my Father that tell me what is good for me and what is bad. I am also told to love my neighbor so I will not encourage him to do that which is bad for him. I will (try) to act (including voting) based on those teachings, which I trust because I know my Father loves me and wishes the best for me. I will not vote to murder the innocent, merely because they have no voice. Nor will I vote to redefine marriage, merely because society wishes it.
I understand that you make your decisions based on what (you feel) the majority of society determines to be good. I understand that you feel if the majority of society determines that a members of particular racial group should be treated differently (japanese internment, slavery, etc.) that is good, because the majority (oftimes merely vocal) of society wants it. This seems like a shaky foundation upon which to base moral decisions.
I am going to stick with my Dad.