It takes a while, but as time roles on the real intent and beliefs of the politicized Religious Right and those claiming that status of “advocates for the American family” come to be revealed. As they become more confident, they are more forward and honest with their intent.
The following articles from the Focus on the Family’s CitizenUpdate demonstrates that the definition of marriage is not simply a union between a man and a woman, which excludes gay couples, but even more a union between a man and a woman that must be condoned or sanctioned or approved (blessed) by a religious ceremony. The next public revelation will be that the approval is only valid when done by those who agree with their particular theological bent.
Here is the article:

Civil Weddings on the Rise
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
SUMMARY: Family advocates worry about removing God from marriage ceremony.
An increasing number of couples are choosing civil marriages over religious ceremonies.
In fact, in 14 states, more than 40 percent of marriages are now being performed in a judge's chambers -- just like the ceremony Tammy Burnip just planned.
Instead of a church, a cake and a large reception, it was a civil judge in a small office who said, "I pronounce you husband and wife. Kiss the bride."
Burnip's wedding, at which the photographer was also the maid of honor, was governed by the one rule she had for the occasion: "To make it as simple as possible."
But, simplicity aside, family advocates are worried that taking God out of the wedding brings us one step closer to losing the traditional definition of marriage.

What do they consider to be the traditional definitin of marriage? Is marriage only a union blessed by a pastor and in the name of God? But then what definition of God according to whose theology?

Joshua Baker, a spokesman for the Marriage Law Project, said the numbers suggest a growing confusion about what marriage is really about.

Their honest idea of what marriage truly is will not fly in this country. Try to tell the 40% that their marriage is not real and not true because it was sealed before a judge rather than a minister or priest.

"Is marriage a religious ceremony, is it a civil package of benefits and rights that the government confers upon people, or is it really the cultural institution which has been the basis of our society?" Baker asked.
Such confusion plays right into the hands of those who want to redefine the institution to allow any number of alternatives, according to Dr. Allan Carlson, director of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society.
"I think that does fuel . . . the advocates for making marriage a much more plastic -- and, by that, a much less meaningful -- institution," Carlson said.

comments? e-mail me

Stephen Bennett Ministries recently launched a radio commentary show lasting one minute or so called StraightTalk. He comments on the political, cultural, and social aspects of the plague of homosexuality and his belief that God’s intent is to change people. Today’s commentary suggests a new television reality series for Bravo to counter the hit series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy entitled Christian Guys for the Queer Guy. Click on the link above to find the audio link – you should listen.
Bennett suggests that the new reality show would consist of five Christian guys that make over a homosexual guy into the manly heterosexual man God always intended him to be. The weekly series would chronicle the amazing transformation the queer guy goes through as God changes him into a heterosexual.
You know what, they should do the show!
However, just like the ex-gay and anti-gay Christian groups are now demanding fairness and even handedness from all aspects of society to present the ex-gay propaganda gospel, Bravo should be even handed in presenting all the struggles and failures of gay guys trying to be straight guys. If there was ever an opportunity to debunk ex-gay propaganda – the ideological, pseudo-scientific, and theological mess – this would be it. The show would be the best commentary on the negative impact and false claims of the ex-gay movement. Most assuredly there would be people who are helped with all manor of addictions, with loneliness, with emotional problems, and even with sexual and gender confusion issues, but one thing the show would prove, if the people involved are honest, is that homosexuals are not changed into heterosexuals.
Bring on the show! Not counting the fact that it would be a ratings flop (I think), the ex-gay movement would pull the show soon enough because of the continuing failures of the guys to live up to their own propaganda. Read this article appearing in March 11, 2002 issue of Christianity Today entitled, “No Easy Victory”. If this person were the queer guy the Christian-5 made over, there might well be far fewer people seeking out ex-gay ministries.
comments? e-mail me

I’ve been debating with myself (no comments, please) about being more specific with the different weblogs I have, some of which are simply replacements for regular webpages for the sake of convenience. Anyway, I’m going to attempt, I think, to be more diligent in placing gay/ex-gay/ex-ex-gay/homosexual issues in my “Gay/Ex-gay Weblog”. The other option is to simply put everything here, but then…
comments? e-mail me

Yesterday, I was officially introduced to my field-placement parish as their new seminarian. Here is what the printed announcements said, “We are privileged and very happy to welcome to St. Paul’s Mr. Robert Griffith, as student at The General Theological Seminary who will be serving as our Seminarian. Mr. Griffith is a Candidate for Holy Orders from the Diocese of Ohio. Please introduce yourself to him, and by all means remember him in your prayers.”
I like the last half of the last sentence the most, because I certainly need them! Officially, I’m not quite a candidate yet, just a lowly Postulant. Candidacy will be this spring. Father Cullen, the Rector, mentioned also that he didn’t want anyone coming up to him and telling him that they don’t like me, because he does. This is a great little Anglo-Catholic parish with an incredible history. I think I am very fortunate to have landed at this place. The church is St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Carroll St. in the Carroll Gardens section of Brooklyn.
comments? e-mail me

Go study, go study, go study….
comments? e-mail me

I gotta study and I don’t wanna! Please don’t make me read any more about Medieval English Christianity! Please cancel the paper on Julian of Norwich! Please don’t make us right a book review, picking 12 topics to write on from Pastors and the Care of Souls in Medieval England! Actually, the discussion on Trinity (what the heck?) during Systematics was quite good. I tend to dominate. I need to quit doing that, but I process out loud, and repeating all that Patristics stuff helps me remember it.
Of course, then there is Liturgics. Do an analysis of “Space” at St. Thomas, 5th Ave., and St. Peters Lutheran, somewhere in Mid-town, and write a long paper on it. What does the “space” say about the church’s theology of community, nation, individual, movement, eucharist, involvement, yadda, yadda, yadda. Ugghhhhh……. Actually, it is interesting. I’m just complaining, which I know I need to stop doing because I am bugging people. What, then, Pastoral Theology and Homiletics.
I’m also not studying!
comments? e-mail me

Listening to a piece on the Texas Legislature’s redistricting problems on NPR, I heard it said that the legislature used to be known for its bipartisanism – even going so far as to declare itself the best functioning legislature in the world. It is Texas, after all. Anyway, the thought struck me as they were describing all the rancor between Democrats and Republicans, and now that the runaway democratic legislators have returned to the state, between the Republicans themselves, that the breakdown in the ability of our legislators, whether state or national, to govern is analogous to American Christianity’s inability to work through the theological and cultural wars going on now. Which came first, rancorous and intransient legislators refusing to work together to solve state and national problems, or the rancorous and intransient religious leaders refusing to work together to present to the world a faith that doesn稚 go about destroying itself? Who influenced whom? Has the Religious Right, in demanding that the world recognize their particular brand of theological understanding and praxis as they only legitimate expression of Christianity, so influenced politics that politicians now define their party’s political theory and praxis as the only expression of good ol’ American patriotism, or the other way around. Or something like that.
I do not know enough about the history of it all, but do understand that religious and political wars have been with us from the beginning. It seems to me that as the fundamentalist liberal Christians infused liberal politics in the ’70’s and as the fundamentalist conservative Christians infused conservative politics in the ’80’s, politics has come out on the lesser side of success.
comments? e-mail me

Wondering around the Web, I came across this commentary by Cal Thomas on the Judge Moore, Alabama Ten Commandments monument controversy, and thought it interesting. Thomas does not look very favorably, any longer, on the antics of the Religious Right. As a matter of fact, he and Ed Dobson wrote a book I have yet to read, but am interested in reading, entitled, Blinded by Might. Here is the link to the article. I found the article through The Blinne Blog
comments? e-mail me

No dramatic event. The storm came and went without much fanfare in the city. Is it a bit wrong to hope for a very dramatic event when I know people may (MAY) be hurt and property lost, just for the thrill of it? Yes, probably, but I still would have liked to have seen some drama this far north. There was a good bit of wind and at Ashton’s place in New Jersey there were a lot of tree limbs fallen, and there was some rain. All is calm this morning. I do feel badly for all the terrible things that happened to people just a little further south were Isabel actually hit. It is not a good thing, not really a thrilling thing when others suffer loss, just a terrible thing.
The controversy continues to pull at the existence of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Things will never be the same, as much as many liberals want to think this is just another “women’s ordination” type issue. There are more than just a few people, both lay and ordained, that are dismayed at the events of General Convention. People are not happy. Many people are absolutely dismayed that the Church would do such a thing. I just read an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the Bishop of Atlanta’s first open forum on Robinson’s election and the affirmative vote from the diocesan delegates. American society in general is not in a happy mood over homosexuality in general, and of course this translates into the Church. There is no joy. There is no victory. There has to be a third way!
There are a lot of seminarians from Atlanta – probably the largest single contingent from any diocese. Some of them must be very careful about their orientation being made known because of the feelings resident in their sponsoring parish, others have no problem. It is a hard road to navigate.
The issue of Robinson and homosexuality in general has infused many examples given in our classes, the most pertinent being Pastoral Theology. It feels so odd knowing that arbitrary examples given and topics discussed in class relates directly to me – and not me alone but of my kind… a kind not of choice or want, but that simply is. There is almost a surreal aspect to it. Two people discussing the issue and there we sit. General is very supportive and has gay faculty, but knowing that this whole issue is over what and who I am and seeing the Church pull itself apart over – me, my kind – is disconcerting.
comments? e-mail me

This semester is going to kill me. I’m not even finished with the second week and I’ve been unable to complete most of my reading (which truly is impossible anyway, but one would think I would have gotten most of it done). I have a paper due on Thursday afternoon (tomorrow) and I have hardly begun the reading – The Venerable Bede, father of Medieval and Patristic church history in England. When, I ask you – when?, am I going to be able to finish this paper?
I have no clue whether my illness last spring was due to stress or whether stress may have contributed to the problem, but so far this term I’m headed in the same direction. I can’t. At least the accountability of a running group will help me practice a little more consistently the whole “self-care” thing they talk about so much here. I think I am going to have to tell Father Wright that I cannot have a paper ready for him by Thursday, come what may. I could hand in anything, but I do want to do a good job.
Besides, the retreat is this weekend. Too bad most of it will be consumed by my attempt to catch up on my reading for classes.
I read in the chapel for the first time for yesterday’s Evening Prayer. That one is down, now. What am I doing writing this at 4:50 am?
comments? e-mail me