The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled today: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot deny equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities for marriage to couples of the same sex.
I pulled this statement from Andrew Sullivan’s website (I’m not sure where it comes from, but it seems to be a statement from the bench):

“Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. ”

comments? e-mail me

“…they say, ‘of all other most clear, where speaking of those things which are called indifferent, in the end he concludeth, That ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’ But faith is not but in respect of the Word of God. Therefore whatsoever is not done by the Word of God is sin.” Whereunto we answer, that albeit the name of Faith being properly and strictly taken, it must needs have reference unto some uttered word as the object of belief: nevertheless sith the ground of credit is the credibility of things credited; and things are made credible, either by the know condition and quality of the utterer, or by the manifest likelihood of truth which they have in themselves; hereupon it riseth that whatsoever we are persuaded of, the same we are generally said to believe. In which generality the object of faith may not so narrowly be restrained, as if the same did extend no further than to the only Scriptures of God. ‘Though,’ saith our Saviour, ‘ye believe not me, believe my works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him.’ ‘The other disciples said unto Thomas, We have seen the Lord;’ but his answer unto them was, ‘Except I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into them, I will not believe.’ Can there be any thing more plain than that which by these two sentences appeareth, namely, that there may be a certain belief grounded upon other assurance than Scripture: any thing more clear, than that we are said not only to believe the things which we know by another’s relation, but eve whatsoever we are certainly persuaded of, whether it be by reason or by sense?”
(Richard Hooker, Book Two of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity – so to answer the Puritan’s demand that nothing be done but that which is directly found in scripture, and if something be done that is not found in scripture, then it is sin.)
comments? e-mail me

Ashton and I have to prepare today. Ashton has decided that it is time to put Daq to sleep. That dog has been with him for 14 years. A good life, for a dog. It is especially hard for Ashton because Daq is generally healthy, it seems. She has arthritis, and hip-displatia (sp?), although both are being managed with drugs. She also has a problem of number 2 – she just can’t hold it.
I accompany the two of them on walks on Monday’s, and she really is in pretty good shape. I run with her for a couple blocks and she goes right along, although a couple weeks ago her hind-legs, really her hips, I suppose, gave out. I felt so bad for her, and for what it means for Ashton. She recouped and was on her away again, but the writing was on the wall. It was only a matter of time, and now time has caught up with her.
It will be very hard on Ashton. He loves that dog, and she has been a consistent presence in his life. He and Brett will probably take her to the Vet. I’m not sure whether he wants me to come along or not, but I certainly will if he needs me to.
The next two weeks are going to kill me, I just know it. Four papers will be due within that time, and I just don’t know how I will accomplish everything. In a month, half of my seminary education will be over. It is going by so fast.
comments? e-mail me

Good article from The Tablet in the UK. This takes on a number of things, but of interest to me is some historical background on the Communion and past controversies and what some see as a creeping into a more centralized authority, with real authority, to develop common canon law and doctrine.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?tablet-00814
comments? e-mail me

Ashton took me to see Matt & Ben last night for my birthday. It was a great show – creative, the actors did a wonderful job, and it was just good.
comments? e-mail me

I was reading through the most recent edition of Focus-on-the-Family’s CitizenUpdate and of course there was the obligatory item on homosexuals’ desire to destroy marriage. Background – the HRC will be conducting a million dollar ad campaign to defeat the proposed amendment to the constitution that will deny homosexuals the right to marry nationwide, and the right of individual states to enact laws recognizing gay marriages.

“They’re wanting to attack and destroy the institution of marriage for the financial gain or the pleasure of these adults,” Crews said.

This is such a tired argument and accusation. To simply stop and think for a moment, which is a lot to ask of many people whether liberal or conservative, then to ask how they deduce from a campaign to win the right to marry by gay couples that homosexuals are attempting to destroy marriage? Politicized Religious Right Fundamentalists are not campaigning to destroy divorce, spending millions of dollars to enshrine in our constitution laws that restrict divorce, even though the close to 50% divorce rater among born-again Christians is ravaging good, wholesome, Christian marriages. It is simply, and only, an attempt to find an argument that deceives enough citizens in order to gain the votes needed to deny homosexuals any positive, life-giving, and live-sustaining position within our civil society. If they where truly serious about protecting families and protecting the institution of marriage, they would look at their own houses first, search in their own eyes first, and spend the millions upon millions of dollars to protect the institution of marriage against divorce, but they don’t because too many of them are involved in divorce, fornication, adultery, and the like, and it is much easier to find a vulnerable scapegoat to blame – which are homosexuals and their desire for equal treatment under the civil law with regards to state recognized marriage.

Genevieve Wood, spokeswoman for the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council –also named in the ad — said it comes down to this: “Is marriage between a man and a woman — as it has always been in this country and civilization throughout history — or is marriage something that you can just make up and redefine, which is what pro-homosexual organizations like the Human Rights Campaign would like to suggest?”

It is historic fact that marriage has been re-defined time-and-time again. To believe that throughout all history and in every culture marriage was defined and understood as we do in the United States in the 21st. Century is to be completely ignorant of history – willfully ignorant or willfully deceptive!
comments? e-mail me

Yesterday was my birthday and I received an e-mail from a friend of mine back in Ohio (John Nolan) with this character inventory based on trees. So, all those born between Oct. 25 through Nov. 11 are Maple trees. Here is the description:

MAPLE TREE (Independence of Mind) – no ordinary person, full of imagination and originality, shy and reserved, ambitious, proud, self-confident, hungers for new experiences, sometimes nervous, has many complexities, good memory, learns easily, complicated love life, wants to impress.

comments? e-mail me

There was a lunar eclipse tonight. St. Paul’s had their annual dinner/auction/raffle tonight, and people were running in and out to watch the eclipse. It wasn’t nearly as impressive as when years ago I was paperboy in Vermilion and on my route one night I watched a lunar eclipse. The moon, then, was very low in the sky, which made the moon look much larger that it normally does – kind of like a science fiction movie with a planet that has a very close and very large moon or two. Anyway, tonight’s moon was positioned high in the sky.
I’ve got to get some sleep – I am fatigued to the point where I can’t fall asleep. I am stressing myself far beyond reason – well, not really beyond what we are all feeling, but I think I should be able to convince myself that there is not need to stress this much because there is nothing I can do about all the work that is coming due. I’ve got to restore some semblance of balance in my life, especially concerning exercise of some sort just to relieve the effects of stress. I just don’t know how I am going to do it.
comments? e-mail me

Well, the deed it done. There were protestors (Fred Phelps and his gang, and a few others) and counter-protestors (students from the University of New Hampshire and a few others). Three people (priest Rev. Earl Fox from the Diocese of Pittsburg, a lay women from New Hampshire, and a Bishop Suffragan David Bena from Albany) gave reasons why Robinson should not be consecrated. The first guy, Fox, I think was his name, began giving invalid statistics about gay-sex and was becoming quite vivid in his discriptions until the Presiding Bishop Griswold stopped him and ask his to skip over the graphic stuff and get to is point. He did. It was all quite civil.
We all are dead tired and going to bed.
See pictures here: http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=news_photos&p=%22Gene+Robinson%22
comments? e-mail me

Fred Phelps will be protesting against the consecration of Gene Robinson, today. Nothing new. His group will also be protesting the AAC’s alternative service being conducted for those who oppose the consecration on the grounds of Gene’s homosexuality. Fred and his family/group are protesting both consecration and alternative service because ALL Episcopalians are going to Hell, regardless of their views on homosexuality or Gene’s consecration.
From ENS:

11-01-2003
Unexpected Support for Episcopal Church Action
By Dan England and Matthew Davies
[Episcopal News Service] On the eve of the consecration of Canon V Gene Robinson as Bishop-coadjutor of the Diocese of New Hampshire and the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion, a twist. It seems students from the University of Durham in New Hampshire, will be protesting conservative protestors tomorrow by staging their own demonstration and calling for "a more realistic and broadminded approach" to the current stance on homosexuality in the Church. One of the students, a 21 year-old woman called Nika with a hard-to-miss silver ring in her bottom lip, told ACNS/ENS that she had never been to church, but was joining the protest. "I am very spiritual," she said, "but I'm not much for organised religion." Asked if she'd consider actually going to a church that took this kind of action, she said, "Yeah, I think I would. Yeah, I'll have to give it a try."
The American Anglican Council (AAC) will be sending two representatives to Durham, New Hampshire during this weekend's consecration. The Revd Canon Dr Kendall S. Harmon, Canon Theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina, and the Rt Revd David Bena, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Albany, will be providing support for New Hampshire Episcopalians grieved by the actions of their diocese and to also stand with them in opposition to the consecration.
Ever since the 74th General Convention in Minneapolis, there has been a superabundance of opinion that has turned into a struggle over the true nature of the Anglican Communion. The conservative contingency at tomorrow's consecration will be positioning themselves to contend and protest what they see as the demise of traditional scripture while others will be observing what they feel is a remarkable turning point in the history of the church. The student protesters, many of whom are without religious affiliation, go blank when asked about the view of the Bible on the question, but seem united that "it's about time" when commenting on the event.

comments? e-mail me