If of interest, here is

Posted on by
Reply

If of interest, here is the link to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling:
GOODRIDGE, et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al.
Andrew Sullivan has a great commentary on his website.

“More to the point – a gay citizen should not be deemed inferior to a straight citizen, denied basic equality under the law, denied the right guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence to the “pursuit of happiness,” when there is absolutely no rational reason to do so. Here is a challenge to the many married heterosexual readers of this site: did you ever believe that your fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness did not include the right to marry the person you love? Has the possibility that the government might invalidate or prevent your marriage ever for a second occurred to you? If not for you, why not for gays? Why should one group in society be granted special rights over others?” (Andrew Sullivan)

comments? e-mail me

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

“…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.)

“…they say, ‘of all other

Posted on by
Reply

“…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.)

“…they say, ‘of all other

Posted on by
Reply

“…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

Posted on by
Reply

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

This is a very good

Posted on by
Reply

This is a very good post, I do think, from the House of Bishops/House of Deputies listserv.

"+Magdalen/Thomas" writes:
> Summa: It is but natural for "animals" be they mammals or 'other' to seek
> sexual release with anyone or anything anywhere.
But no. See, there is way too much "fact" and not enough biology going on here for words.
But anything is good enough for the anti-gay bigots!
So when Akinola says "not even animals do that", the bigots cheer!
And when Thomas Darkus says "animals will do anything, should we?", the bigots cheer!
The interesting and dignified lives of animals get tossed aside here; the notion that animals might have their own nature, which is what it is, and was pronounced "good" by God--and is completely absent the history of original sin and the like--this gets lost. Animals, with their own dignity, their own value, and their own importance, become the whipping boy for the bigots in their haste to insult gay people.
Akinola thinks that animals are filthy--but not as filthy as those nasty faggots. In his haste to express his bigotry, Akinola will tell any lie necessary, of course, but we don't hear Kendall Harmon criticize that.
Thomas Darkus agrees with Akinola, animals are filthy--and thinks we humans certainly shouldn't emulate them.
And then Kendall Harmon says "heterosexuality is de rigeur for every species--at least those that have gender", and then thinks that we should emulate this (mistaken) idea about animals.
And what is most important here is that anything, no matter how vicious, how atrocious, how scientificially groundless, is allowed, provided it is used to attack gay people. We can be pilloried anyway the bigots wish.
Some animals (bonobos) have sex in a way that looks promiscuous to humans. But it's a complex thing--they don't just hump any time the urge comes one, rather, sex is a tremendously important part of their mechanism for soothing social insults and expressing bonds of affection and loyalty--and a way to express violence as well.
Some animals form life-long pair bonds.
But the one thing that all the bigots agree about is that gay people are filthy. Reminds me of when bigots though that all black people were filthy, no matter how clean they might be.
The bigots do not think that a dishonest bishop, a gluttonous bishop, a thieving bishop, a warmongering bishop, are bad. Or rather, they are downright good--heroic even!--provided they mouth the right bigoted bits.
I wait for one of the AAC to stand up and say "we think that Akinola is wrong". That they do not is shameful, even heinous. It is exactly like a northern white guy in 1950 apologizing for southern lynch mobs, while saying "of course lynching is wrong". Except that nobody has stood up and said that Akinola's lying is wrong. Nobody has stood up and said that stealing farms and ejecting laborers is wrong.
For shame!
Right now, when I hear the anti-gay American crowd say "of course we think that killing Matthew Shepard was wrong", I think they are actually lying. They think killing Matthew Shepard was just fine, since they do not in fact object when African bishops engage in the same behavior.
(Name deleted)