"But The Greatest Of These Is Love…."
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just wanted to comment that discussions like the one following gives me reason to realize that God still moves among us. This is the kind of discussion that gets beyond the shallow "I don’t like this," etc., and begins to look at the stuff going on underneath. We are all broken. And so, of course, the Church is broken. And we cannot fix it. We are totally dependent on God for healing. Out of this frustration of being broken, being powerless, there is a strong temptation to turn on each other. If we can’t fix it, we can at least place the blame where it belongs for our brokeness. But this does not bring healing. It simply opens the wound anew. We are bound together, if we like it or not. Our individual healing will not change much. Our salvation is yoked to one another. The Body of Christ seeks the healing touch of God. My faith leads me to believe that this healing is happening, regardless of the evidence to the contrary I witness. This faith in things not seen gets stretched thin a bit at times. It is refreshing to see it embodied once in awhile. Terry
I wish I had your faith. m
Response:
It is a blessing to see the strength the Lord’s worked in you. Praise Him! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just wanted to comment that discussions like the one following gives me reason to realize that God still moves among us. This is the kind of discussion that gets beyond the shallow "I don’t like this," etc., and begins to look at the stuff going on underneath. We are all broken. And so, of course, the Church is broken. And we cannot fix it. We are totally dependent on God for healing. Out of this frustration of being broken, being powerless, there is a strong temptation to turn on each other. If we can’t fix it, we can at least place the blame where it belongs for our brokeness. But this does not bring healing. It simply opens the wound anew. We are bound together, if we like it or not. Our individual healing will not change much. Our salvation is yoked to one another. The Body of Christ seeks the healing touch of God. My faith leads me to believe that this healing is happening, regardless of the evidence to the contrary I witness. This faith in things not seen gets stretched thin a bit at times. It is refreshing to see it embodied once in awhile. Terry I wish I had your faith. m
Response:
Among all the participants in this community, he is the only one who consistently uses the term "sodomite" to refer disparagingly to gay Christians — even though competent Biblical scholarship (repeatedly referenced by Terry) has verified that the issue at hand in Sodom was the social disrespect of visitors, and not any demonstrable attempt to commit sexual rape against them.
Not according to the New Testament. ". . . just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."–Jude, verse 7. Charles Hohenstein Boycott French products! http://www.FranceStinks.com/ http://www.pavefrance.com/blog/
Response:
Just wanted to comment that discussions like the one following gives me reason to realize that God still moves among us. This is the kind of discussion that gets beyond the shallow "I don’t like this," etc., and begins to look at the stuff going on underneath. We are all broken. And so, of course, the Church is broken. And we cannot fix it. We are totally dependent on God for healing. Out of this frustration of being broken, being powerless, there is a strong temptation to turn on each other. If we can’t fix it, we can at least place the blame where it belongs for our brokeness. But this does not bring healing. It simply opens the wound anew. We are bound together, if we like it or not. Our individual healing will not change much. Our salvation is yoked to one another. The Body of Christ seeks the healing touch of God. My faith leads me to believe that this healing is happening, regardless of the evidence to the contrary I witness. This faith in things not seen gets stretched thin a bit at times. It is refreshing to see it embodied once in awhile. Terry
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – btw: One can fight for gay equality and still be a conservative. Surprise! Indeed, and thank you for presenting a "voice of reason" here! I don’t know if Charles has ever really "heard" where I’m coming from, as a matter of belief and attitude. For the record: a). I happen to be a liturgical "conservative", finding the traditional Anglican liturgy (and the traditional RC liturgy, for that matter) to be one of the most graceful expressions of Divine Presence on the planet. I agree. b). As to Charles’ allegation (elsewhere) that "AMiA is thriving", I absolutely WELCOME this development, if it’s true! It gives the deep traditionalists an opportunity to worship according to conscience, and in a congenial and collegial parish environment. My only stipulation is that AMiA not attempt to "hijack" ECUSA, in the way that "Opus Dei" is attempting to hijack parish-level Roman Catholicism, and forcibly re-tool the basically tolerant and generous pastoral instincts of most parish-level Catholics (and local priests) into a version of the viciousness and the mean-spiritedness of Ratzinger and his ilk. I don’t much care what the RC’s are up to. As to ECUSA, it’s a shame it’s breaking apart but, as we see here, the two sides seem to have about as much chance of reconciling as do the Israelis and Palestinians. My own view is that I pretty much like the AMiA’s attempt to get back to traditional liturgy and theology while I vehemently disagree with their social agenda (esp. re: gays). On the other hand, I like ECUSA’s policy of reaching out to gays while I am also dismayed by their theological and political liberalism. I find I have a home in neither (thus my beef with "organized religion"). c). My basic issue with Charles is not at all his theological conservatism, but his persistent and insulting rudeness toward gay Christians. Among all the participants in this community, he is the only one who consistently uses the term "sodomite" to refer disparagingly to gay Christians — even though competent Biblical scholarship (repeatedly referenced by Terry) has verified that the issue at hand in Sodom was the social disrespect of visitors, and not any demonstrable attempt to commit sexual rape against them. My own view of Charles and the like is that they are simply insane when it comes to homosexuality. And, as with all insanity, it is a situation for the doctors and not for reasoned debate. d). Finally, I think Charles and I have a very different understanding of the nature of "Scriptural revelation". I would maintain that everything in Scripture has been filtered through human minds, human brains, human prejudice, human culture, human fallibility, and human ignorance. It is entirely possible to accept that the grace and the charism and the inspiration of Scripture are indeed the work of the Holy Spirit — but that the "receivers" of this inspiration were very much "creatures of their culture", and that we need to make allowances for the vast differences between their lives and ours. I can’t quite go as far as you here. Revelation is revelation is revelation. If the HS can place info directly into the minds of humans surely He can also guide them towards communicating it correctly. However, I also take caution from Christianist fundies banging on the Bible and setting it up for worship, as well as pictures of Islamo-fascists holding up the Q’uran as if it were Allah Himself and that should stop all debate. The way I look at it is that there’s much in the Bible which is simply wrong – that is, _not_ revelatory. Slavery is one example, as is God’s command to commit genocide, or death for profaning the Sabbath. Nonsense. I look to Christ and His mission of Salvation as what is important; the rest I either take or leave in the light of that. The supposed stuff concerning homosexuality I leave. Why is it that ONLY "sexual matters" are regarded by contemporary conservatives as hard-core "moral issues" in Leviticus, while almost everything else (regarding clothing, the ritual "uncleanness" of women during their moon, and the dietary laws) may be rather easily dismissed, even by them, as "purely cultural"? Are we forgetting that the Patriarchs were polygamous, and that we are not? Clearly, sexual custom is as culturally relative as any of the Biblical dietary and clothing codes. I would argue that what is important in a sexual relationship is not the gender of the partner, but the quality of commitment, faithfulness, generosity, and undying support in the spiritual path shared by the partners. I just think Christianity has made itself irrelevant when it comes to gay people. Organized Christianity, that is. If the Church has anything it can possibly say to us it should just be apologies for centuries of the on-going persecution and oppression (including torture and murder) it has perpetrated against gays. I surely don’t ask or expect Charles to be convinced by my argument about the nature of revelation, and its relationship to inherent human fallibility. I merely implore him to begin showing a bit of collegial respect and charity toward gay Christians, whose lifestyle he may not personally approve, but who surely do not deserve to be treated with the abusive and contemptuous (and erroneous) rhetoric which he constantly flings at us. He is irrelevant. Ignore him. Yes, I’m breaking silence and returning to the fray. It’s hard not to do so, when the sting of ongoing insult and contempt that I feel coming from Charles — and from virtually nobody else in the broad-spectrum Episcopal community sharing our "big tent" news group — appears to be unrelieved by anything that anybody can say to him. Glad you’re back. m
Response:
btw: One can fight for gay equality and still be a conservative. Surprise! Indeed, and thank you for presenting a "voice of reason" here! I don’t know if Charles has ever really "heard" where I’m coming from, as a matter of belief and attitude. For the record: a). I happen to be a liturgical "conservative", finding the traditional Anglican liturgy (and the traditional RC liturgy, for that matter) to be one of the most graceful expressions of Divine Presence on the planet.
I agree. b). As to Charles’ allegation (elsewhere) that "AMiA is thriving", I absolutely WELCOME this development, if it’s true! It gives the deep traditionalists an opportunity to worship according to conscience, and in a congenial and collegial parish environment. My only stipulation is that AMiA not attempt to "hijack" ECUSA, in the way that "Opus Dei" is attempting to hijack parish-level Roman Catholicism, and forcibly re-tool the basically tolerant and generous pastoral instincts of most parish-level Catholics (and local priests) into a version of the viciousness and the mean-spiritedness of Ratzinger and his ilk.
I don’t much care what the RC’s are up to. As to ECUSA, it’s a shame it’s breaking apart but, as we see here, the two sides seem to have about as much chance of reconciling as do the Israelis and Palestinians. My own view is that I pretty much like the AMiA’s attempt to get back to traditional liturgy and theology while I vehemently disagree with their social agenda (esp. re: gays). On the other hand, I like ECUSA’s policy of reaching out to gays while I am also dismayed by their theological and political liberalism. I find I have a home in neither (thus my beef with "organized religion"). c). My basic issue with Charles is not at all his theological conservatism, but his persistent and insulting rudeness toward gay Christians. Among all the participants in this community, he is the only one who consistently uses the term "sodomite" to refer disparagingly to gay Christians — even though competent Biblical scholarship (repeatedly referenced by Terry) has verified that the issue at hand in Sodom was the social disrespect of visitors, and not any demonstrable attempt to commit sexual rape against them.
My own view of Charles and the like is that they are simply insane when it comes to homosexuality. And, as with all insanity, it is a situation for the doctors and not for reasoned debate. d). Finally, I think Charles and I have a very different understanding of the nature of "Scriptural revelation". I would maintain that everything in Scripture has been filtered through human minds, human brains, human prejudice, human culture, human fallibility, and human ignorance. It is entirely possible to accept that the grace and the charism and the inspiration of Scripture are indeed the work of the Holy Spirit — but that the "receivers" of this inspiration were very much "creatures of their culture", and that we need to make allowances for the vast differences between their lives and ours.
I can’t quite go as far as you here. Revelation is revelation is revelation. If the HS can place info directly into the minds of humans surely He can also guide them towards communicating it correctly. However, I also take caution from Christianist fundies banging on the Bible and setting it up for worship, as well as pictures of Islamo-fascists holding up the Q’uran as if it were Allah Himself and that should stop all debate. The way I look at it is that there’s much in the Bible which is simply wrong – that is, _not_ revelatory. Slavery is one example, as is God’s command to commit genocide, or death for profaning the Sabbath. Nonsense. I look to Christ and His mission of Salvation as what is important; the rest I either take or leave in the light of that. The supposed stuff concerning homosexuality I leave. Why is it that ONLY "sexual matters" are regarded by contemporary conservatives as hard-core "moral issues" in Leviticus, while almost everything else (regarding clothing, the ritual "uncleanness" of women during their moon, and the dietary laws) may be rather easily dismissed, even by them, as "purely cultural"? Are we forgetting that the Patriarchs were polygamous, and that we are not? Clearly, sexual custom is as culturally relative as any of the Biblical dietary and clothing codes. I would argue that what is important in a sexual relationship is not the gender of the partner, but the quality of commitment, faithfulness, generosity, and undying support in the spiritual path shared by the partners.
I just think Christianity has made itself irrelevant when it comes to gay people. Organized Christianity, that is. If the Church has anything it can possibly say to us it should just be apologies for centuries of the on-going persecution and oppression (including torture and murder) it has perpetrated against gays. I surely don’t ask or expect Charles to be convinced by my argument about the nature of revelation, and its relationship to inherent human fallibility. I merely implore him to begin showing a bit of collegial respect and charity toward gay Christians, whose lifestyle he may not personally approve, but who surely do not deserve to be treated with the abusive and contemptuous (and erroneous) rhetoric which he constantly flings at us.
He is irrelevant. Ignore him. Yes, I’m breaking silence and returning to the fray. It’s hard not to do so, when the sting of ongoing insult and contempt that I feel coming from Charles — and from virtually nobody else in the broad-spectrum Episcopal community sharing our "big tent" news group — appears to be unrelieved by anything that anybody can say to him.
Glad you’re back. m – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
btw: One can fight for gay equality and still be a conservative. Surprise!
Indeed, and thank you for presenting a "voice of reason" here! I don’t know if Charles has ever really "heard" where I’m coming from, as a matter of belief and attitude. For the record: a). I happen to be a liturgical "conservative", finding the traditional Anglican liturgy (and the traditional RC liturgy, for that matter) to be one of the most graceful expressions of Divine Presence on the planet. b). As to Charles’ allegation (elsewhere) that "AMiA is thriving", I absolutely WELCOME this development, if it’s true! It gives the deep traditionalists an opportunity to worship according to conscience, and in a congenial and collegial parish environment. My only stipulation is that AMiA not attempt to "hijack" ECUSA, in the way that "Opus Dei" is attempting to hijack parish-level Roman Catholicism, and forcibly re-tool the basically tolerant and generous pastoral instincts of most parish-level Catholics (and local priests) into a version of the viciousness and the mean-spiritedness of Ratzinger and his ilk. c). My basic issue with Charles is not at all his theological conservatism, but his persistent and insulting rudeness toward gay Christians. Among all the participants in this community, he is the only one who consistently uses the term "sodomite" to refer disparagingly to gay Christians — even though competent Biblical scholarship (repeatedly referenced by Terry) has verified that the issue at hand in Sodom was the social disrespect of visitors, and not any demonstrable attempt to commit sexual rape against them. d). Finally, I think Charles and I have a very different understanding of the nature of "Scriptural revelation". I would maintain that everything in Scripture has been filtered through human minds, human brains, human prejudice, human culture, human fallibility, and human ignorance. It is entirely possible to accept that the grace and the charism and the inspiration of Scripture are indeed the work of the Holy Spirit — but that the "receivers" of this inspiration were very much "creatures of their culture", and that we need to make allowances for the vast differences between their lives and ours. Why is it that ONLY "sexual matters" are regarded by contemporary conservatives as hard-core "moral issues" in Leviticus, while almost everything else (regarding clothing, the ritual "uncleanness" of women during their moon, and the dietary laws) may be rather easily dismissed, even by them, as "purely cultural"? Are we forgetting that the Patriarchs were polygamous, and that we are not? Clearly, sexual custom is as culturally relative as any of the Biblical dietary and clothing codes. I would argue that what is important in a sexual relationship is not the gender of the partner, but the quality of commitment, faithfulness, generosity, and undying support in the spiritual path shared by the partners. I surely don’t ask or expect Charles to be convinced by my argument about the nature of revelation, and its relationship to inherent human fallibility. I merely implore him to begin showing a bit of collegial respect and charity toward gay Christians, whose lifestyle he may not personally approve, but who surely do not deserve to be treated with the abusive and contemptuous (and erroneous) rhetoric which he constantly flings at us. Yes, I’m breaking silence and returning to the fray. It’s hard not to do so, when the sting of ongoing insult and contempt that I feel coming from Charles — and from virtually nobody else in the broad-spectrum Episcopal community sharing our "big tent" news group — appears to be unrelieved by anything that anybody can say to him.
Response:
I am gay. I am also conservative.
I doubt that you will find many people–apart, perhaps, from the Log Cabin Republicans–who find the two statements compatible. Both liberals and conservatives have a hard time understanding how you can be both gay and conservative at the same time. Charles Hohenstein Boycott French products! http://www.FranceStinks.com/ http://www.pavefrance.com/blog/
Response:
I am gay. I am also conservative. I doubt that you will find many people–apart, perhaps, from the Log Cabin Republicans–who find the two statements compatible. Both liberals and conservatives have a hard time understanding how you can be both gay and conservative at the same time.
There are two ways to look at that. If one uses "gay" to mean someone whose identity involves social and political activism to improve the status of non-het people politically, I’ll agree, most gays are liberal, because it is the liberal and radical political and social groups which support equality for openly gay people. The usage is a bit dated now; most such people now call themselves "queer" and see themselves as allies with heterosexual members of sexual minority groups. But there are many homosexual conservatives. Being homosexual is not something one can change about oneself, any more than being heterosexual. One can fake it by marriage to an opposite-sex partner, or live celibate, or hide by engaging in furtive sexual interactions, but one cannot stop being homosexual. The conservative homosexuals I’ve read about and known generally see their orientation as irrelevant to their politics, which is based on social and philosophical views outside the area of sexuality. One such person I’ve studied in some detail was Ernst Roehm, who came out in his early ‘thirties, as an adult. Apparently, people who come out later in life grow up as accepted members of their society, and when they recognize their orientation, they see it as simply a new facet of their identity: they haven’t changed in their core personality, so why should the world see them as totally different now? It would be interesting to research when in their lives conservative homosexuals came out to themselves: early or late in life. Rat
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am gay. I am also conservative. I doubt that you will find many people–apart, perhaps, from the Log Cabin Republicans–who find the two statements compatible. Both liberals and conservatives have a hard time understanding how you can be both gay and conservative at the same time. There are two ways to look at that. If one uses "gay" to mean someone whose identity involves social and political activism to improve the status of non-het people politically, I’ll agree, most gays are liberal, because it is the liberal and radical political and social groups which support equality for openly gay people. The usage is a bit dated now; most such people now call themselves "queer" and see themselves as allies with heterosexual members of sexual minority groups. But there are many homosexual conservatives. Being homosexual is not something one can change about oneself, any more than being heterosexual. One can fake it by marriage to an opposite-sex partner, or live celibate, or hide by engaging in furtive sexual interactions, but one cannot stop being homosexual. The conservative homosexuals I’ve read about and known generally see their orientation as irrelevant to their politics, which is based on social and philosophical views outside the area of sexuality. One such person I’ve studied in some detail was Ernst Roehm, who came out in his early ‘thirties, as an adult. Apparently, people who come out later in life grow up as accepted members of their society, and when they recognize their orientation, they see it as simply a new facet of their identity: they haven’t changed in their core personality, so why should the world see them as totally different now? It would be interesting to research when in their lives conservative homosexuals came out to themselves: early or late in life. Rat
I don’t think it matters when one comes out. Political philosophy can change over a lifetime and is a matter of personal choice. I know both young and old gay conservatives. btw: Your choice of Ernst Roehm as an example of a gay "conservative" is ridiculous. If this is the same guy I’m thinking of (ie, Nazi S.A. leader) he wasn’t a conservative at all – more like a radical rightist. m btw: One can fight for gay equality and still be a conservative. Surprise!
Response:
It seems that both of my favorite (my very favorite) discussion communities — this one and the Rufus Wainwright Message Board — have degenerated during the past week or two into some very raucous, emotionally inflamed, left-versus-right, gay-versus-straight, conservative-versus-liberal screaming fits.
Get used to it! Gays and liberals brought this controversy upon the Church, so you will just have to get used to life in the hole you have dug. Apparently the election of the new gay bishop in New Hampshire has provoked a lot of latent hatred on the part of conservatives and straights, operating in some ominous resonance, against so-called liberals and gay people.
Ominous resonance? I.e., the great orthodox conspiracy? I only wish we were so well organized. But we do represent the greater part of the Anglican communion, so don’t be surprised by the excommunications which are only now just beginning. As for the allegation that orthodox Christians are motivated by hate, I won’t dignify that with an answer. I’m about to drop out of both communities temporarily, until things chill out considerably.
That will be a while. But, you have already posted again, so the point is already moot. As a non-heterosexual Christian, I believed I had found a welcoming home in a progressive, thoughtful, yet (in many ways) stately and traditional denomination — but I now hear a Bishop in Nigeria comparing gay people to "The Yorkshire Strangler", and so-called Christians saying vile, hateful and abusive things about New Hampshire’s gay bishop-elect.
It’s called the world Anglican communion. It rejects the sin of homosexual sex. Deal with it. This vituperation upsets me tremendously. I thought we were much more tolerant than the Vatican; but our own intramural "liberal versus conservative" theological food fights aren’t restoring my emotional centeredness. There seems to be no refuge from the ongoing hatred.
You thought that orthodox Christians were going to just give in? You put us on this path. Now sit back and enjoy the ride. Please, everybody, put a little love in your life…and respect and celebrate and rejoice in the love in OTHER people’s lives. That’s all I ask of you, for the moment.
No one is rejecting love, unless by "love" one means sodomy, adultery and fornication. However, to close on a late-breaking happy note: Toronto declares gay marriage legal
More evidence of the decline of morals in our society–as if more evidence were needed. Fortunately, the Church takes her cues from divine revelation, and not from the world. Charles Hohenstein Boycott French products! http://www.FranceStinks.com/ http://www.pavefrance.com/blog/
Response:
It seems that both of my favorite (my very favorite) discussion communities — this one and the Rufus Wainwright Message Board — have degenerated during the past week or two into some very raucous, emotionally inflamed, left-versus-right, gay-versus-straight, conservative-versus-liberal screaming fits. Apparently the election of the new gay bishop in New Hampshire has provoked a lot of latent hatred on the part of conservatives and straights, operating in some ominous resonance, against so-called liberals and gay people.
I agree that things could be calmer. However, vigorous debate is a sign of health, not sickness. As to your charge that the "hate" is entirely directed at liberals by conservatives. I suggest you reat Jesse’s 6/9 post under the "What is theological Liberalism" thread. Hatred and vituperation can be found on BOTH sides. Liberals are not angels. I’m about to drop out of both communities temporarily, until things chill out considerably. As a non-heterosexual Christian, I believed I had found a welcoming home in a progressive, thoughtful, yet (in many ways) stately and traditional denomination — but I now hear a Bishop in Nigeria comparing gay people to "The Yorkshire Strangler", and so-called Christians saying vile, hateful and abusive things about New Hampshire’s gay bishop-elect.
I am gay. I am also conservative. I take offense at your assumption that gays must be liberal or "progressive." We must break out of these categories before we can be truly equal. I look forward to your return to this ng. With Good Feelings Toward You, m .
Response:
It seems that both of my favorite (my very favorite) discussion communities — this one and the Rufus Wainwright Message Board — have degenerated during the past week or two into some very raucous, emotionally inflamed, left-versus-right, gay-versus-straight, conservative-versus-liberal screaming fits. Apparently the election of the new gay bishop in New Hampshire has provoked a lot of latent hatred on the part of conservatives and straights, operating in some ominous resonance, against so-called liberals and gay people. I’m about to drop out of both communities temporarily, until things chill out considerably. As a non-heterosexual Christian, I believed I had found a welcoming home in a progressive, thoughtful, yet (in many ways) stately and traditional denomination — but I now hear a Bishop in Nigeria comparing gay people to "The Yorkshire Strangler", and so-called Christians saying vile, hateful and abusive things about New Hampshire’s gay bishop-elect. This vituperation upsets me tremendously. I thought we were much more tolerant than the Vatican; but our own intramural "liberal versus conservative" theological food fights aren’t restoring my emotional centeredness. There seems to be no refuge from the ongoing hatred. Please, everybody, put a little love in your life…and respect and celebrate and rejoice in the love in OTHER people’s lives. That’s all I ask of you, for the moment. However, to close on a late-breaking happy note: Toronto declares gay marriage legal Ann Rostow, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network Tuesday, June 10, 2003 / 05:10 PM Same-sex marriage is legal in the Canadian province of Ontario as of Tuesday, when the Ontario Court of Appeals upheld an earlier ruling that established the right to marry for gay and lesbian couples and ordered same-sex marriage legalized in the province immediately. The city of Toronto, the largest city in Canada, authorized its clerk to begin issuing gay and lesbian marriage licenses at once. Several couples were issued licenses Tuesday, and at least one couple was wed. The federal government has 30 days in which to appeal the ruling to the Canadian Supreme Court. Last month, the leaders of the governing Liberal party and top politicians from three of the four opposition parties went public with their support of same-sex marriage, urging the federal government to resist further appeals. Courts in Quebec and British Columbia have also struck down laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, but those rulings were suspended until mid-2004 pending Parliamentary action. Likewise, the Ontario Divisional Court had ruled in favor of eight same-sex couples last July, giving the government a two-year window to remedy the constitutional violation. When the government appealed to Ontario’s highest court, the plaintiffs cross-appealed, asking the Court both to uphold the earlier decision, and to make it effective without delay. In view of the three previous opinions, the Canadian Parliament had already convened a committee to conduct public hearings and evaluate the legal status of same-sex couples. A draft report, issued in late May, recommended ending the prohibition on same-sex marriage. In a straightforward opinion, the Court of Appeals unanimously dismissed the idea that procreation and rearing children mandate the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from the institution of marriage. "The [Attorney General of Canada] has not shown that the opposite-sex requirement in marriage is rationally related to the encouragement of procreation and child rearing," wrote the Court. "The law is both overinclusive and underinclusive. The ability to ‘naturally’ procreate and the willingness to raise children are not prerequisites of marriage for opposite-sex couples. … Simultaneously, the law is underinclusive because it excludes same-sex couples that have and raise children." The reasoning is significant, because stressing the link between marriage and procreation is the main legal argument used to defend discrimination in marriage laws in the United States, as in Canada. Within a few weeks, the high court of Massachusetts will issue a marriage ruling of its own, which could legalize same-sex marriages in the Bay State. The Massachusetts case is a matter of state law, and may not be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Response:
Filed under: Activism Politics
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.