I tend to think that people from colder climes are more prone to understand the need to cooperate, and to do so they understand it is necessary to not only be tolerant, but that respect of other and diversity is in evryones self interest. Thus one will see more tolerance, respect for coops, trade unions and government , in colder climates. Thus northern states are not so much influenced by Canada, as much as we are both influenced by our climates.

The Global Human Spring continues...

Somewhere NEARBY, I can hear Happy Genius and Arminius chuckling over a pint...

well done, new york!!

I like the "religious exception" amendment, spelling out how churches and religious organizations can deny performing or hosting same-sex marriages.  I like how it engraves religious bigotry into law.  Years from now, it'll look fantastic on the resume of religion.

Chansen - I am proud to be a member of a church that welcomes the GLBT community.  This summer I will attend my first Lesbian wedding - a good friend from the Writers' Group.  Last fall I attended my first Gay one - two young men who are active in the church.   However I am also proud to sit on the session that decides how to respond to each request to be married in our building.  We have guidelines to follow.  The sex of the participants is not part of our criteria.  Neither is race.    Since marriage is a government thing, and not a religious thing unless the couple getting married chose to make it so, I agree that churches should have the right to decide who will get married in their buildings, by their clergy. 

I am happy to see this.  Even though the Orthodox church does not support marrying gays, my attitude is more like that of the Orthodox Jew Shmuley Boteach, who seems very sensible to me:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704361504575552203494330686.html

Last night someone took this picture of the Empoire sate Building lite up in Rainbow colours.

I agree, but I also think that when churches and other decided to discriminate on Race or sexual orientation, others should be free to say it is racism or homophobia.

There is a difference between authorities  forcing people to stop racist and homophobic behaviour and ordinary people naming it.

The picture of the Empire State Building is beautiful, Alex.  Thank you for posting it.

I don't see your point, chansen. Do you support tyranny? I don't have any problems with the religious exemptions. No private organization should be forced to serve people they refuse to serve and they should not have to fear getting sued for not doing so.

There are organizations that cater to only women, or animals, or adults, or a certain group of people. Imagine someone came up to WWF and sued them because they don't provide services to humans. That wouldn't make sense at all.

Same thing with the churches. If they don't want to provide their buildings and ministers to perform same-sex weddings, then so be it. It is their private property and their private funds so they have the power to do whatever they want with that. As long as they don't get government funding!

If they get government funding and refuse to treat all groups equally, then it's definitely another thing.

Ichthys,

then what would you think of said churches and their tax-exempt status?

Alex - since the session, acting on behalf of the church, has the right , and responsibility, of deciding who uses our building (and/or our clergy) for their wedding, do you think it should be mandatory that they make their reasons public?    I can think of many reasons for refusing to participate in a wedding - the fact that we are not in the business of renting our space (although it is big, beautiful, old, and downtown) would be the most common reason. 

Well no. I do not think it needs to be mandatory. Reasons can be diverse. We all make decisions based on multiple factors.

Also actions speak louder than words. And when the sessions never allows same-sex weddings to occur, it is just obviously homophobia.   Also like I said in another thread perhaps it is not homophobia but actually inhospitablity, and certain people use homophobia to claim that they do it for theological reasons. When in reality they hate all people and want to create the conditions where the church will not survive.

So even if sessions states their reason it could be a lie, because many of those in session are just full of hate and desire to hurt the church. But they can only do so by deception, because if they state there real intentions they will lose.

I had a minister in my youth who used to say the "devil" (used as a metaphor or not) is most present in the church. Because it is easier to destroy the church from inside. the thing the devil desires the most is to destroy the church.   So it works where the power is. In the Roman catholic Church it infiltrates the Priesthood. In the UCC it is in the Session.

That is not to say all people who take certain positions are the devil (or psychopaths to use  a  modern narrative ), but they exploit and manipulate them and others. The key is for other members to develop the ability to discern, who is is sincere in their beliefs and who is not. That can be done by looking at the persons life in context.  How do they treat others. Are they loving to their families, neighbours, etc.

Once that is done than different tactics must be used that expose the truth. 

I saw a poster that amused me yesterday-on the topic of equal marriage

It said "Gay bridal registry" think of the econmic impact!

Alex, maybe we are taking this a bit off topic.  As I said I am on the session at my church and have been in other congregations as well.  I don't remember ever refusing a couple because they were gay.  I am aware of a session refusing a strait couple because he was old enough to be her grandfather and had previously been in a common law relationship with her mother.  Most often, as I said, people are turned down because we are not in the business of renting out space.  Sometimes it is evident that the couple are just interested in our beautiful old building but have no respect for the fact that it is a church.  Sometimes they expect to bring in their own minister, their own music, their own colour scheme.   I participated in a wedding once in which the couple requested 'as little religion as possible'.  Another wedding - another church - late afternoon wedding on the Saturday before Thanksgiving.  Couple remove all the Thanksgiving decorations of orange and yellow because 'fall colours don't go with out colour scheme'.   These couples would be refused by my session.   Not because we are prejudiced, not because we are not hospitable, not because the devil is working among us, but because we don't see how this fits in with our purpose. 

I think churches need to maintain the right to decide who gets married on their premises with their blessing.  And I wish this decision was always made without prejudice.

that is why individual decisions can not be judged without taking in the context of the decision, and the pattern of decision making body.  the situation you describe is why a decision is required. People have long tried to use the Church to make bad decisions appear correct. However each decision is unique.  I would support not allowing a man to marry his step daughter, in our building as it enables unhealthy behaviour.  I would not refuse a couple just interested in using our building. What is important is my hospitality, not their bad attitude.  So the only reason I would refuse them is on a cost-benefit issue.  If renting the church to them the church was unable to do it's mission.

However the NY law only addresses discrimination based on sexual orientation. Decisions based on specific cases are not human rights issues.  The man marrying his step daughter does not belong to a class of people. 

I am not an American and I do not know American laws.  I guess I am presuming that the law there would be similar to the law here.

The law here, as I understand it, permits clergy connected with churches to preside at weddings.  It does not require those churches to provide this service to everyone who requests it, nor does it require them to give their reasons for refusal.   Again, as I understand it, the law legalizing same sex marriages does not override the individual church's right to decide which marriages it will preside over.  Gay couples and strait couples will have the same legal right to approach a church and request to be married there.  The church will have the right to say 'yes' or 'no'.   I don't see this as discrimination.  I see this as continuing to recognize the church's autonomy in deciding who it will marry. 

no one is asking the churches to give up the right to marry who they want in Canada or the US. What they are saying is that it is wrong to do so, based on a persons belonging to certain class, or group, but OK based on individual factors.

I'm very happy for New York. Six down, forty five to go! As for the religious exemption that's par for the course. The first amendment would have established that anyway. As a civil right no one who gets a paycheck from the taxpayer can or should deny marriage to anyone, but churches have the right to make their own call, no matter how offense it is to mainstream society. After all we are talking about legal marriage a governmental matter, churches are outside that.

Alex, I think we are arguing at cross purposes here.  We both agree with the legalization and celebration of gay marriages in New York and elsewhere. 

What I am arguing about is another poster objecting to the religious exemption amendment that allows churches to continue to choose who they will marry.   Jon explains it better than I seem to be able to. 

Churches continue to be able to make their own decisions about marriage.  It is my hope and no congregation that I am associated with would ever make the decision on the basis of sexual preferences.   I wish that no church would.  But that is not something that the government can or should force upon them. 

The amendment continues to allow churches to make their own decisions - I wish they would make the right ones.  In the case of same--sex marriage it is gradually happening.

alex...

as a woman, i cannot be a  priest in the catholic church.  their dogma states that because i do not have a penis, i am not equal to a man to be a leader in the church.  not because i don't have an education, or the skills required, or the focus or the drive or the physical strength... i don't have a penis.

so i can say that i understand EXACTLY where you are coming from on this one.  just as you cannot force a church to marry you even though the law states you have that right, i cannot force the church to hire me as a priest, even though it has been illegal to discriminate against women in the workplace for decades now. 

for me, i just left that church and went to a church where my gender is not the issue. 

churches have been discriminating against people for centuries, alex, this is nothing new.  let me be the first to shake your hand and welcome you to the club!!  you can sit over here by me....

i do not see it as an argument at all. In fact I see it as a cooperative attempt to mutual understand and clarify the issues involved. Which can help us both, by better giving us the tools to explain what we believe, and thus take actions on them.

The other poster is not objecting to the religious exemption, just that the insistence (even when not necessary due to other laws that give freedom of religious) reflects poorly on the religious leaders who insisted upon it. And much like we now look upon the discrimination left handed people use to sufferer and see how stupid it was, in the future those who oppose religious will use this foolishness to attack the credibility of religion.

What I am trying to distinguish between, that there is a difference between authorities forcing people to do something, and ordinary people denouncing homophobia, sexism or racism. Irsrad manji makes a similar position , when she attacks people who use multiculturalism as an excuse not to critique religion. In her case she points out there is a difference in attacking the aspects of Islam that defends violence, and attacking Islam.  

Excellent interview with Irshad, who says what I am trying to say. it would benefit everyone to listen to the Islamic Scholar.

http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/episode/2011/06/12/irshad-manji/

Christians can be sexist or homophobic but we should not use their freedom to be stupid as a reason for them to be stupid.

Post meant for another thread

Weddings between interfaith couples cannot be done in some faiths. That faith saying "we firmly believe..." is being authentic to who they are faithfully.

A faith that does not teach that regarding interfaith marriage, should not refuse an interfaith couple.

Most would not have a problem saying it is racist to deny a wedding based on race. If the faith is opposed to mixing of the races, then they are being faithful. I think most of us would still find it and call it racist.

Once people did not think so and it was rooted in ignorance. Once they knew better, they are called to do better. If they did not/do not, they were/are racist.

If people around them do not demand better, they may be racist too or not be racist ....but they can expect to hear they take part in racism. It is not pleasant to hear.

I think many would call it sexist when women cannot be called to certain service in church. For some, it is being faithful to their beliefs. Many would still say it is sexist. Once women were not persons and it was ignorance. Now, it is likely called sexism.

Once the debate was whether aboriginal peoples had souls. That was ignorance. Now, if you think it, it is racist.

Most would say racism and sexism and other "isms" have no place in church. Yet, they have all been rooted or entrenched there and they were often the last bastions where it was acceptable whether it was suffrage or slavery the church found both sides of the issues loudest in the church.

If I hear a Catholic church will not marry same-sex couples, I think they are being Catholic. If I hear a United Church does not, I think homophobic or "not there yet" and I wonder why after about 25 years they are not "there yet". Often, it is 25 years of avoiding "the issue".

The problem, for many, is they are not there yet when it comes to homosexuality. They know what they were taught, the sermons they heard preached.... They may wrestling those clobber verses if they are put on the mat. They never have to wrestle if it is not placed on the mat.  

Homophobia is alive and well in church, even if we do not like saying it. For some, they are still wrestling or they have never been asked to wrestle... For others, they  have moved out of ignorance and they are simply homophobic.

Churches are allowed to be racist, sexist, homophobic... as long as they say it is their religious belief....it does not make it right.

It makes it legal, accepted or embraced.

I do not think that eroding religious freedoms is the answer either.

I think naming it is the first step in changing it.

How can it be that they are being Catholic. The vast majority of the the thinkers (Theologians) in the Canadian Catholic Church support same-sex marriage.

Those who think what it is to be Catholic support love and families which include all people. This does not only include the theologians, but also most priests and most Sisters, and Brothers. the organisation that represent members of Religious communities in Canada ( a kind of Union that is outside the control of the Bishops) said so many years ago.

When we agree with the Bishops, we take sides against the reformers, which upsets these catholics to see others bye into the lies of the Bishops, and fail to support their struggle for doing what is right. Again the logic they use is similar to Islamic scholar Irshad Manji uses. Listen to the above link.

It is those who run the church and have power in the church, who oppose it. They are a small group of  only a hundred or so in Canada. The only way they can maintain there power is by saying other Catholics are not catholics, and as a result they refuse dialogue with them. the same tactics the republicans used in NY. They knew they would    be defeated if they allowed a vote. So they refused to allow both the debate and vote in the NY Senate. Happily one Republican Senator broke with them , and the debate and vote went forward.

Most catholics say that they church is made up of all believers, and they reject the idea that what it is to be can only be defined by the bishops.

Also in Canada lay Catholics are much more supportive of same-sex marriage than any other religious group, including United church members.

This is likely due to the fact that Catholics are more likely to live in big cities or they live in Quebec.   Plus they are so embarrassed by the bishops stance on issues like birth control and divorce that they almost instinctively  believe the Bishops are wrong.

One Prof of mine at Saint Paul, said that Catholics accept the idea of a Pope and of Bishops,  but reject their ideas. While it seemed to him that many Protestants reject the idea of a Pope or Bishop, but will more often agree with the ideas of the Pope and Bishops than catholics.

Alex,

I meant they were following the pope, nothing more. I know how many Catholics support same-sex marriage and how many Anglicans.

I can also tell you that when I was gathering signatures to petition the government, it was easier to get their signature than a United Church clergy. If some clergy were going to put their name down, they knew they risked it all. They decided this was worth going public, it was worth a vocation end and that that is what they had on the line maybe. They had mulled that all over. UCC clergy did not know what might happen and the unknown is a scary place. They had never been asked to go public, there denomination already had.... and many times they were quiet about that and "the issue"...

I had an Anglican bishop say, "I can tell a congregation I have done a same-sex ceremony without the shit hitting the fan, they can't" . I asked for an explanation and he said he meant that there is not a bottom up governance and that covers his ass with parishioners and that since the denomination did not allow it they knew he would not want to do it in "their church". His congregation could listen. A UCC congregation would react. Get it?

So, I meant that when I hear it is not allowed in a Catholic church that it is because they are Catholic, meaning "the pope says no". Nothing more. I do not have an anti-Catholic bias.

I think this is the best discourse I have read in a long time on the subject and it bears repeating.

LB

---------------------------------------------------

There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness or disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served.

     Jane Jacobs

The howls of indignation from high-profile American Christians is both entertaining and disturbing.  Here's PZ Myers on Pat Robertson's recent outburst on the subject:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/06/pat_robertson_fred_phelps_now.php

You really don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with guaranteeing freedom of belief. You aren't required to accept another belief that is different than yours, but both have the right to exist. Don't like it? Suck it up. And go read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada or the US Bill of Rights. It's a protected principle. Just as your disagreement is.

That is illogical. The Magisterium (teaching) of the Roman Catholic Church says that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. If it is the church's teaching, it is what the Roman Catholic Church does. It's not a democracy, no matter how many theologians differ from the church's teaching.

You demonstrate well what I learned in on of my Catholic theology classes. Protestants tend to buy into simplistic understandingn of the Catholic religion. I suppose you think that Catholics who disagree with their bishops should just leave. However millions of. catholics will just say, the bishop are wrong, just like they were wrong when they supported the slave trade in Africa.

It would be the same argument as if all Canadians have to agree with Stephan Harper to be Canadian.

Do you know which group have the highest authoritry on doctrine and theology in the Catholic Church. It is not the Bishop, note the pope and the cardinals, they just administer the church. The church highest authority are the councils, the last one being Vatican 2. The church is not nor was it ever meant to be a dictatorship.

But neither is the church a democracy Alex.  In between councils the hierarchy determines what is within the scope of Roman Catholic theology.  And that determines what it means to be RC--at that point in time.  The presence of a variety of people who disagree, even the number thereof, doesn't change current reality,  At most it may speak to a change in the wind should another council be summoned.

By the way many of Bishops also support same sex marriage. Including leading contenders to be the next Pope. The Archbishops of Dublin, Austria, South Africa,. They wil say when they implement it that the doctrine has not changed but that they are acting in accordance with the ideas and principles adopted by the last council.

In between council the bishops and the Pope interpret and administer the council.

John Neumann who was recently made a saint, would say to his fellow ex- Anglicans. The pope and the bishops are part of being Catholic, but they are insignificant relative to all of the other factors that makes one Catholic.

Vatican 2 council also established that the individual conscience is ultimately what decides what it is be a Catholic. The Bishops and the pope however gets to control the admin, and what is taught (teaching) however it allows for the idea that what is taught is wrong and not Catholic.

The council also admitted that many of the Popes and Bishops had made mistakes and had taught things that were antithetical to what it meant to be Catholic.

Oh, I absolutely have no problem with it.  I even like it.  Let churches and religious institutions discriminate all they want and get their right to discriminate written into law.  Let them show how backward they are.  Years from now, the ones who asked for and took advantage of these exceptions will look even more ridiculous than they do now.  And so will their beliefs.

Alex, I get what you are saying....

Catholicism is full of people who disagree with the pope, with Catholic stances on issues, even with doctrine and dogma... I could tell you tons of Catholics use birth control methods. I could tell you tons think the church's stance on condoms in Africa is morally wrong and dangerous.  It does not mean they are not Catholic, that they are not "good" Catholics. It means that when faced with conception or disease these chose prevention over the church's stance.

Most Catholics are well aware that papal infallibility was only officially adopted in the Roman Catholic church in 1870 (1st Vatican Council), and only after considerable resistance among its own bishops.

Just as there are UCCers who disagree with church stances, policies, etc... or are aware that this or that came about in a specific time and is not "biblical", etc.

One does not always just leave or quit being because one disagrees, regardless of the denomination or model of governance. Often one stays to be the change they wish to see.

The UCC at one time did not support gay ordination. Those who opposed did not have to leave the church.

The Church is not their leader, their stances, their doctrine. It is the people who are the Church.

If anyone should know that it is those who's faith comes out of and from the Reformation.

chansen,

I agree with you that those who cover and hide their racism, sexism, homophobia... under religious freedom will reap one day what they sow.

I also believe that the same right that gives those religious folks the legal right to discriminate, to preach what is hate speech outside their walls, to have discriminatory hiring practices... is the same law that means I cannot be forced to join them. It is the same law that affords me the freedom to believe differently.

So, yes, I believe in sheltering them under protection of the law and not forcing them to do things they do not want to do. Why? Because I never want to be forced by another.

That said, I believe in loudly saying that I believe it is wrong that they try to hide discrimination , marginalization, and hatred....  in Jesus' robes. .

Not all churches discriminate against gays, regardless of whether on not they have the right.    My church welcomes gays and presides at gay weddings. 

They maintain the right to decide who gets married in their building with their blessing - but it is not on the basis of sexual preference, or race, or income, or whether or not the bride is a virgin, or one or both were divorced.   Having a right and choosing not to use it seems to me to be more ethical than being force to do something you don't believe in. 

[quote=SG]

Most Catholics are well aware that papal infallibility was only officially adopted in the Roman Catholic church in 1870 (1st Vatican Council), and only after considerable resistance among its own bishops.

Not only that Catholics know that Papal infallibility even when they accept it only applies after the Pope has gone through a process and then declares that that his statement is infallible. The only time that has happened lead to a declaration that MAry was a Virgin for her whole life. The last Pope JP 2 tried to proceed on a statement of infallibility, it was his belief that Mary was an equal with God, the holy spirit, and Jesus, but it was stopped by others in the church, because they could not figure out a way to keep the trinity, while at the same time making Mary a God/ human like Jesus.

And it is exactly that same right that protects your absurdities, as well.

But the Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy, either. Nor is the United Church of Canada. To quote the late Dr. Howie Mills, a past general Secretary, "We do not do theology by popular vote."

Should Roman Catholics leave the church if they disagree? No. That is a matter of deep conscience as to do so would cut the person off from the Eucharist.

BTW, some us us shared classes on theology with Roman Catholics and were taught by priests. And we have shared a dram or three with priests, over the years.

What your church does is what I believe. It makes it's it decisions based on the consideration of each case. That is a much harder thing to do, because it requires thought and discernment. Those who marry everyone are amoral in the sense that they too avoid responsibility for their actions, at worse they are completely relativistic.

Moral actions require judgement.

[quote=DKS]

But the Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy, either. Nor is the United Church of Canada. To quote the late Dr. Howie Mills, a past general Secretary, "We do not do theology by popular vote."

Exactly that is why both religions accept that it is the individual who holds responsibility for their actions and morality.

You can not hold a government responsible for your moral choices. even the government of your church. Claiming you are just following orders is no excuse for immoral actions

My absurdity of suggesting that those things for which there is no evidence, almost surely do not exist?

Yeah, I'm really going out on a limb, there.  I'll be a laughingstock one day.  If we end up with a theocracy.