Mass. Episcopal bishop OKs same-sex marriages

Bishop M. Thomas Shaw III told The Boston Globe on Sunday that gay and lesbian couples deserve the “same sacrament of fidelity” as heterosexual couples.

Shaw has been a long-term supporter of gay marriage, but previously cited the Episcopal Church’s canons and prayer book in barring local priests from officiating at same-sex marriages, even after they became legal in Massachusetts in 2004.

Shaw said in a letter released to parishes on Sunday that priests can decline to officiate at same-sex weddings if they so choose. His decision only affects eastern Massachusetts.

The letter was welcomed by activists who had pressed for the diocese to do more than just bless same-sex couples.

—

From http://www.reuters.com:

This year’s theme for World AIDS Day is ‘Universal Access and Human Rights”. It is a cruel irony that the world is focusing on increasing access to treatment while California is considering reducing access due to budget woes. It is a cruel irony that as the world focuses on human rights as a fundamental component of addressing HIV/AIDS, in the United States, where men who have sex with men are still the majority of HIV/AIDS cases, gay men and lesbians are not afforded acknowledgement of our relationships and our families through the fundamental right to marry- a punch in the gut to the idea that t he United Sates is a paragon of human rights, Bush era torture notwithstanding. We must look globally at how to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic but it is incumbent upon us to act locally as well.

Let’s look at access first. In California there are draconian measures being considered in order to “balance the budget” on the backs of those who can least afford it. The California AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) program is on life support and we had better start to advocate that the program be fully funded now rather than after Governor Schwarzenegger releases his budget in mid January or it might be too late. Thanks to Project Inform and WORLD, San Franciscans are stepping up to the plate on World AIDS Day eve with a “Save ADAP” rally at San Francisco City Hall.

While I will advocate vociferously I am not hopeful. ADAP was spared in the last horrific round of budget cuts and I am not sure that our successes will be sustainable. Virtually every program for the poor, the disabled and the most vulnerable in California has been decimated and there are likely to be those who say that there is no such thing as a sacred cow including ADAP.

Unfortunately we are a nation that doesn’t look further than the next month or, at best, the next fiscal year. President Obama’s initiatives are proof of that. The president’s agenda is likely not to reap benefits for a few years down the road, but the American people demand immediate gratification, like spoiled children. His thoughtful, methodical approach to the problems we have and which he inherited could be politically perilous for the midterm election.

California’s destruction of social and health related programs will have dire effects and is cost ineffective in the long term. While I think that all of the cuts that have occurred to social and medical programs are unconscionable it is ADAP I know best. Plus this piece is about World AIDS Day ergo my focus on ADAP rather than other vital programs.

ADAP not only helps to reduce hospitalizations and other expensive healthcare by ensuring that people living with HIV/AIDS can maintain the best possible health, but by reducing the community viral load it is also a prevention intervention and thus the program helps keep down the number of Californians that might rely on ADAP and other programs in the future. That could save millions of dollars- let alone thousands of lives. Unfortunately the state doesn’t see the future beyond the next fiscal crisis and by having such a myopic view it solidifies our ongoing budget woes. We are a short sighted nation.

Second let’s address human rights. To my way of thinking addressing stigma is a significant part of addressing human rights. HIV stigma abounds in the United States. The communities most heavily impacted by HIV in the United States- African Americans- especially African American women, gay men, IV drug users and transgendered people are already stigmatized in this country. HIV/AIDS in the United States walks hand in hand with poverty and Americans are not terribly keen on admitting the level of poverty within our own boarders and being poor is stigmatized as well. HIV just adds to this stigma stew.

In every state where gay marriage has been put in front of the electorate, gay marriage has been defeated. Could prejudice of gays and lesbians be made clearer than this record of defeat? Where there is prejudice there is stigma. Prejudice and the resulting stigma thwart addressing the human rights of people living with HIV/AIDS.

I am not naïve enough to think that addressing gay marriage is the only way to help address the human rights of people living with HIV/AIDS in our nation. We need to address a host of social justice issues. And of course the human rights abuses that people in other parts of the world are profound. We are discussing gay marriage in our country, but in some parts of the world being gay can get one executed. There are also gross abuses of human rights throughout the world regarding women and ethnic minorities.

But I am a gay man with AIDS living in California. Many of us are barely holding our heads above water and too many Americans forget about the epidemic in our own country. In my home state, I am sad to say that California is more focused on low taxes than on saving lives even though it is clear that, thanks to Prop13 our tax base is completely out of whack. Without addressing societal inequities such as gay marriage and without adequate funding from Congress and state legislatures for care, treatment, social services and prevention services, our national epidemic will not abate.

It is a juggling act trying to address HIV/AIDS internationally and domestically, but we do not have a choice. President Obama has taken some important initial steps towards addressing our domestic epidemic by reinvigorating the White House Office of National AIDS Policy and charging that office with the development of the first ever National HIV/AIDS strategy for our nation. While I recognize that President Obama has an enormous amount on his plate and that the righting the wrongs of the Bush years will take an enormous amount of effort, those of us in the HIV/AIDS community must continue to push the president to do more. The president must insist on adequate funding for care, treatment, research and prevention from Congress and he must support the right for gay men and lesbians to marry as one step towards addressing the myriad of social justice issues concomitant with HIV/AIDS.

On this World AIDS Day, the AIDS community is asking President Obama to convene a summit of HIV + leaders in our country. While such a meeting would largely be symbolic, it would nevertheless be a power and eloquent statement for the leader of the free world to meet with a group of openly HIV + people.

We are waging a war on two fronts. There is much work to be done and there is no room for reducing our vigilance. HIV/AIDS is a worldwide problem and it is a national problem. Access to care and treatment and proven forms of prevention is a worldwide problem and it is a national problem. Addressing human rights as part of our fight against HIV/AIDS is a worldwide issue and a national issue.

Hi all,

The LGBT NOISE Flash Demo will be outside the Dail on this Thursday, the 3rd December.

Be there! I’ll be in the public gallery watching the debate. Contact your local TD if you want to do the same.

Fianna Fáil senator in row over ‘fairy’ slur on gay people

Conor McMorrow, Political Correspondent

A FIANNA Fáil senator who has expressed annoyance that he can’t call gay people “fairies” and who claims women working outside the home are one of the main causes of depression in young people, has defended his views in the wake of strong criticism from members of the gay and lesbian community.
Jim Walsh from Co Wexford made his remarks in an interview with a member of the public he invited to talk to him after she complained about views he had previously expressed on the civil partnership bill. The bill will be discussed in the Dáil this week.
Christina Murphy, a supporter of LGBT Noise, a group campaigning for gay marriage in Ireland, said the senator had numerous “misconceptions” about the gay and lesbian community and “backward opinions about equality”. An account of her interview can be read on lgbtnoise.ie.

Keep reading:

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/nov/29/fianna-fail-senator-in-row-over-fairy-slur-on-gay-/

A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. This is how the Scriptures say that two people are married. Many think that there is much more involved or that you have to buy into what the culture says about how to get married but the Scriptures are clear from the beginning and never waiver from this. When a man and women are joined together, they become one flesh (which is the Scriptures way of saying that you are married). This joining together happens through the sexual union of a man and a women and in this way only. It does not matter if the man and woman intend for this to be the result of their union. We are told in the New Testament that if a man has sex with a prostitute that he is one with her. This shows that sex is how the marriage union is created and how it is kept together. This is to say that the common idea of “premarital sex” is really a fabrication. The typical term for this is “fornication” but biblical scholars already have started translating this term as “sexual immorality” because they know that where it appears in Scripture, it does not refer to premarital sex but of immoral sex. There really is no such thing as premarital sex. When a man has sex with a women, the two are made one flesh whether this was their intention or not. Many are truly married who think of themselves as “dating” or “living together”. The church should always treat these people according to biblical wisdom and not let them cop-out of the relationship that they have created. We should consider these people married regardless of the lack of a governmental marriage contract. The government does not get to decide who is married. God alone binds people together; we cannot change this.

We also know that God only binds together men with women and does not bind men with men or women with women. People who participate in same-sex sexual acts are not bound together and this is immoral. It does not, however, matter much whether the government allows them to make contracts (although I think it would be better if they didn’t call these contracts “marriages” because that would be a lie). If the government wants to allow same-sex couples to be legally considered one, it shouldn’t matter much to the church because we know that same-sex couples are not actually one and that the government is wrong is about considering them one when it just isn’t true. We should not fight the government on this because it just isn’t worth it and we shouldn’t be afraid to call the government wrong. We know what marriage truly is and should teach that whenever possible, that is enough.

Dear ——–,
It’s so strange to sit down and write you a letter. I guess it’s because it requires a certain amount of pre-meditation that is so unlike the rest of our relationship.  It always seems accidental when we actually get in contact, and I’m not sure when that started happening.

I guess that’s the larger issue about our relationship. We’ve always been apart in age and geography but as we’ve gotten older it seems like we’ve also grown apart in values and politics.  This is where the issue comes up, because I guess at the bottom of it, we base most of our relationships off the common ground of values and beliefs.

Since I’ve come out to you as being queer, the amount of times we’ve discussed my sexuality or gender have been few but intense. They’ve left a strong impression on my heart about how you think of me.  I still remember clearly when you asked me to read the book about “Restoring my Sexuality”  and the ensuing letters discussing the scripture and psychology of the ex-gay theory.  At that time I was concerned that you and ——– wouldn’t want me to be around the kids out of fear of my “corrupting” them. Perhaps this was an injustice, but you had already confessed that  you’d rather “Chew on glass” than have sex with a woman; so I wouldn’t have been surprised by the severity of the decision.

From that time, the most the topic has been explored has been the few moments when the kids asked if I had a boyfriend, or when meeting Andy they had questions. In most of those situations I don’t hear much from you guys as an explanation (which speaks loudly by being omitted).

I’ve been trying to test the waters with you about how you feel about the topic now, to see if perhaps your mind has changed. That’s why I asked you to watch For The Bible Tells me So. I wanted to hear what you thought about the overall theory, not if you agreed that their scriptural knowledge. I was very disappointed when you sent such a brief response.

The real push to write you happened more recently when I called you to let you know that Andy and I got engaged. “That’s Cool” is not an appropriate response to the news that I’m engaged. Ever. It’s especially not ok when you’ve also shown discomfort surrounding my queerness. It made me feel like a science fair project, as if you were placing some stamp of approval on the plan instead of offering love and support. You are supposed to be happy for me. Offer me some sort of congratulations. The fact that it didn’t even cross your mind means something, and while I might be misreading this omission I think that the sad part is that there’s no opportunity to talk about it. If the “That’s Cool” was masking some sort of discomfort with the idea that we’re getting married, I would have been happier hearing that directly so that I know how you’d like to be included in my life from this point on. If it was caused more by questions that you had, I would’ve loved to answer them. Right now, the only message that I’m getting is that you’re interested in doing the bare minimum to stay on good terms with me. No extra effort to understand or seek to be understood.

I know it might be unfair, but I have a hard time maintaining relationships with people that are apathetic to me. Dad has made me walk that line for most of my life, and I’m investing less and less into that relationship until I imagine, one day very soon, we will go years without speaking for no reason other than he didn’t think to email and I’ve silently given up.

This is my not silently giving up. He is going to be receiving a letter very similar to this because he had the same response to the news that you did. “That’s cool.”

I’m writing because I’d like to know what type of relationship you’re interested in having with me. More immediately, would you like to be included in my relationship and wedding? More generally, would you be interested in visiting sometime/staying in closer contact?

I love you ——– and I’m sure I’ll understand no matter what your response is. I just wanted to talk about it before making assumptions.

I’ll admit to having been a bit surprised on Saturday by the fact that many of the gay people I know were not at the equality rally.

I guess I expected that where a person might turn a blind eye to having rights taken away from other people, it would be hard for them to miss discrimination where they were the victim.

Apparently not.

Just because a person is gay, of course, doesn’t mean that they’ve got some kind of special responsibility to other gay people who do want to get married – any more than I, as a straight person, have a responsibility to the anti-marriage crowd that claim, ludicrously, to represent us.

But I am surprised by the short-sightedness of those gay people who don’t personally want to get married who seem to think the issue therefore doesn’t affect them. Ignoring that many people, gay or straight – especially men – in their twenties don’t particularly intend to get married either, and subsequently change their minds when they meet that special person, the fact is that the discrimination in the Marriage Act sends a very, very clear message about all gay people: that they and their relationships are second-rate. That’s the whole reason the bigotry side objects to equality in the law – that it would “send the message” that gay relationships are as worthy as heterosexual relationships. That being gay is not a “disability” or a “problem” that needs to be solved, but as valuable and legitimate as any other part of the human experience.

How could any gay person with the slightest bit of self-respect not want that message sent? How could any gay person with the slightest bit of self-respect not object to being deliberately denied rights they would enjoy if they were heterosexual – whether they intend to exercise them or not? It’s not about whether you want to get married; it’s about whether you think the law should treat you as a second-class citizen.

I know there was a rally just over three months ago, and it would be tempting to ask how many of these things anyone could expect an ordinary person to go to. I know that there’s a sense of futility about the whole issue, that nothing will change while we are governed by two major parties both of which believe in discrimination against gay people. But with the majority of voters now supporting equality, it’s closer than ever. It’s just a matter of when – and of how many people will suffer in the meantime. With a great deal of effort, some momentum has been achieved – it would be a shame to let it dissipate.

Giving up an hour or so every couple of months to point out to those in power who would dare to deny it that you’re as valuable a human being as anyone else, and are pissed off that they would dare to suggest otherwise, doesn’t seem like a bad idea. I’ll be happy to join you.

ELSEWHERE: Slacktivist looks at the “Manhattan Declaration”, in which older US evangelical conservatives try to enforce on younger Christians their view that the “three most important issues” for christians should be abortion, homosexuality and “religious freedom”.

The document itself is an appalling mix of lies, misrepresentations and cynical viciousness, which might well deserve a post on its own fairly shortly. It’s a serious indictment on the signers, and those Christians who believe that their religion is primarily about what Jesus Christ taught have a responsibility to respond before they’re damned by association.

For those who have been writing and asking for more Gay Groom blogs, thanks so much for taking the time to write and comment!

No, I was not left at the alter.  Neither did I run off with the caterer nor was I run over by our wedding limo.

Over the last month your humble blogger has been enjoying the life of a (very) married man.

Yes, the Gay Groom is MARRIED!

Legally absolutely totally you-bet-yer-ass married!

I do apologize for my lapse in blogging.  My lack of writing as the ceremony approached was twofold:  1) I just didn’t have the time and 2) your humble blogger’s nerves were shot!   There was weather to worry about (would it rain?)… flowers that may have been destroyed if there was a frost before the big day (would they freeze?)… family that became ill (would they come?)…

But looking back on it now, it was lovely.

Dare I say that it went off without a hitch?

It even made the New York Gay City News:

http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2009/10/23/gay_city_news/arts/doc4ad751372d485768389292.txt

I could go on (and I will on my next blog post – I do have a few more things to say before signing off) but, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.  So please allow me share my wedding album with you.

By the way, I’m the groom with the PINK tie…

The past few days have been so crazy I haven’t had a minute to post! Saturday morning we left the boyfriend’s in NY and headed straight to the wedding in Western Mass. It was such a beautiful ceremony, and we had SUCH a blast at the reception. I think I ate more at this wedding than at Thanksgiving!! I didn’t take any good pictures though (hence the bad blogger over here ). Just one of the table before I stuffed my face.

Dinner started with a blue cheese, pear and beet salad, we chose the short ribs with roasted sweet potatoes for dinner, and then they had carrot cake as their wedding cake! It was maybe the best carrot cake I’ve ever had, we were all licking our plates

I do have to say that this was my first gay wedding! It was so beautiful and it really made me upset that everyone in this country doesn’t have the right to get married. The couple were just so in love, and everyone was so supportive, it was just a great night all around.

This morning we woke up at the crack of dawn to head back to boston. There was NO traffic so we were back by 10am. So nice to have the whole day to relax! During the ride I snacked on a Lara bar.

Basically that was breakfast #1. Breakfast #2 was obviously a bowl of oats

Peanut butter, pumpkin, flax, chocolate chip oats to be specific. SO good. I feel like I need a detox and about 24 hours of sleep after this weekend! The only plans we have for today are laundry and target….and possibly a nap. Definitely back to the gym tomorrow. Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving weekend, I will be a better blogger (and picture taker) this week!

A friend of mine just introduced me to this CNN news story:

Side note: Funny, the kid is from the western part of Arkansas, which is where I am from as well. This area is a bastion of conservative America.

Last year there was a similar story in the news about a child who had two lesbian “mothers” who refused the pledge of allegiance. This was in New York if I am not mistaken. Nonetheless, I had the same gut feeling with that story as I do with this one. The pledge of allegiance is about what we stand for, what we strive for, not what is. I think this kid misses the point of the pledge, sadly. Liberty and justice is an ideal that should be striven toward, which is what the pledge of allegiance is promoting. The kid has it all backwards and it seems nobody has that figured out.

I have seen many more people who had problems with the “…one nation under God…” which would be understandable if they didn’t believe in God or if you believed in strict adherence to separation of church and state. But to refuse the pledge because you feel not everyone is equal is unrealistic.

By making the pledge you are pledging “liberty and justice for all” and by refusing the pledge on the writing of this clause you would be showing that you disagree with the goal of “liberty and justice for all”. The fact that this point is missed by a ten year old isn’t as much a tragedy as that neither the newsman nor his father figured this out or if they did they did not make the point for whatever reason. And that should probably be a bigger story.

Realizing their party is in disarray and searching desperately for a way to offer value to voters, some members of the GOP are attempting to institute what pundits are calling a “purity test”. Hopeful Republican candidates will have to pass this purity test in order to receive support from the GOP. Were I a Republican, I would support this type of measure. The DNC certainly has its principles defined and is fighting hard for them. Granted, those principles are abhorrent as they stem from a collectivist ideology, but they are defined principles nonetheless (though, like all collectivists, Democrats rarely expound on the specifics of those principles). Unfortunately for Republicans, the GOP has not defined any principles whatsoever. The purity test is barely more than a cheap PR stunt. In addition to falling short of an improvement in the GOP’s strength, the purity test actually represents a step backwards. Let’s examine it further.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Supporting “smaller government” and “lower taxes” makes no principled statement. “Smaller” and “lower” are merely relative measurements. “Smaller government” compared to the Soviet Union? We already have that (though, quite possibly, not for long). “Lower taxes” compared to Europe? Hardly an accomplishment. A statement of principles would have been “We support the smallest government and lowest taxes possible to provide for the protection of individual rights.” To make matters worse, the GOP mentions a specific politician (President Obama) and specific legislation (the stimulus bill). If someone asked me my name, I would not answer with “I am not Fred”. What does it matter what I am not? A person or idea is never defined as a negative, as a negative cannot be proved. To base one’s identity on a negative is intellectual suicide.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

This statement faces the same problems as the statement above. The GOP is defining itself through a negative and failing to define any core principles. “Market-based” is not enough. The market must be held completely sacrosanct and freedom must be the rule, not the exception.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

Again, legislation is attacked rather than principles defended. This test will be outdated in a matter of months.

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

Much of the same, attacking specific issues rather than defining principles. This, however, falls far shorter of what is right than the second and third resolutions. The GOP should take a firm stance against unions and any other deadly obstacles to business. Why must corporations fear subjective anti-trust law while workers enjoy government-protected collusion in order to artificially raise labor prices, thereby destroying entire firms (GM and Chrysler being the primary examples)?

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

While I certainly support a liberal immigration policy and oppose amnesty for those who have broken our laws, Republicans frequently portray a high degree of ignorance in regards to this issue. Immigration policy should be liberalized, coupled with the dismantling of our welfare state. Furthermore, it should be recognized that immigration policy and border security are distinct issues.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

As noted above, it is a mistake to focus on specific issues. A coherent policy on national defense should be defined. Preferably, this policy would be non-interventionist in nature, while obligating the U.S. government to counter any threat to American citizens with extreme prejudice. It should also be made clear that U.S. soldiers are also U.S. citizens and are to be valued over civilians of other countries.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Not only is this wildly inconsistent with the first resolution, it is so out of line with the our founding principles that I consider it criminal. There is absolutely nothing within the bounds of reason that provide for government authority to decide who a person can marry. That this is even an issue in the United States is something to be ashamed of.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

Health care rationing would not be a problem in a completely private health care system. I would assume that “denial of health care” is referring to a host of “right to die” issues which are far too nuanced for this post. A private health care system would make the issue of government-funded abortions irrelevant.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

This is fairly simple and I can’t find much fault with it. But I would note that no reason is given as to why the 2nd Amendment  is to be so fiercely protected. True, it’s part of the U.S. Constitution – but so was the 3/5ths Compromise, and I don’t see anyone fighting to bring that back. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural consequence of an individual’s right to his/her life. The right to your life naturally includes the right to defend your life. As governments have historically been the most serious threat to human life, and governments keep and bear arms, it follows that individuals should keep and bear arms as well

The absence of principles in this purity test is a symptom of the intellectual void in the GOP. Until Republican candidates can offer voters a value, instead of simply being non-Democrat or anti-Obama, they will continue their slow descent into nothingness. I only hope that a third party will gain enough support to challenge the rampant collectivist ideology in today’s politics.

and my parents wonder why i only to go church when they drag me (i.e. Easter and Christmas)

New Jersey Catholics urged to pray against Gay Marriage

I found this image while surfing the net. This of course is a paraphrasing of the actual indicated passage but the meaning is accurately captured.

This is the oath of office that Barack Hussein Obama took last January 29th:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Do you think he has lived up to that oath? I don’t! Obama even had the gall to say the Constitution is outdated and needs to be revised. Revised for what; to allow Barack Hussein Obama to be King of the United States? He forgets, that title was held by Garfield Goose!
He talks a good case but he does nothing. He even gets awards for doing absolutely nothing. What awards are those you ask; Well, the Nobel Peace Prize is a great example. He did nothing to get that award. His being the one who would receive the award was decided eight days after he was sworn in as President. The award was for his accomplishments as President of the United States. What accomplishments, maybe getting the White House cleared of any of the Hollywood Liberal hangers on after the Inauguration parties. What could he have done in the first eight days? He didn’t even know where the bathroom was. This man is an embarrassment.
He stated during his campaign the GWB “took his eye of the Ball” numerous times. He said he would go into Afghanistan and clean out Bin Laden and the Taliban no matter what it took. He blasted GWB for his handling of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and now he will not allow the term “War on Terror” to be used. He delays months after General McChrystal requests 40,000 troops in deciding whether or not to send the troops while we waste more lives and more money. He said getting Bin Laden was his number one priority but he has not mentioned Bin Laden more than four times since being elected. Obama has had HIS eyes closed to what is REALLY going on.
I could go on and on but this President, President Barack Hussein Obama, does not know what he is doing, his advisors don’t know what they are doing. All he is looking for is getting social programs passed ie. government controlled healthcare, card check, gay marriage, open abortion, Cap and Trade etc so he will have his so called legacy! If all goes according to Obama’s plan, his real legacy will be the socialization of America along with making America a third rate world power. He is not following the mandate the oath gave him to follow the Constitution, he is making up his own rules as he goes along! He is on his way and he and his crew of yes men must be stopped.
2010 brings mid-term elections and the best way to stop Obama’s plan is to throw out as many Demoocrats and republicans in Congress who vote with his programs and regain control of Congress as we did when Clinton was President and then in 2012 vote Obama out of office and the rest of the Democrats who are ruining this country.

RWD

St. Matthew 7: 2… (Our Christ Jesus, as he was ending His “Sermon on the Mount”).

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

Near-Future-shift…

We must abolish the Legislation of Morality. Antiquated laws of both Church and State should never stop love and the commitment of two people. Antiquated Laws—an illegal combo of Church and State?

First Amendment: Civil Rights and Civil Rights and Civil Rights and Civil Rights!

 May Respect and Understanding and Peace and Love, be with all of us…Amen

Rep. Barney Frank talks on the floor of the House about discrimination against our LGBT community. Politics is supposed to be about policy, and is supposed to be a coat-check platform, where emotion and personal ties are left at the door. But I honestly don’t believe we live in that reality any longer.

He tried, but his true self showed through. And, according to me, good on him.

Fewer people than last time, I think – I guess gay Australians can be as apathetic as the rest of us – but still a good, representative sample of ordinary Australians standing up for basic human rights on behalf of the busy majority.

The photos only cover the part of the rally in front of the State Library, because I had to leave before the march itself to go and have a car accident. I’ll update the post with links to other people’s photos as I become aware of them.

UPDATE #1: A video of the rally:

UPDATE #2: Ozpolitik has some photos of the Brisbane rally.

UPDATE #3: Video of the Sydney rally:

Comes from Scotteriology:

Prejean’s fallen humanity is a good example of the gradation of sin in evangelicalism; it’s like a pyramid with homosexuality at the top, and as long as you’re not doing that then you’re OK. The separation of orthodoxy and orthopraxy in some cases becomes nothing more than what I commonly identify as modern evangelical neognosticism: I don’t have to practice anything I believe as  a standard that I would demand from others because I believe in the right standard. I can be freak and have all sorts of illicit sex, but as long as it’s not gay sex, and I believe I shouldn’t be having illicit sex… then I’m good. Build my mansion next to Jesus.

A timely quote, given my latest post.

Truth and Peace,
Rod

Have you / will you sign the Manhattan Declaration?  If you are not familiar with it, please take the time to read through it.  It is not very long and it is sure to be discussed a great deal in the days ahead.  It will be beneficial to know its contents.

You can find the website for the Manhattan Declaration at www.manhattandeclaration.org .  There, you can download a copy of the declaration, which is seven pages in length.  You can also view a list of well-known signatories.

A brief summary of the declaration is found on the website homepage.  It reads:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

After reading the long version of the document, let me know what you think.  Will you / did you sign it?  Why or why not?

I took this picture at the Getty Museum in Westwood on Saturday. It is a photo of a painting (from the first decade of the 1700s) by Sebastiano Rici, and depicts Perseus holding the head of Medusa in combat against Phineus and his not-so-merry band of men. Phineus, a failed suitor to Perseus’s bride-to-be, Andromeda, crashes their wedding, Dustin Hoffman style, but unlike Hoffman, doesn’t end up with the girl, but is turned to stone by Perseus holding before him and his men Medusa’s creep face. The ending of The Graduate  seems to be echoing the disrupted and chaotic wedding of Perseus and Andromeda, but with Phineus victorious:

All that cross swinging in the film above recalls the waving around of the Medusa’s head by Perseus, doesn’t it? I suppose that the moral of the story is this: Don’t let anybody get between you and the one you love. And if they do, consider wildly swinging before them a Freudian energized taboo symbol that frightens all opposition into stony silence. And if that doesn’t completely ward them off, go to Plan B: run like hell, hand in hand. Everybody has a right to their own choice of who to marry, right? (Opponents of gay marriage, are you listening?) Anyway, here’s a scene from Clash of the Titans, showing how Perseus got Medusa’s head in the first place: