Traditional Anglicanism in America
Matt Kennedy
All California Bishops (including the Puppet) sign statement supporting same sex “marriage”



link

As Episcopal Bishops of California, we are moved to urge voters to vote “No” on Proposition Eight. Jesus calls us to love rather than hate, to give rather than to receive, to live into hope rather than fear. On Tuesday, November 8th, voters in California will be given the opportunity to vote for or against Proposition Eight, which would amend the state’s constitution to reserve marriage as only between a man and a woman. Since the California Supreme Court’s ruling in May that civil marriage should be provided to all of the state’s citizens whether the genders of the couple are different or the same, faithful gays and lesbians have entered into marriage as the principle way in which they show their love, devotion and life-long commitment to each other. Furthermore, marriage provides these couples the same legal rights and protections that heterosexual couples take for granted.

Proposition Eight would reverse the court’s decision and withdraw a right given. Proponents of Proposition Eight have suggested that this amendment to the Constitution would protect marriage. We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage. Rather, the Christian values of monogamy, commitment, love, mutual respect and witness of monogamy are enhanced for all by providing this right to gay and straight alike. Society is strengthened when two people who love each other choose to enter into marriage, engaged in a lifetime of disciplined relationship building that serves as a witness to the importance of love and commitment.

As bishops, we are not of one mind regarding how our Church’s clergy should participate with the State in same-sex marriage. Some of us believe it is appropriate to permit our clergy to officiate at such marriages and pronounce blessings over the union; others of us believe that we should await consent of our General Convention before permitting such actions. Nevertheless, we are adamant that justice demands that same-sex civil marriage continue in our state and advocate voting “No” on Proposition Eight.

General Convention 2006 in Columbus passed Resolution A095 that said, “Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the Episcopal Church’s historical support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God and entitled to full civil rights; and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the 71st General Convention’s action calling upon municipal council, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protection[s] such as: bereavement and family leave policies; health benefits; pension benefits; real-estate transfer tax benefits; and commitments to mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention oppose any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions.”

We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights. We believe that this continued access promotes Jesus’ ethic of love, giving, and hope.

The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Bishop of California
The Rt. Rev. Barry L. Beisner, Bishop of Northern California
The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles
The Rt. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves, Bishop of El Camino Real
The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, Provisional Bishop of San Joaquin
The Rt. Rev. James R. Mathes, Bishop of San Diego

 





 
Comments:

Should the identification of Bishop Lamb not read “Provisional Bishop of Vichy San Joaquin?”


Posted by DaveG on 09-10-2008 at 03:16 PM

I’m not clear: is same-gender “marriage” in Calif a legal marriage, or is it a civil union?  In either case, such action is played out in the civil forum which has the right to approve or dissapprove it.  Likewise, the ecclesiastical forum has the right to approve or dissapprove it.  By the standards of 1900 years of Christian morality and biblical teaching, the ecclesial forum has the right to dissapprove it regardless of the decision of the civil forum.  Within and for itself the Church can set and uphold a moral standard other than that recognised and endorsed in the civil forum.  I.E. civil unions can be performed by officers of the state and recognised by the state, but the clergy can refuse, on the grounds of Christian and Biblical teaching to bless such unions.  In my opinion this is what the church should do: say a loud and permanent “NO” to so called Gay marriage. I think it has been proposed in Calif that clergy refuse to perform all marriages as officers of the state, but may give the church’s blessing if permitted.
Dumb Sheep.


Posted by dumb sheep on 09-10-2008 at 03:18 PM

I wonder why Steven Charleston didn’t sign, I thought I read, somewhere, he was… If they had any decency at all in them they would be embarrassed and ashamed… It is too bad the Democrats have the Jackass as their symbol, it would be perfect for these Bishops of California…


Posted by FrVan on 09-10-2008 at 03:19 PM

...have entered into marriage as the principle way in which they show their…

Perhaps they meant principal?  All these homonyms are ruining the church. wink


Posted by Piedmont on 09-10-2008 at 03:25 PM

(including the Puppet)

Well, that would explain why a prominent TEC figure wears her oven mitt on her head- leaves both hands free to manipulate the puppet’s strings.


Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-10-2008 at 03:25 PM

With bishops like these in office, there is no need to elect any homosexuals as bishops.  This bunch is doing a better job of pushing the homosexual agenda than the homosexuals are! 

My question to them is, once we have same gender “marriage”, what is the next step?  Where does it end?


Posted by sactohye on 09-10-2008 at 03:30 PM

Message to Anglican Communion:

“HELL, NO!  WE WON’T MORATORIA!”

Gotta love the value of Lame-beth 2008 and the ABCs interference for these types!


Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 09-10-2008 at 03:30 PM

All these homonyms are ruining the church.

grin I noticed “lead” for “led” in the list of beliefs from the Texas revisionists on another thread. Or maybe they were feeling leaden.


Posted by oscewicee on 09-10-2008 at 03:33 PM

My dear FrVan:

Why would you want to insult the jackass?


Posted by sactohye on 09-10-2008 at 03:39 PM

sactohye, no, you are correct, I apologize to Jackasses.


Posted by FrVan on 09-10-2008 at 03:41 PM

Fr. Kennedy,

Which part of “they will know they are Christians by our love” is “the puppet?”  One of the recurrent themes here among both posters and commenters is the status of the besieged true believers attacked by the evil, “revisionists.”  Of course, you all are the true disciples in this picture. 

Really?

Was, “the puppet” an example of “Love your enemies?” 
;;sigh;;

I am completely aware that some on the progressive side of the disputes are prone to intemperate language and ad hominum arguement.  But, that “t’aint nah cuse” as my Progressive Baptist sining friends say.

FWIW
jimB


Posted by jimB on 09-10-2008 at 03:48 PM

I don’t know quite where to begin…
RANT ON:
Add these 6 Butterfly’s with the Judas 4 judges you then have the Wavy Gravy political party. Why are these churches tax exempt??? There(mis-spelled for Jack-o-Bishop Lamb who failed proof reading in High School) eager beaver ways shall be a stark contrast to the mandate of the voters come November. Too bad a rider could not be attached to the amendment to send these bad actors to Fire Island.
RANT OFF:
Thank you for my therapy Fr. Matt.
Intercessor


Posted by Intercessor on 09-10-2008 at 03:49 PM

My question to them is, once we have same gender “marriage”, what is the next step?  Where does it end?

“I now pronounce you Man and Sheep…”
Jerry Lamb


Posted by Intercessor on 09-10-2008 at 03:51 PM

“Was, “the puppet” an example of “Love your enemies?”
;;sigh;;” If someone else’s hand fits up your backside and manipulates you, well, then, you are a puppet…


Posted by FrVan on 09-10-2008 at 03:57 PM

These guys don’t get it.  It is their JOB to uphold the Scriptures, not to be part of the culture.  Check out thier oaths for goodness sake. 

Why aren’t they being deposed?  Scripture CLEARLY identifies homosexuality as sinful behavior in at least 10 places.  So they aren’t doing their jobs, right?


Posted by B. Hunter on 09-10-2008 at 03:59 PM

Sorry JimB, it was thoughtless of me not to explain my comment more clearly. Let me help. Bishop Lamb is a puppet bishop. He is a manipulative and manipulated tool of 815. I make no apologies.


Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-10-2008 at 04:06 PM

I—cessor: us sheep resent yure innuendoe.  We’s got better morals than that.  (I had a friend who did stand-up comedy. One of his routines was about sheep and ended with the line: “did you ever try to catch a sheep?”)
Dumb Sheep.


Posted by dumb sheep on 09-10-2008 at 04:08 PM

“Rather, the Christian values of monogamy, commitment, love, mutual respect and witness of monogamy are enhanced for all by providing this right to gay and straight alike.”

I am confused, but I am not sure I want to have too many witnesses to my monogomy.


Posted by Undergroundpewster on 09-10-2008 at 04:09 PM

Dear dumb sheep: Ewe have a right to be upset…


Posted by FrVan on 09-10-2008 at 04:11 PM

notice the quote:

...others of us believe that we should await consent of our General Convention before permitting such actions.


The assumption of when, not if, I’m surprised they didn’t add “next year” to it.


Posted by JustOneVoice on 09-10-2008 at 04:26 PM

puppet:....
4.  One whose behavior is determined by the will of others: a political puppet.
[Middle English poppet, doll, possibly from Anglo-Norman poppe, doll; see puppy.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

In my youth it was common (perhaps more common than today) to use the word “puppet” specifically in reference to national leaders or regimes in small countries when those leaders or regimes had been installed by, and were under the control of, a larger and more powerful government.  Frequently these leaders or regimes were imposed after a legitimately elected government had been illegally ousted by the intervention, openly or clandestinely, of the larger power.
Any similarity between the definition above and what happened in the Dio. of SJ is intentional.  As were the actions of 815 which render such a comparison obvious.


Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-10-2008 at 04:28 PM

The episcopal authors confect their own version of Jesus to invoke in support of their position, and suggest that those who disagree are motivated by hate or fear; I don’t care for their theology or their manner of expression.
  Bishop Lamb is provisional bishop in San Joaquin; did all the conservatives leave?  That Fr. Eaton apparently is still in SJ suggests not…..  And Bishop Lamb’s involvement w/ this effort is a teaching to conservatives who may choose not to depart with a departing conservative diocese—your departed conservative bishop will be replaced by a liberal bishop whose views you will not stomach.
  BTW, any Californians logged in who can tell us what current polling suggests as to the outcome of Prop 8?


Posted by Dick Mitchell on 09-10-2008 at 04:56 PM

Per the California Supreme Court marriage is marriage.  The issued a decision earlier this year overturning the initiative passed earlier excluding same sex marriage.  There is another initiative on the November ballot with stronger wording, which theoretically will be harder for the court to impact.  This public statement today places the TEC bishops in public opposition to most of the rest of the various religious leaders in the state.  And, yes this has gotten air time this afternoon on the radio news.  I’ll see about tv when I check the local news in a couple hours at 6:00.

As for the polling on prop 8, the last numbers I’ve seen have it down by about 7 points overall, which is an improvement over the first set of numbers in July, when it was down by 12- 15 points.  The underlying splits are pretty typical for the last couple of electoral cycles, braking on age range and Bay Area and greater LA vs. the inland areas.  Personally, I suspect that the outcome on this will depend on a couple of factors, including whether or not McCain/Palin can bring the state into play.  This just a very fast thumbnail on this.

Stu


Posted by Stu Howe on 09-10-2008 at 05:40 PM

For all of you that disagree with same sex marriage and have liberal leaders I suggest you make a noise!!  I understand Bishop Iker of the Ft Worth Diocese is going to take in other churches into his diocese that want to be a part of the conservative Remain Faithful Episcopalians.


Posted by Sarah H on 09-10-2008 at 06:56 PM

Actually, gay “marriage” wont harm traditional marriage. It will harm your right not to let gays adopt, or your right not to rent your church or hall to them, or your right to discriminate against them at all!


Posted by helpmelord on 09-10-2008 at 07:04 PM

And, does ANYONE out there wonder exactly what will happen in Anaheim next summer with these hosts???

Get out while you can.


Posted by midwestnorwegian on 09-10-2008 at 08:41 PM

You already can’t say, “By the authority vested in me by the State of California, I pronounce you man and wife.”  You must say, “By the authority vested in me by the State of California, I pronounce you Party A and Party B.”

“California bans ‘brides,’ ‘grooms’”
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74768


Posted by Jim the Puritan on 09-10-2008 at 09:03 PM

[3] FrVan,

In regard to your regret that the use of the male of the species Equus asinus is already associated with the Democratic Party of the United States, I have two questions.

First, do you suspect that any of the signatories of the statement under discussion are members of, or at least vote for, some party other than the Democratic one?

Second, even if your answer to the first question is in the affirmative, would you not tend to concur that the signatories to said statement might readily and appropriately be symbolized by the Argentine subspecies of E. asinus, commonly referred to as the pampas ass, sometimes spelled pompous? wink

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist


Posted by Militaris Artifex on 09-11-2008 at 09:36 PM

[4] Piedmont,

Be careful there! You wouldn’t want to be labeled a homonynophobe, or accused of rabid homonymophobia, would you? wink

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

———————-
“Si vis pacem, para bellum.”[classical adage, believed based on a quotation from Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus]


Posted by Militaris Artifex on 09-11-2008 at 09:41 PM

Martial Artist #28 is a classic!


Posted by FrVan on 09-12-2008 at 02:34 PM

Martial Artist:  Some folks have labeled me a dictionary thumper! wink


Posted by Piedmont on 09-12-2008 at 02:58 PM

25 Helpmelord, my church won’t rent our property to anyone whom we don’t approve of.  Period.  And we have that right to refuse.  As a member of the Bishop’s Committee, I won’t approve it in any case.


Posted by Cennydd on 09-28-2008 at 05:41 PM




Posted September 10, 2008 at 2:51 pm
The URL for this article is http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/16049/

©2008 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.