"Christian" pastor has harsh words for gay-affirming clergy

He wants to punch them out, in fact.  He calls it, "going Old Testament on them."

But the righteous Reverend Susan Russell (Episcopal priest from All Saint's Church, Pasadena) takes down the so called "Christian Pastor" Matt Brown.

My biggest issue is with the Pastor Matt Browns of the world who don’t see the disconnect between “being the best neighbor possible” and denying the marriage of your gay or lesbian neighbor the same respect you expect for your own. Jesus said “love your neighbor as yourself” – and there was no asterisk that said *”unless your neighbor is a same-sex couple.” (Matthew 22:39)

My biggest issue is that a pastor advocating violence against those who disagree with him about marriage equality gives license to those he leads to “go and do likewise” and fuels the fires of gay bashing, hate crimes and puts LGBT youth at risk. Jesus said “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44) – not “punch them out.”

And -- putting aside for a moment the 21st century reality that not all clergy are men -- my biggest issue is with the clergymen who have hijacked the Gospel in the service of their own homophobia. It is with those who have taken the Good News of God’s inclusive love proclaimed by the radical rabbi from Nazareth and turned it into a weapon of mass discrimination against LGBT children of God. And it is with those – like Pastor Matt – whose polemic preaching throws Jesus under the bus every time he gives those yearning for a spiritual community yet another reason not to try Christianity. 

Clergy who preside at the blessing of marriages of same-sex couples have not thrown Jesus out – they have pulled him out from under the bus the Pastor Matts of the world have thrown him.

In the interests of full disclosure,  I attend an Episcopal church where every priest is gay-affirming. And where they actually, you know, perform weddings of gay couples.

So take that, "Pastor" Matt.

ILove Marriage in Illinois: It's Just Time (video Sunday)

Have a hanky ready:

UPDATED-- DOMA decision repercussions in Ohio: Why it matters

Two weeks ago, John Arthur and Jim Obergefell flew from their Ohio home to Maryland to marry. They did it in a chartered plane with speciality medical equipment, because John is dying of ALS. Upon return to Ohio, they sued to have their marriage recognized, so that Jim could be listed as "husband" on John's death certificate.

And yesterday, a federal judge ruled in their favor.

Throughout Ohio’s history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example,under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio,even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise,under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even thoughOhio law does not authorize marriages of minors. 

How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single outsame sex marriages as ones it will not recognize? The short answer is that Ohio cannot … at least not under the circumstances here. 

By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sexmarriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins and marriages of minors), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, likely violates the United States Constitution which guarantees that”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. 

The end result here and now is that the local Ohio Registrar of death certificates is hereby ORDERED not to accept for recording a death certificate for John Arthur that does not record Mr. Arthur’s status at death as ‘married’ and James Obergefell as his ‘surviving spouse.'

Marriage matters, even unto death.  And the DOMA decision from SCOTUS is already reverberating.  John Aravosis writes,

I really think the court granted us nationwide gay marriage in all but name. Yes, the way they did it requires us to go state-by-state and strike down individual state-DOMA laws, but that was the genius of the court’s decision. They paid homage to the notion that the court shouldn’t upend the “democratic experiment” taking place in the states, while at the same time coming up with a decision that basically leaves the states no wiggle room to say “no” to marriage equality for gays once the state DOMAs are challenged. 

So yes, it will take longer for us to get marriage in 50 states – thus a nod to the notion that the court shouldn’t change everything nationwide immediately – but at the same time, they pretty much guaranteed that we’ll win. And this Ohio ruling is quite possibly the first evidence of that fact.

Meanwhile, those of you so inclined might put John Arthur and Jim Obergefell on your prayer list.

Update:  the Attorney General plans to appeal, even though the Court's ruling is specific to these two individuals and can have no possible bearing on any other Ohioan.  From Think Progress:

The day after a judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring Ohio to list Arthur’s husband as his “surviving spouse” on his death certificate, DeWine announced that he wouldappeal this decision and try to strip a dying man of his final wish.
There are marriage equality cases with sweeping national implications. This is not one of them. The judge’s order is limited exclusively to Arthur and Obergefell..... 

Yet, while Ohio has nothing to gain from simply complying with the judges’ order, Arthur and Obergefell have a tremendous amount to lose. Thanks to DeWine’s appeal, Arthur will spend his last days unsure whether he and his husband can someday lie together in his family burial plot. The two men’s final moments will be poisoned by uncertainty over their lawsuit.... 

There is a common refrain among marriage equality’s opponents that discrimination is necessary to remove some kind of “threat” equality poses to straight couples’ marriages. This case is a put up or shut up moment for these voices. ...Who does DeWine think he is serving by filing this appeal? 

Someday very soon, Obergefell will go home, lie in an empty bed, and confront for the first time the prospect of a life without his husband. In that moment of loss, he believes he will find some comfort if the State of Ohio acknowledges that he feels the same pain that he would have felt if he were married to a woman. That’s what DeWine wants to take away. And it will gain the people of Ohio nothing.

Update 2:  the AG will not appeal after all.

Sex in Virginia

Ken Cuccinelli is the attorney general of Virginia and Republican nominee for governor.  He is rabidly anti gay.

As one of his big issues, he's trying to criminalize sodomy and oral sex between consenting adults, under the guise of protecting children.  Now, the US Supreme Court said in Lawrence v. Texas that you can't criminalize sex acts between consenting adults, so this effort is clearly unconstitutional.  Thing is, all you have to do is say that such acts are illicit involving minors (who by law cannot give consent) and voila, you protect kids.

So it's clear that Cooch is aiming at LGBT people

Problem for him is, that is SO 2006.  

Ken Cuccinelli's election of strategy of running on his long-standing opposition to homosexuality might have worked in 2009, when Cuccinelli won the attorney general race in Virginia. But the country's shift on gay politics didn't miss the state, putting Cuccinelli at risk of losing key Republican donors and the governor's race. 

The timing of his embrace of anti-gay rhetoric couldn't be much worse. Cuccinelli is running in a close race with Democrat Terry McAuliffe. Several polls, including one from Quinnipiac University last week, show McAuliffe with a slight lead. But in another metric, fundraising, McAuliffe is far ahead — thanks, in part, to reticence from pas Republican donors to give to Cuccinelli. Bloomberg reports that Cuccinelli's adamant social conservative positions are a key factor in that antipathy....

Cuccinelli has raised 40 percent less than McAuliffe to date.

Because businessmen want to be able to recruit the best candidate, and not be limited to straight white men with conservative social views.  And women and gays and their friends and families are not attracted to live and work in the State of Hate.

And a majority of Virginians now approve of marriage equality.

San Diego county clerk embarrases everyone

We have all been expecting one of the 58 county clerks in CA to join the H8ers in their attempt to shut down marriages in CA.  But I'm sure everyone thought it would be one of the clerks in Red California--the largely conservative, rural inland areas.

How embarrassing that it turns out to be the clerk in San Diego.  While San Diego trends fiscally conservative, and there are pockets of social conservativism, most of the Republicans are practical business types.  San Diego has actually become quite gay friendly.  Our last mayor (a Republican) was a marriage supporter, and the Republican nominee to replace him is openly gay. 

You should have no doubt about where this originates:

Dronenburg’s lawyers, the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, it should be noted, have on their board of directors one concerned citizen of note not mentioned in his Supreme Court petition: Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, the group that was the top financial contributor responsible for getting Prop 8 on the ballot in 2008.

Meanwhile, the LA Times notes that the largely-Republican County supervisors are quite annoyed. 

 San Diego County's Board of Supervisors, a majority of whom are Republican, sought to distance themselves from Dronenburg's action, which was filed for him by Charles S. LiMandri, a Rancho Santa Fe attorney and leader of the bid to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

"The county clerk has acted independently on this matter,'' board Supervisor Greg Cox said. "No one else from the county was consulted or had any part of this court action, including the Board of Supervisors. The county's position is and always has been that we, the county, will follow applicable law with regards to same-sex marriage." 

Supervisor David Roberts, who is gay, said that as soon as he heard what Dronenburg had done, he demanded a meeting to find out his motives. 

"I was livid, to say the least," Roberts said. "As the first LGBT supervisor, with a married partner, I felt this was a slap in the face. But he says that's not what this is about. We'll see." 

....
Gay rights groups reacted with rage and disdain to the latest filing. 

Ted Boutros, one of the lawyers who challenged Proposition 8 in federal court, said the petition was "just as meritless and desperate" as the one filed by ProtectMarriage. It cannot change the fact, he said, that "marriage equality has returned."

Importantly, the clerk continues to issue licenses and people continue to get married in the meantime.

"Foremost in my mind" (Video Sunday)

From the Devotion Project which profiles loving relationships. Here are New York City-based couple Gail Marquis and Audrey Smaltz.

Why will it take a year for UK weddings to begin?

Although the Queen has assented, weddings won't happen for a year.  Gay Star News tells us why:

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), who will be implementing the law, explained to Gay Star News why it will take so long. 

They said their priority was to extend marriage to same-sex couples as soon as possible, mentioning the first weddings could take place earlier than summer 2014. 

While the first same-sex marriages may be able to take place next summer, it will take longer for the law to allow civil partnerships to be converted. 

‘Work is already underway and there is a lot to be done across government to ensure that all couples who want to get married; or convert their civil partnership to a marriage; or remain in their existing marriages when they change their legal gender, can do so,’ a spokeswoman said. 

The changes the DCMS will be implementing include the court rules, IT systems, the processes for civil registrations, religious buildings registration, religious consents (when a marriage of a gay couple is conducted with religious rites but does not take place in a registered building - such as in a house-band, deathbed or a prison) as well as guidance for registrars, religious organizations and the public. 

The spokeswoman added: ‘Parliament will also need to scrutinize a number of statutory instruments setting out how the new arrangements will apply to other legislation; on the detail of certain processes; and to ensure that marriages of same sex couples in England and Wales are treated in Scotland and Northern Ireland as civil partnerships. 

‘This all takes time.’

Queen assents to equal marriage

The Houses of Parliament (Commons, and Lords) have approved the Equal Marriage Bill.  The Queen has given Royal Assent.  Marriages in England and Wales will begin in 2014. Scotland has considerable independence, and will be considering the issue shortly.  Northern Ireland said "no".  

Well done, UK!

Evolving: religion and gay rights

From the Barna Group via the WaPo:

Wisconsin gays could be arrested for marrying out of state

I saw this in a comment at religious Dispatches: Wisconsin law criminalizes resident gay couples who get married together in another state. Here's teh statute:

"765.30 Penalties. (1) The following may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9 months or both: 

(a) Penalty for marriage outside the state to circumvent the laws. Any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who goes outside the state and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state."

(Marriage between same sex couples is illegal in WI).

Second Class Citizens (Video Sunday)

A trailer for a documentary:

Inside look at the first marriages after Prop8 falls (video)

From AFER :

It's official: Civil Unions are NOT equal.

Now that Clause 3 of DOMA has fallen, those of us who are legally married now have Federal recognition and access to over 1000 rights and responsibilities under federal law. Those of us who are DP's or CU'd? Not so much. From the WaPo:

The Obama administration will not extend federal-worker benefits to domestic partners under the Supreme Court ruling that overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, meaning the government will treat civil unions differently than legal same-sex marriages.

The Office of Personnel Management made that announcement in a series of memos to federal benefits administrators and insurance carriers, saying couples who are not legally married “will remain ineligible for most federal benefits programs.” However, any existing benefits provided to domestic partners will remain intact, OPM said.

So, what does this mean? In a state like New Jersey, where the legislature has tried to pass of civil unions as "the same," and have been challenged in court, now there is concrete evidence that civil unions and domestic partnerships are NOT the same as marriage. From Think Progress:

Four states continue to offer civil unions: Hawaii, Colorado, Illinois, and New Jersey (Rhode Island’s civil unions will end August 1 when the marriage equality law takes effect). Though Colorado would require a constitutional amendment to upgrade civil unions to marriages, the decision has a profound impact on legislative efforts in the other three states. Lawmakers in each have argued that civil unions are satisfactory and provide the same benefits as opposite-sex couples’ marriages, but under federal law that is no longer true. This is particularly true in New Jersey, where the state Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples deserve complete equality, so civil unions offered there are now a violation of the state’s constitution.

Those states are now on the front line for marriage equality.  Because as we've said here all along, CIVIL UNIONS ARE NOT MARRIAGE.  And now the government agrees.

Video Sunday: Same love

Yeah, had to put it up here eventually, right?

How history supports the SCOTUS decisions on marriage

From Inside Higher Education:

Rarely have historians played as important a role in shaping the outcome of a public controversy as in the same-sex marriage cases.... 

Briefs filed with the Supreme Court by the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians demonstrated that far from being a static institution, marriage has profoundly changed its definition, roles, and functions, and that today's dominant marital ideal, emphasizing emotional intimacy, has nothing to do with gender. Currently, marriage's foremost public function is to distribute benefits, such as those involving health insurance, Social Security, and inheritance, making it all the more valuable for same-sex couples. 

... the historians showed that two broad themes characterize the shifting law of marriage in the United States. The first is the decline of coverture, the notion that a married woman's identity is subsumed in her husband's. A second theme is the overturning of earlier restrictions about who can marry whom.
...
Marriage today bears scant resemblance to marriage even half a century ago, when the male breadwinner family prevailed and dual-earner and single-parent households were far rarer than today. The contemporary notion of marriage as an equal, gender-neutral partnership differs markedly not only from the patriarchal and hierarchical ideals of the colonial era, but from the notion of complementary spousal roles that predominated during the age of companionate marriage that prevailed from the 1920s into the mid-1960s.
Change, not continuity, has been the hallmark of the history of marriage. ... 

History, in the same-sex marriage controversy, was not simply "preface" -- an interesting but ultimately insignificant detail in cases involving equal treatment under law. History lay bare a series of dangerously misleading assumptions -- above all, the notion that same-sex marriage deviates from a timeless, unchanging marital norm.

Marriage equality no longer a "Christian" issue

From the WaPo:

But the debate can no longer be described as one between nonreligious and religious Americans. Support for same-sex marriage has risen by double digits in every major religious group since 2006. Today, solid majorities of Catholics (57 percent)—including equal proportions of white Catholics (58 percent) and Hispanic Catholics (59 percent)—and white mainline Protestants (55 percent) have joined the religiously unaffiliated (76 percent) in supporting same-sex marriage (PRRI, March 2013). The National Cathedral, which is affiliated with the mainline Episcopal Church, rang its bells at noon on Wednesday in support of the DOMA ruling and opened its doors for a special service for LGBT families and their allies “to celebrate the extension of federal marriage equality to all the same-sex couples modeling God’s love in lifelong covenants.”

....If there are literal bells ringing in support of same-sex marriage among mainline Protestants, these unheralded but significant numbers toll the fading future of religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

So, would ya'll stop ragging on "Christians" and instead, rag on "Fundamentalists"?