(no subject)
From the newsletter the church I've been taking Jared to puts out.
Ministers, like everybody else, receive junk mail; not just ads, but targeted solicitations to participate in events or with groups that are designed to appeal to clergy.
In the past month or so, I've received two such items in the mail at church that have caught my attention. One came from Colorado Springs, from a group that maybe some of you have heard of, called "Focus on the Family." The other came from literally down the block, from a clergy colleague right in our neighborhood. The thing these two pieces of mail had in common was they both invited me to participte with groups of clergy who wish to develop their ministry to address the issue of homosexuality in culture. Or, as the Focus on the Family mailing said, to learn to "speak up on the issue of homosexality with compassion, but without compromise."
This organizing on both a national and local level is alarming to many of us. The issue that seems to be motivating this effort is the movement to recognize same gender marriage. Both of these mailings specifically referred to the need to "protect" marriage in its "traditional" form.
I guess this should come as no surprise. As I write this, I'm hearing about the city of San Francisco boldly issuing marriage licenses to same gender couples. It's a scenario that makes me giggle - the ever-irascible city by the bay daringly usurping the national will and a state initiative that seeks to put a stop to same gender marriage by marrying as many people as possible before the courts (or someone else) stops them.
This action, as well asa a recent court action in Massachusetts, has ignited the fire of backlash, even to the point where there is serious consideration of amending the US Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and nullifies any state or local ordinance that differ. I'm not a constitutional expert, but I believe that if such an amendment were to come to pass, that it would be the first time the Constitution was amended in order to restrict people's rights rather than expand them. Could this issue really be such a watershed- a historic turning point in our nation's history?
I think our hope needs to come from a recognition that marriage is, fundamentally, a religion institution before a legal one. As such, the specific definition should be defined by the religious institutions under which it is sanctified. Unitarian Universalits have been sanctifying same gender marriages for decades now, even though they have not carried the force of law. I'm hopeful that as this issue gains attention, people will recognize that attempts to restrict the meaning of marriage would be restrictions on teh free exercise of religion by the government, which is of course in violation of the Constitution. If there are other religious institutions that want to define marriage, specifically, then that is their right. To legally recognize some religious ceremonies but not others would be against the very fabric of American life.
This same hope keeps me optimistic about all those couples getting married in San Francisco. I can't help but believe that even in teh midst of all the uncertainty surrounding their marriages, in teh end, some basic human rights concepts will prevail. It all comes down to this: All people are endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is the law of the land.
In faith,
Ken
I knew I was picking the RIGHT church to go to. :o)
Ministers, like everybody else, receive junk mail; not just ads, but targeted solicitations to participate in events or with groups that are designed to appeal to clergy.
In the past month or so, I've received two such items in the mail at church that have caught my attention. One came from Colorado Springs, from a group that maybe some of you have heard of, called "Focus on the Family." The other came from literally down the block, from a clergy colleague right in our neighborhood. The thing these two pieces of mail had in common was they both invited me to participte with groups of clergy who wish to develop their ministry to address the issue of homosexuality in culture. Or, as the Focus on the Family mailing said, to learn to "speak up on the issue of homosexality with compassion, but without compromise."
This organizing on both a national and local level is alarming to many of us. The issue that seems to be motivating this effort is the movement to recognize same gender marriage. Both of these mailings specifically referred to the need to "protect" marriage in its "traditional" form.
I guess this should come as no surprise. As I write this, I'm hearing about the city of San Francisco boldly issuing marriage licenses to same gender couples. It's a scenario that makes me giggle - the ever-irascible city by the bay daringly usurping the national will and a state initiative that seeks to put a stop to same gender marriage by marrying as many people as possible before the courts (or someone else) stops them.
This action, as well asa a recent court action in Massachusetts, has ignited the fire of backlash, even to the point where there is serious consideration of amending the US Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and nullifies any state or local ordinance that differ. I'm not a constitutional expert, but I believe that if such an amendment were to come to pass, that it would be the first time the Constitution was amended in order to restrict people's rights rather than expand them. Could this issue really be such a watershed- a historic turning point in our nation's history?
I think our hope needs to come from a recognition that marriage is, fundamentally, a religion institution before a legal one. As such, the specific definition should be defined by the religious institutions under which it is sanctified. Unitarian Universalits have been sanctifying same gender marriages for decades now, even though they have not carried the force of law. I'm hopeful that as this issue gains attention, people will recognize that attempts to restrict the meaning of marriage would be restrictions on teh free exercise of religion by the government, which is of course in violation of the Constitution. If there are other religious institutions that want to define marriage, specifically, then that is their right. To legally recognize some religious ceremonies but not others would be against the very fabric of American life.
This same hope keeps me optimistic about all those couples getting married in San Francisco. I can't help but believe that even in teh midst of all the uncertainty surrounding their marriages, in teh end, some basic human rights concepts will prevail. It all comes down to this: All people are endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is the law of the land.
In faith,
Ken
I knew I was picking the RIGHT church to go to. :o)