Anglican Mainstream

by Matthew J. Franck and Gwen Brown, The Witherspoon Institute

By Frank Turek, Voice of Revolution

By Dennis Prager, Jewish World Review (Hat Tip: JONAH)

The left passionately supports the most remarkable and radical change in modern social history — the redefinition of marriage from male-female to include male-male and female-female.

Marriage is the building block of society. Changing its nature will therefore change society. Among other things, same-sex marriage means that because sex (now called "gender") no longer matters for society's most important institution, it no longer matters in general.

Men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance. Which is exactly what the cultural left and the gay rights movement advocate — even though the vast majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage do not realize that this is what they are supporting. Most Americans who support same-sex marriage feel (and "feel" is the crucial verb here, as the change to same-sex marriage is much more felt than thought through) that gays should have the right to marry a member of their own sex. It is perceived as unfair to gays that they cannot do so. And that is true. It is unfair to gays.

Read here

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, LifeSite News

Mexico City Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard and other members of his party have filed complaints against several representatives of the Catholic Church in Mexico for "homophobia" and "moral damage" following criticisms of the city's new homosexual "marriage" and adoption laws.

By Martin Beckford, Telegraph

The honeymoon appears to be over for many of Britain’s same-sex couples as official figures show the number of civil partnerships being dissolved has doubled over the past year.

In addition, fewer homosexuals are now forming the legal unions than at any point since their introduction five years ago.

The declining popularity of the civil partnership could be down to the fact that most of the men or women in long-term same-sex relationships who were waiting for official recognition have now obtained it.

It is also possible that couples could be waiting for the introduction of the ceremonies in places of worship and with religious readings and music, expected next April, or to see if the Government will lift the ban on full marriage for homosexuals.

Peter Tatchell, the leading campaigner for homosexual equality, said: “If same-sex marriage was legalised, many more lesbian and gay couples would opt for it rather than civil partnerships.

Read here

From Mailonline

A 65-year-old vicar has stunned church bosses by announcing plans to 'marry' his 25-year-old Nigerian male model boyfriend.

Gay Reverend Colin Coward, a priest at St John the Baptist church in Devizes, Wiltshire, is entering into a civil partnership with his boyfriend Bobby Egbele.

But the marriage has caused a stir among Christians because the couple plan to receive a 'blessing' service in church after tying the knot.

Reverend Colin Coward fell in love with Nigerian model Bobby Egbele after they met at a Christian conference in Togo in 2007. The pair plan to tie the knot in October

Rev Coward has also refused to confirm that he will remain celibate following the union, which is a requirement the Church of England asks of its ordained gay clergy.

Today, Rev Coward, who lives with Bobby in Marston, near Devizes, revealed that he hopes his union sets a 'visible example' to other gay people within the church.

He said: 'My goal is for everyone within the church to feel comfortable with the situation because at the moment the majority of gay Christians marry secretly'.

Read here

By James Tillman, LifeSite News

Among advocates of homosexual "marriage," one of the more popular statements from Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling overturning Proposition 8 is that the state is obligated to "treat its citizens equally, not to 'mandate its own moral code."  In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com, however, writer and philosopher Dr. Edward Feser pointed out that Walker's ruling is not neutral and, in fact, imposes its own moral code. He also called on conservatives to begin defending the whole spectrum of traditional sexual morality in the public sphere.

"If Christians and conservatives are not prepared to defend traditional sexual morality in general, then they are going to lose the battle over 'same-sex marriage,'" he said.  "And that means that they are going to have to be prepared to criticize homosexual behavior itself, as well as sex outside of marriage, divorce, pornography, and all the rest."

by Eric Pavlat, Inside Catholic

As hard as it is to express the truths about abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research to Democrats, it can be even harder to talk about homosexuality. Many people wrongly equate opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to racial equality during the civil-rights movement, applying the emotional power of race issues to homosexuality. The conversation can become even more personal and heated if they have family or friends who are gay.

By John Smeaton, SPUC

One of SPUC's Irish supporters has sent me the following news:

"The Catholic Voice newspaper (15 August 2010) reports that the European Union is funding a conference in Dublin in September, entitled Voices of Children. Very good and proper, you might say. However, the conference will be hosted by a group called Marriage Equality. This group was set up to promote the Civil Partnership Act, and to fight for the status of marriage to be granted to homosexuals and lesbians. The Civil Partnership Act, the group says, doesn’t go far enough for them as it doesn’t yet recognise homosexual marriage, nor does it allow for the adoption of children on the part of homosexuals and lesbians. The October conference is being held to promote the legalisation of adoption of children by [homosexuals]. Rónán Mullen, the Independent senator, who was one of only the four senators who spoke against the enactment of the Civil Partnership Act last month, points out that European Union and Irish government officials have repeatedly claimed that social and ethical issues, including laws on marriage and the family, are matters for member-states and are outside the competence of the EU. So much for Government promises!

Read here

From LifeSite News

According to Tom Jensen, director of the North-Carolina based Public Policy Polling (PPP), polls finding that a majority of Americans support homosexual "marriage" cannot be trusted because Americans are sometimes hesitant to state their position before a live interviewer who may judge them to be intolerant.

Earlier this month a CNN poll found that 52% of Americans thought that homosexuals should have the constitutional right to marry; 46% said the Constitution should not give that right.

Public Policy Polling's latest survey however, found that 57% of Americans think that same-sex "marriage" should be illegal, while only 33% think it should be legal and 11% have no opinion.

The difference between the two polls, according to Jensen, springs from the fact that CNN and other major polling organizations use live interviewers, while Public Policy Polling uses an automated system.

He said that people are "more likely to tell their true feelings on an automated poll, where there's no social anxiety concern, than to a live interviewer who they may be worried about the reaction of."

"It is frankly impossible," he continued, "based on the results of gay marriage referendums over the last decade, to believe that a majority of Americans support its legalization."

Read here

By Peter J Smith and Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSite News

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals intervened in the battle over Proposition 8 Monday afternoon, and gave an order preventing California officials from issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples until they can hear the case.

By Stephen J Heaney, The Witherspoon Institute

Re-examining the essential characteristics of marriage.

[.....] Marriage is often characterized today as follows: 1) two people 2) who love each other 3) want to perform sexual acts together, so 4) they consent to combine their lives sexually, materially, economically 5) with the endorsement of the community. Since same-sex couples can meet the first four criteria, how can society refuse the fifth?

It is easy to see why this would be a cause of aggravation, not only for same-sex couples who wish community endorsement of their relationships, but for millions of others. If the criteria stated above actually define marriage—and in contemporary Western society, many have come to view marriage as no more than this—then refusal to acknowledge and endorse same-sex relationships is a rank injustice, nothing but an exercise in bigotry or stupidity.

Typically, marriage does in fact have these characteristics. But why does marriage have these characteristics? Remembering why will help us to remember how they show themselves in a relationship that has the essence of marriage—and how that is often different in other relationships.

Read here

From Christianity Today

Responses from Matthew Lee Anderson, Alan Chambers, Timothy George, Andreas Köstenberger, Dale Kuehne, Andrew Marin, Gerald McDermott, Scot McKnight, Jennifer Roback Morse, Jenell Williams Paris, Glenn Stanton, Sarah Sumner, and Mark Yarhouse.

Read here

From BBC News

A US judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has ruled gay nuptials may resume on 18 August.

Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the ban, known as Proposition 8, last week. Its proponents asked for a stay pending their appeal against his ruling.

His latest decision follows calls from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown for gay weddings to resume.

The measure had been passed by voters in the state in 2008.

Judge Walker overturned Proposition 8 in a 136-page decision, saying it unconstitutionally discriminated against same-sex couples who sought to wed.

Supporters of the ban, who argue it was created to protect the traditional idea of marriage, were quick to file an appeal against that decision.

At first Judge Walker suspended the resumption of same-sex marriages until he could hear arguments on whether to stay the ruling.

But on Thursday he ruled: "Defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8" on 18 August at 1700 local time (0000 GMT).

Read here

By Greg Griffiths, Stand Firm

Frank Turek at TownHall.Com:

Having certain sexual desires—whether you were “born” with them or acquired them sometime in life—does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn’t allow the behavior you desire. Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people. If Walker’s false “fact” was a real fact, we’d have to redefine marriage to include not just same sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are “sexual orientations” too.

In other words, there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.” And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, multiple partners or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country should prohibit, permit or promote. And that’s a job for the people, not judges.

2. “California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.” (FF 47) Other than helping them avoid disease and live longer, absolutely no reason. As I document here, health problems are higher and life spans shorter for homosexuals. This has touched me personally (and perhaps someone you know as well)—a childhood friend of mine died from AIDS at the age of 36. How is it wise public policy to endorse behavior that leads to such tragic results? That’s exactly what same-sex marriage does—it endorses homosexual behavior, which results in serious health problems and shorter life spans. Permitting unhealthy behavior is one thing, but endorsing it is quite another.

Read here

LifeSite News

In the face of the "aberrant" Supreme Court decision declaring constitutional the "immoral legal reform that permits unions between people of the same sex," the Church "cannot cease to call evil, evil," declared Mexico City's Cardinal Archbishop Norberto Rivera during Sunday mass at the Metropolitan Cathedral..

What proponents of the law "abusively" call "marriages" are in reality nothing more than evil, de facto unions, according to Rivera.

"Such immoral activity can never be the equivalent of the sexual expression of conjugal love, because it endangers the dignity and the rights of the family that constitute the common good of the society," Rivera said.

Following the declaration, which was read by a married couple during the mass, the Cardinal's Sunday message was issued, denouncing homosexual "marriage" legislation as an attack on the family that trivializes it "as if it were the perverse intention of obscure interests to destroy it and with it to take the country, injured by violence and social decomposition, to its ruin."

Rivera's rejection of homosexual marriage and adoption are shared by a majority of Mexicans according to opinion polls, which have found that more than 80 percent oppose homosexual adoption, even in the nation's ultraliberal Federal District.

Read here

By Jane Galt (Hat Tip: Barbara Gauthier)

By Walter R Schumm, MercatorNet

The evidence shows that gay marriage is equal to or better than traditional marriage, according to a Federal Court judge. But what sort of evidence?

In one sense, Judge Walker can’t be blamed for his decision since he was provided a great deal of inaccurate and incomplete information through the trial process. I hope that future amicus briefs will be able to correct those deficiencies.

It’s not that heterosexuals think their marriages are superior per se but that heterosexual marriage has vulnerabilities that are not found in same-sex relationships. Kurdek (2008) found that gay/lesbian couples reported greater levels of happiness over time than did heterosexual couples, especially the latter who had children. Kurdek admitted that gender conflicts would be expected to be more prevalent in heterosexual relationships. There are also more risks in heterosexual relationships in terms of unwanted pregnancies or struggles over fertility control.

At the same time that heterosexual relationships inherently entertain higher risks, they also provide society with a very important product – biological children who are genetically related to both of their parents, which tends to be correlated with taking better care of children (unrelated boyfriends, for example, often abuse their girlfriend’s biological children).

As an example of the bad information provided to the court, it is clear that lesbian parents have far less stable same-sex relationships than do heterosexual parents, even when the lesbian parents have advantages in terms of higher education or income (Schumm, 2009). The court was told that lesbian relationships are just as stable as heterosexual relationships, which may be true but only for persons who are not parents. The court may not have been told about the high rates, on the order of 50 percent within three years, of extramarital affairs engaged in by gay men in civil unions or marriages (Schumm, 2009).

Read here

Historically, Judaism was the first faith to ban homosexuality, which the entire ancient world accepted. That ban, retained by its daughter religions, Christianity and Islam, channeled sexual activity into the marital bed, thus totally transforming family life. Sex became the spousal bond of faithful, passionate love underlying the stable families within which the products of that sexual love are best raised.

…Most early societies saw sexuality as sacred, and many, including the ancient Canaanites, celebrated its holiness with orgiastic ceremonials featuring sexual pairings of all genders, ages, and generations.(1) The ultimate goal of these ceremonies was to sexually stimulate the gods. They believed the gods were watching and would make their herds, crops, and women fertile.(2) These acts of worship also made the participants feel better?even though they often caused the paternity of the children thus conceived to be uncertain.

Judaism also viewed sex as sacred, but limited it to the conjugal bed.  "The revolution begun by the Torah, when it declared war on the sexual practices of the [surrounding] world, wrought [along with ethical monotheism] the most far-reaching changes in history," Jewish philosopher and talk-show host Dennis Prager writes. "When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world."(3)

Read Dr Nathan Lehrman here

By Matt Chorley, Independent

Party conference motion will further highlight the divisions between the members of the coalition

The Liberal Democrats are to use their first party conference in government to adopt a radical new policy calling for gay marriage.

In a move that risks causing deep divisions with both the Tory right, and the traditional Methodist wing of the Lib Dems, a motion backed by the leadership will advocate civil partnerships being "converted" into full marriage. It would also allow couples to remain legally married when one partner undergoes a sex change.

While senior figures in the party acknowledge that the move could prove divisive when it is debated in Liverpool next month, it is certain to be passed with the support of the grassroots who see equal rights as a totemic issue in the coalition.

Read here