Wednesday, June 03, 2015

Unholy Wedlock: Seven Articles

Freedom Is...A Sexual Ponzi Scheme?

An article in the Washington Post last week (“How to break free from monogamy without destroying marriage”) described the dynamics of an open marriage and the various “apps” now available for facilitating extramarital relations. The amorality might have been shocking twenty years ago but today such well-traveled territory likely provokes little more than a yawn. Yet the article is still instructive for what the author’s analysis (or lack thereof) tells us about contemporary culture. Indeed, it is a classic example of what happens when your side in the debate is utterly dominant: You become lazy and put forward obvious stupidity as if it were compelling argumentation. Keep reading

Also see
How to break free from monogamy without destroying marriage

Upholding the 'Honourable Estate': Why It Makes Sense to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

"There are really only two reasons that gay marriage is still illegal in more than three-quarters of the country: that's the way it has always been; and the very idea of same sex marriage makes some people, well, uncomfortable. But courts, even the current Supreme Court, usually require that laws be justified by something more than tradition and bigotry."

So writes Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker, reflecting the prevailing opinion that there are no reasonable arguments against legalising same-sex marriage.

Expressing the same sentiment, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill remarked, "my children have a hard time understanding why [same-sex marriage] is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children."

Similarly, in a review of Australian author Michelle Dicinoski's powerful memoir Ghost Wife, Jay Daniel Thompson concluded, "Once readers reach the book's end, they will - or at least should be - puzzled as to why queers have been so widely denied the opportunity to wed." Keep reading

Mixed message from same-sex marriage debate

You probably thought, as I did, that last week's same sex marriage referendum in Ireland was carried by an overwhelming 62 per cent vote majority in support of changing the constitution.

In fact, only 34 per cent of the adult population voted in support of the measure. There are 3.52 million Irish citizens of voting age, and 66 per cent of them did not vote "yes". Two-thirds of the adult population either voted "no", or did not vote, or did not register to vote.

I did not see that mentioned in any of the media's coverage. The reporting, I think, deliberately created the impression that almost two-thirds of the Irish voted in support of gay marriage, when in fact two-thirds did not vote in support of gay marriage.

While there was a clear majority in support for change among those who did bother to vote, the failure to even acknowledge that this was only a third of the adult population reflects what I think has become the media's obsessive front-running, cheerleading and push-polling around this issue. Keep reading
In light of the low turnout for the Irish referendum on same sex marriage, does it make sense to have a referendum on same sex marriage in Australia? Only the folks with a horse in the race are going to vote.
Making a Mishmash of Marriage (Part I)

As the date for the 78th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) in Salt Lake City draws near, the deputies are being asked to adopt measures of expediency in order to bail out clergy from the predicament into which previous General Conventions have placed them.

No attention is given to the longer-term picture. There is nothing to see but a short-term "fix" that (a) emasculates the Book of Common Prayer; (b) reverses the normal order for liturgical change; and (c) makes a mishmash of the concept of "marriage" within the Episcopal Church (USA).

Here is the predicament, in a nutshell. For years, the Episcopal Church (USA) has had no lawful means of recognizing -- let alone of blessing or solemnizing -- same-sex unions between its members. (It still does not, but try telling that to the revisionists at GC 2015.) Keep reading

Making a Mishmash of Marriage (Part II)

In Part I of this post, I showed how every member of the Episcopal clergy who celebrates, officiates at and solemnizes in any State, as a Church "marriage", any civil union between two persons of the same gender thereby commits a violation of the Church's canons on marriage, and is consequently liable to disciplinary proceedings under Title IV of the 2012 Church Canons.

Now let us take a look at the Resolution 2015-A036 which the Church's Task Force on the Study of Marriage has proposed to resolve this dilemma. The first thing it does is rewrite Canon I.18.1 to substitute the plain word "marriage" for the liturgical (BCP) term "Holy Matrimony".... Keep reading

FiF-UK rejects claims it backs gay marriage

Forward in Faith UK has not dropped its opposition to same-sex marriage, the Director of the Anglo-Catholic group tells Anglican Ink. On 2 June 2015 Dr. Colin Podmore said there was no truth in claims that in the forthcoming issue of “New Directions” the organization would announce that it was looking anew at the controversial issue.

Last week a message posted on the Facebook of the gay church pressure group Changing Attitude said FiFUK would shortly announce its support for gay blessings. The post submitted by Keith Rogers stated the editor of New Directions, the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt. Rev. Jonathan Baker, (pictured) had changed his mind about gay blessings and had written an editorial now supporting the innovation. Keep reading

No comments: