Pope Backs Same-Sex Civil Unions

[Dan Fienen]

What's the point anyway? Pr. Stoffregen seems intent to prove that traditional church teachings about marriage have little or no basis in the Bible (did they even have marriage back then?). And Pr. Austin is always telling us how the younger generation is rejecting every traditional church teaching so traditional understandings  about marriage will be extinct shortly anyway. With progressive Democrats about to be elected by a landslide - according to our local Humble Correspondent - so soon traditional Christian social teachings will be outlawed as hate speech and the progressive utopia will be ushered in. But then no doubt I am, again in the words of our local esteemed Humble Correspondent a couple of sandwiches, a quart of potato salad, and a blanket short of a picnic and sniffing dimwit dust.

[Charles Austin]

pastor Fienen:
And Pr. Austin is always telling us how the younger generation is rejecting every traditional church teaching so traditional understandings  about marriage will be extinct shortly anyway. Me:
I am not telling you that.

Pastor Fienen:
With progressive Democrats about to be elected by a landslide - according to our local Humble Correspondent - so soon traditional Christian social teachings will be outlawed as hate speech and the progressive utopia will be ushered in.
Me:
I'm not telling you that either. So what's your point?

[Julio]

I'm not judging anything. Richard was an active participant in the work of  the Institute on Religion and Democracy. He and I discussed it many times. And he and I were on NBC's "Today" show together discussing it following my story in the Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/03/us/national-council-of-churches-faces-new-type-of-critic.html

And here RJN speaks for IRD
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/15/nyregion/new-church-group-assails-support-for-left.html

Any chance the audio and/or video or transcripts  are available on your interview with RJN?

By the way ... it was Julio who suggested you were judging the dead ... you are welcome for correcting you needlessly drawing the esteemed west coast moderator into this discussion.

[Charles Austin]

Julio:
Any chance the audio and/or video or transcripts  are available on your interview with RJN?
Me:
No.

[peter_speckhard]

I'm not judging anything. Richard was an active participant in the work of  the Institute on Religion and Democracy. He and I discussed it many times. And he and I were on NBC's "Today" show together discussing it following my story in the Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/03/us/national-council-of-churches-faces-new-type-of-critic.html

And here RJN speaks for IRD
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/15/nyregion/new-church-group-assails-support-for-left.html

Interesting. In your 1982 article you write: In a pastoral letter, Bishop Armstrong said his interview with Morley Safer, a CBS News reporter, was ''disturbing'' because questions put to him seemed like ''judgmental editorial sentences.'' The Indiana Bishop said, ''It appears to me that the thrust of the program has been determined before the cameras did their selective work at the North Indiana conference or before Mr. Safer came to our home.'' A spokesman for CBS News, Ari Marabel said it was the network's policy not to comment on programs in preparation.

In your opinion, was the bishop simply dodging valid criticism by painting the press as biased, or was he a victim of a biased press?

[Julio]

Julio:
Any chance the audio and/or video or transcripts  are available on your interview with RJN?
Me:
No.

Thanks ... that must have been an interesting interview ... any recollection as to the exact date ... occasionally interesting things show up In archives. Thanks for your prompt response.

[Charles Austin]

Peter writes:
In your opinion, was the bishop simply dodging valid criticism by painting the press as biased, or was he a victim of a biased press?
I comment:
The bishop was not dodging "valid criticism," because the questions were not "criticism." They asked for an explanation of certain programs and actions. The programs - aid to certain relief and "liberation" groups - were controversial. They drew criticism, a lot of it inaccurate. IRD skillfully "took control" of the story, making use of the unfair and inaccurate Readers' Digest hit job.
Some of the Church folk were ill-prepared to deal with the questions and got ridiculously defensive. They took any question, any effort to probe or clarify, as an assault. (Not unlike Someone we know today.)
Ironically, in light of today's hoo-doing, we in the "major media" were called right-wing pawns out to "get" progressive religion. Some, like Readers' Digest, were; but most of us weren't.
(But you can ignore these comments, because they are from my experience and expertise in reporting the news.)

[James J Eivan]

In addition to the previously cited discussion of the Popes recent same sex statement by one of our own, Relevant Radio covered the Popes recent statement here. 

Please note that in both of these discussion that the idea that the pope is in anyway condoning the sin of same sex behavior is quite misleading and frankly a bogus lie. 

In the same manner as the divorce granted by Moses in no way was sanctioned by God, the Pope's comments on these sinful unions is neither condoning them or indicate in any way that they are sanctioned, desired, or blessed by our just and merciful God in heaven.

[Brian Stoffregen]

And factor in also that in many churches (and especially, in my experience, and since that's what the article is about, Episcopal churches) there are very specific "rules" about what you can and can't do at a wedding relating to photography, flowers, music, schlocky add-on ceremonies, etc. In an environment where people have come to believe that "it's my day and I want it my way," sometimes they aren't at all interested in shackling themselves to the standards of the congregation.

And some couples hire a wedding planner who tries to tell the pastor what he's supposed to do.

Yes ... sadly including communing the bride and groom only in the midst of the pastor's address to the couple. 🤔

I had a couple quite angry at me when I refused to commune only the bride and groom. Unfortunately, my predecessor had done that with the another member of the bride's family. The compromise was they both drank wine from a chalice, but there were no words of institution and no bread. I called it a unity cup.

It was after I left (I didn't stay long at that congregation,) another of the bride's siblings got married in the church and they had communion for the whole assembly.


Another wedding battle was over wearing cowboy hats in the church building during the ceremony. I won that one, too. Real cowboys (and there were many of them in Wyoming,) don't wear hats in buildings.

[Charles Austin]

As noted far upstream, while portions of the Church were deciding on the matter of same-sex marriage, some of us - the LCA included - officially favored civil unions that could legally bind two people together and give them the same privileges as a married heterosexual couple. Doing this made no statement regarding marriage or homosexuality; it just favored creating those legal bonds affecting things like property, inheritances, adoption, health care and related matters.
Of course, the focus of the discussion was gay couples, and it was understood and that the bonds were to enable gays and lesbians to create a "marriage-like" union, whether the word, "marriage," was used or not, and generally that word was not used.
The fact that Pope Francis favors civil unions does not contain any doctrinal stuffing. Although it might reflect a pastor's concern for people on the margins of what some consider "normal" society.

[peter_speckhard]

As noted far upstream, while portions of the Church were deciding on the matter of same-sex marriage, some of us - the LCA included - officially favored civil unions that could legally bind two people together and give them the same privileges as a married heterosexual couple. Doing this made no statement regarding marriage or homosexuality; it just favored creating those legal bonds affecting things like property, inheritances, adoption, health care and related matters.
Of course, the focus of the discussion was gay couples, and it was understood and that the bonds were to enable gays and lesbians to create a "marriage-like" union, whether the word, "marriage," was used or not, and generally that word was not used.
The fact that Pope Francis favors civil unions does not contain any doctrinal stuffing. Although it might reflect a pastor's concern for people on the margins of what some consider "normal" society.

The problem is that the "legal privileges" exist for a reason that doesn't apply to homosexual couples. All the civil union does is declare publicly that a homosexual relationship is the same thing as the two becoming one. But it isn't. 

[Charles Austin]

Peter:
All the civil union does is declare publicly that a homosexual relationship is the same thing as the two becoming one. But it isn't.
Me:
But legally, in terms of the law, it is. Why can't you say that?

[peter_speckhard]

Peter:
All the civil union does is declare publicly that a homosexual relationship is the same thing as the two becoming one. But it isn't.
Me:
But legally, in terms of the law, it is. Why can't you say that?

Because it isn't except by bogus fiat. A law that insists all left handed people be given the right park in handicapped spaces would indeed spread legal privileges to more people. But all it would do is confuse left-handedness with disability when they are unrelated. There is no reason to give left handed people the right to park in handicapped spaces, and there is no reason to give two men a license to be treated as husband and wife.

[Charles Austin]

Peter:
there is no reason to give two men a license to be treated as husband and wife.
Me:
Do you not recognize the legal and personal difficulties facing same sex partners? Or do you want them to be penalized for sharing their lives?

[MaddogLutheran]

Do you not recognize the legal and personal difficulties facing same sex partners? Or do you want them to be penalized for sharing their lives?

Do you not recognize the legal and personal difficulties throuples face?  Or do you want them to be penalized for sharing their lives?

See what I did there? I strenuously objection to your framing (again).  Not granting same-sex marriage or civil unions is not penalizing them for sharing their lives.  In a free society (one that thankfully no longer criminalizes adult consensual sex), they are free to do whatever they want.

Of course, the way Obergfell has been decided by the courts has obscured the actual history of why traditional marriage exists (and predates government):  procreation.  Ignoring that, one can never obtain a reasonable answer.

Having said that, I disagree with Pastor Speckhard's premise here as well.  I think there was a legitimate legal reason for many jurisdictions to be required by the courts to offer civil unions for same-sex partners...which of course was subsequently demolished by Obergfell, because dignity or something incoherent.  But that's the lesson of Griswold v Connecticut, where the Supreme Court found a right of privacy meant married couples (only married couples) could not be forbidden to use contraception, and then subsequently extended that protection outside of marriage for no principled reason (even as I think government has no business regulating that in the first place, as a general legal matter).

I don't see anything wrong with civil unions, too bad it didn't stop there.  Emphasis on civil, as I don't believe it legitimate for government to conform to religious ideals, because the question inevitably devolves to which one?  Just ask the Mormons.  (Why the U.S. Constitution forbids a religous test for office holders...because the Founders couldn't agree on which Christian denomination to require.)