Katherine Ragsdale speaks out

H/T to Susan Russell for pointing out this article by the Very Rev. Katherine Ragsdale on her marriage. I have excerpted some particularly salient bits.

We wanted to be married for pretty much the usual reasons: we love each other; we believe in each other; we believe we can be better together than we are alone; we want to commit to one another, to care for one another (for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health), and to grow old together.

Exactly. Really, how is this any different than a marriage between two straight fifty-somethings? The procreation argument as the only justification for marriage, falls on its very face.

We also have reasons that may be viewed as more peculiar to our individual identities. We are priests, and we believe marriage is sacramental--marriage creates new life with new possibilities and responsibilities. We believe that the two of us together, in our marriage, are called to additional ways to love and serve God and God’s people, above and beyond what each of us is already doing. We believe that such commitments are important and that they should be made, celebrated, and supported within community, within the broader Church.

One of the things that has impressed me about TEC as I've gotten to know y'all is the truly traditional nature of a theology of total inclusion--it really is deeply consistent with the actual story of Christ. And, contrathe nay-sayers, it's not "anything goes". It's calling all people to the same standards and values. It raises everyone up. As we prepare for the blessing on our own marriage, I am mindful that this event lays a burden of responsibility on US to be part of the community.

While we're on the subject, let's be clear. The fact that the State authorizes a marriage in no way compels any Church to perform or recognize it. As priests, we are entitled to refuse to perform any marriage for any reason. Roman Catholics routinely demonstrate this liberty when they refuse to perform marriages of divorced persons, even though the State allows them to do so. Similarly, they refuse to recognize marriages of non-Roman Catholics even though the State has issued a license. Political arguments against states allowing same-sex marriages and the federal government recognizing these marriages that claim it would violate the “sanctity” of marriage and force churches to do something contrary to their teaching or their conscience, are blatantly misleading and dishonest. Marriage equality merely guarantees equality under the law to all citizens; it does not compel churches to do anything.

Exactly. And the efforts of the RC and LDS churches to deny marriage equality, are actually infringing on the religious freedom of those who disagree. The marriage of the Revs. Ragsdale and Llloyd has absolutely no effect on any RC church, parish, priest, or lay person in Massachusetts. However, the RC church is actively attempting to infringe of the rights of the Episcopal Church to carry out what it feels called to do. This is the real abrogation of religious freedom and it needs to be pointed out at every opportunity.

.... we are in danger of becoming the newest poster-children in this on-going fight. All of this--for doing something as old-fashioned, traditional, and family value-focused as getting married surrounded by friends and family in the church.

As Barney Frank commented not long ago,

"I do not think that any self-respecting radical in history would have considered advocating people’s rights to get married, join the Army, and earn a living as a terribly inspiring revolutionary platform."

Photo from here

The Boston Marriage

It would be remiss of me not to comment on the recent joyful wedding between The Very Rev. Katherine Ragsdale (Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School) and The Rev Mally Lloyd (Canon to the Ordinary for the Diocese of MA), whose marriage was performed by Massachusetts Bishop Thomas Shaw at the Cathedral Church of St Paul in Boston.

From the EDS press release

At the marriage attended by close to 400 guests, Bishop Shaw commented: “God always rejoices when two people who love each other make a life long commitment in marriage to go deeper into the heart of God through each other. It’s a profound pleasure for me to celebrate with God and my friends, the marriage of Katherine and Mally.”

From the Bridgewater Patriot-Ledger:

The Rev. Lloyd said Monday night she hopes fellow Episcopalians and others won’t focus on her marriage as a gay ceremony, but instead see it as “a commitment and marriage like any other.”

“We are asking God’s blessing, and asking the community and our friends to bless our marriage,” she said.

Exactly: bless a marriage, not a "lesbian marriage". As Susan Russell puts it in her post about the event,

I believe the values that make up a marriage transcend the sexual orientation of the partners who vow to love, honor and cherish each other until death do they part. My partner and I don't pay lesbian taxes, take out lesbian trash, make a lesbian tithe to our church or fold lesbian laundry. Marriage is marriage. Period.

Meanwhile, the Bridgewater Patriot-Ledger also quotes other sensible voices,

“Same-sex marriages are not new in Massachusetts, and the marriage between two members of the clergy in the Episcopal Church also has a history,” … said [the dean of the Episcopal Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, Calif., the Rev. Mark Richardson].

“I am grateful that their life together can have this public recognition…."

Yes. Isn't that what a wedding is? Claiming the blessing, if you will, and the support of the public? I know we found that an amazing part of our wedding.

A lot of the gay-themed blogs picked it up too, although they may miss some of the nuance of church politics. Still, the fact that TEC has The Gay Bishop(s) and performs same sex marriages, is making a great witness to a community historically hurt by Christian faithful. What TEC does gets noticed, and provides tremendous evangelism.

Of course, not everyone is happy. AmericaBlog Gay, approving of this wedding of "high level Episcopal Priests", quoted a "Catholic response" from "Catholic Online;" I clicked over for the predictable outrage only to find that it was written by none other than David Virtue. (Is he Catholic now? Ah, no, just "the Voice for global orthodox Anglicanism [sic]." )

Not surprisingly, it drips with snide remarks. "Two Episcopal Lesbian Leaders 'Marry' in Boston" sneers his headline. Then with breathless distaste, he begins

In an act that will further alienate The Episcopal Church from the Global South and raise tensions for the Archbishop of Canterbury …The lesbian service "united" Episcopal Divinity School dean and president, the Very Reverend Katherine Hancock Ragsdale and Mally Lloyd, Canon to the Ordinary…..However this action will only confirm in the minds of orthodox Anglicans around the world that the Episcopal Church has walked apart, snubbing its nose at Lambeth resolution 1:10, the Windsor Report and a Covenant designed to hold the Anglican Communion together.

It will also mean the Archbishop of Canterbury will not be permitted to yawn if and when the issue is raised at the Primates' meeting. It also further confirms why some eleven orthodox primates will not be attending the Dublin meeting called by Dr. Williams.

Do you really think anyone notices at this point, aside from David Virtue and his ilk? Does anyone think this will even come up? Marriage in Massachusetts between same sex partners has been legal for more than 6 years. Several Episcopal Dioceses have been performing marriages, where legal. Others are blessing unions and previously performed civil marriages. These aren't even the first gay priests to marry. There really is nothing new here. And why bother writing in the conservative Catholic press? The audience there already think that TEC is at best misled, and at worst, apostate or heretical. They don't care about the Anglican Communion. They don't even think a marriage performed outside of the RC church is technically a marriage. So why is David Virtue fulminating to this particular audience? Isn't it time he just got over it?

Meanwhile, we needn't be bothered by it. Instead, let's focus on the good news in this high-profile witness to inclusion. We send many hearty congratulations to the new brides, who have far more joyful things to think about. Fresh days of love accompany thy hearts!

As Susan Russell concludes,

Marriage equality is an increasing reality in this country and in this church and the significance of Saturday's wedding is in offering yet-another icon to the church, the communion and the world of the affirmation of the Good News of God's inclusive love made available to all. It is an opportunity for both celebration and evangelism.... it's good news for the diocese and for the church as we all work together to move beyond the "inclusion wars" and forward into God's future of love, justice and compassion.

Sing it!

Photo from here. You DID get the joke about Boston Marriage, right?

Equal protection under the law: for men only

The 14th amendment provides for equal protection under the law. It is a fundamental component of our constitutional republic that prevents simple majoritarian abuse of any group.

Here's what it says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


But according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, "citizens" and "persons" do not include women. Quite remarkably finds that the 14th amendment, which doesn't mention race, is about race and only protects on the basis of race.

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that….Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about.

Writing at the blog Hunter of Justice, lawyer Nan Hunter responds,

But let's get real - the bottom line import of this approach to constitutional interpretation (shared by many in addition to Justice Scalia) is that it eviscerates constitutional protection for marginalized and unpopular minorities, allowing (often temporary) majorities to scapegoat them for evils real and imagined and to impose legal disabilities unrelated to any legitimate, much less proportional, public goal.

Under Scalia's originalism, the only recourse for ending even the most oppressive law would be for a legislative reversal, ie, for a new majority rule….the point of a constitution as a charter of government is that some principles are structural, not merely that we the people have agreed that a few mostly 18th and 19-century practices are now off the table….

Who benefits from this mode of constitutional interpretation? Well, to ask the question is truly to answer it, wouldn't you say?

And from the HuffPo:

Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse.

"In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It's especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection."

What this also does is telegraph how Scalia would view Prop8, should the case come to the SCOTUS. A majority of voters in CA decided to marginalize an unpopular minority. That's perfectly fine with Scalia. It enshrines a remarkable power in the mob. As discussed by Robert Cruickshank, whom I also quoted in the previous post:

One reason our state government fails is that we’ve essentially set up a fourth branch of government – the people – that can negate anything done by the other three branches, but without any real checks or balances on the powers of that fourth branch.

In American constitutions, at least until the present day, the power of the people has been limited and bounded to ensure that all rights are protected. The right clearly wants to undo that convention, and give the people the power to trump the Constitution by mob rule.

I think Scalia's is quite a dangerous viewpoint that undermines the integrity of our republic.

Breaking: news on Prop8 appeal

From the Prop8 Trial Tracker

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a “ruling” of sorts on the appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional*. The “ruling” was actually a certification of a question to the California Supreme Court about the all-important matter of whether Prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision. Here’s the question they want answered:

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

....

So what does that all mean? Let me boil it down. Basically, California’s constitution and various CA Supreme Court decisions in the last few decades have indicated that the initiative power is a right inherent to the people of the state, and does not stem from the Legislature. It sets up the people as a kind of fourth branch of government, with its own sovereign power. And therefore, if the Governor and the Attorney General refuse to defend a proposition in court, that could essentially nullify the fundamental rights of the voters. Since ballot initiatives stem from the people, presumably the people – in the form of the initiative proponents – DO have standing to defend Prop 8 in court and to appeal it to the 9th Circuit in order to preserve the people’s initiative power.

But because such a ruling would have a significant impact on future legal battles over California ballot initiatives, the 9th Circuit is deferring to the CA Supremes.....

The CA Supremes can take as long as they want in answering the 9th Circuit. It could be days, weeks, or months. Whatever the outcome, it shows again the need to reform our initiative process. One reason our state government fails is that we’ve essentially set up a fourth branch of government – the people – that can negate anything done by the other three branches, but without any real checks or balances on the powers of that fourth branch.

Update: More commentary from lawyers and legal observers:

• Battle of the brains: how the standing question could have been avoided
• Ninth Circuit sends a question....
• Appeals Court punts

Happy New Year!

Here's a wish for all the best for 2011 for all the friends of Jake.