We’ve seen this before: UMC schism and conservative power

Our friends in the United Methodist Church (UMC) aren’t so united today. They have just completed a special conference that was specifically intended to resolve their conflict over issues re. sexuality and allow them to go forward. Their polity is different than The Episcopal Church (TEC): they are a truly global denomination where votes come from all around the world. In contrast, TEC is an American church in a loose federation with related independent churches in the Anglican Communion. (And you can certainly bet that conservatives in Anglicanism and the Church of England wish they had this degree of authority over TEC.) But I digress.

The Methodist book of discipline and other church policies are opposed to recognition of same sex marriage, or the full participation of LGBT people as ministers or bishops. In the US, the UMC is as divided as any other mainline on the subject, but has moved from “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” to “Pay No Attention to the Pastor In a Rainbow Stole”. They even have an out, lesbian bishop who technically runs afoul of the rules but in actuality continues to serve faithfully.

The Bishops of the global UMC proposed a policy that would allow individual churches or affiliations to allow and accept LGBT people, marriage, and service, without demanding that all churches do so. This “One Church Plan” was promoted as a way forward. But the well-organized conservatives weren’t having any. They organized an umbrella group called the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) and promised to leave UMC if any liberalization passed. As one wrote in advance,

You may not understand it but we will not remain in a church where pastors and bishops are free to promote and bless what we believe is contrary to Christian teaching and dishonoring to God.” We are told that we should find this plan acceptable because we will not be forced to perform marriages and blessings that we do not support. I can appreciate that progressives don’t truly understand us. But whether they can comprehend our reasoning or not, they need to hear it: It violates our consciences to be in a denomination that promotes what we believe counters God’s will and purposes. We can live in a church where there is disagreement about our church’s teaching about marriage and sexuality – we’ve done so for decades – if pastors and bishops who promised to uphold the church’s teachings actually do what they promised. What we cannot do is remain in a church with an official sexual ethic that denies the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture. Liberals don’t have to understand our thinking. But they would do well to take our warning seriously. The local option will create schism – and it is likely to be litigious, costly, and ugly.

So they proposed an alternative plan that not only did not relax the language against LGBT people, but made it more pronounced and punitive. This plan was found unconstitutional under the church’s own rules, but yesterday, the conference PASSED IT ANYWAY. It is not insignificant that there were also two plans proposed for how to divide the church property: how to leave.

And, they won.

 The traditionalists did a bang-up job of political organizing and counting the votes. The progressives were all busy talking about unity and community and listening and loving. The conservatives were on the floor getting the votes….We spent time yesterday openly discussing, “Now, how much do we have to pay to have to leave? Is a third of a property assessment OK?” It was just weird hearing us talk that way. That’s not the way we’ve talked previously. If you talk that way, it means the debate is almost moot. This may be a bad analogy, but as a pastor, when a couple comes to me and says, “We’re talking about getting a divorce. We’d like to hear your views on our marriage,” I say, “If you’ve gotten this far, you’re going to divorce. What do you want from me?” I kind of feel that way here.  https://religionnews.com/2019/02/26/bishop-will-willimon-on-why-no-plan-can-unite-united-methodists/

So, now what happens?  The WCA said it was their way or the highway, and they pulled it off.  So ....

As a committed centrist who has been working toward a compromise where all people would be welcome in The United Methodist Church, I've dealt enough with various members of WCA leadership to know that there will be no compromise. This is a matter of principle upon which they will not budge. No scenario that would permit an ordained gay and lesbian clergy or an elected lesbian bishop to be in any way affiliated with them will be entertained. 

Down the road, these same leaders I fear will become as hard-core about other issues as they are about LGBTQ exclusion. For those who stand for any "leftist" sounding cause (Health care reform? Gender equality? Compassionate immigration reform? Reasonable gun control?) or continue to call those to accountability for rejecting infant baptism, confirmation, and female clergy leadership, I have a hard time believing that eventually a target isn't going to be on your back, too. If the denomination starts heading "right," my centrist colleagues agree that LGBTQ exclusion isn't where things will end. https://www.ministrymatters.com/all/entry/9033/why-im-not-afraid-of-the-gracious-exit

Hmmmm. This is not unlike a similar purge of the Southern Baptists in the late 80s-90s, when the liberals moderates were driven out, leaving a conservative behemoth. And look where that got us.

But it's not just theological fundamentalism. You might also want to follow the money.

The goal of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, as far as United Methodism goes, is to make the denomination so intolerable to progressives and moderates that we leave the denomination. … 

The prize is ownership of United Methodism, which despite its myriad problems is still an unfathomably valuable institution. United Methodism owns an incredible amount of real estate, hospitals, academic institutions, churches, offices, conference centers, retreats, camps, nonprofit and for-profit entities, and the incredible controlled wealth of the United Methodist Foundations. Not to mention WesPath. By purging progressives and moderates, they will lose some churches and conference centers and perhaps entire Annual Conferences, but they will retain ownership of all of the rest. http://um-insight.net/perspectives/jeremy-smith/the-wca-is-just-an-insurance-policy-in-case-their-umc-takeov/

So, the money matters.

Back when Bishop Gene Robinson was elected, there was a similar conflict between conservatives and liberals in TEC. You may have recalled the bitter vitriol that ensued. But what you may not remember is that a shadowy conservative money-group, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), was up to its elbows in dirty water. Episcopalian journalist Jim Naughton followed the threads and wrote a hugely important piece called “Following the Money” that linked the IRD to a number of conservative foundations.

These foundations have provided millions of dollars to the IRD which, in a fundraising appeal in 2000, said it sought to "restructure the permanent governing structure" of "theologically flawed" Protestant denominations and to "discredit and diminish the Religious Left's influence."

Importantly, this was not limited to TEC, but also targeted the Methodists and the Presbyterians.  HMMMM.  (Our Blog Father, Father Jake Stops the World, also has a summary about the TEC experience).

Fortunately, the IRDs efforts to overturn TEC didn't work.  The contentious fights in the Episcopal Church from 2006 on eventually led to the broad acceptance of LGBT ministers and marriages (with some holdouts). The fiercest conservatives left to form their own group, ACNA, which has never been formally recognized by the Anglican Communion.

Blogfather Fr Jake makes an excellent case in his latest post for the IRD being deep in this Methodist mess.

 Meanwhile, lots of people are hurting. The arguments on Twitter were passionate and in some cases, cruel (aside: Twitter is a cesspool, but is invaluable for following breaking action. It’s also like eating a large bag of potato chips entirely in one sitting: you know it’s not good for you, and you will regret it, but you can’t stop).

 There’s a tendency of Episcopalians to want to bring these hurting liberal and LGBT Methodists in. But as someone said, they are grief stricken and have just lost a loved one. Don’t try to set them up on a date just yet.   Listen, be present, and recognize they may simply need a sabbatical before going back to fight. They may want to try to keep the church they love intact.  They'll need lots of support to do so.

Here we go again, Albany edition

The Bishop of Albany, who is remarkably named Love, refuses to accept the results of General Convention and the resolution B012. To remind you, this was widely viewed as a compromise on the issue of same sex marriages.  As the ENS described it,

The resolution provides for:

• Giving rectors or clergy in charge of a congregation the ability to provide access to the trial use of the marriage rites for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Resolution A054-2015 and the original version of B012 said that clergy could only use the rites under the direction of their bishop.
• Requiring that, if a bishop “holds a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples,” he or she may invite another bishop, if necessary, to provide “pastoral support” to any couple desiring to use the rites, as well as to the clergy member and congregation involved. In any case, an outside bishop must be asked to take requests for remarriage if either member of the couple is divorced to fulfill a canonical requirement that applies to opposite-sex couples.
• Continuing trial use of the rites until the completion of the next comprehensive revision of the Book of Common Prayer

Of course, no priest or parish can be required to marry LGBT people,  or indeed anyone else.  But for those who want to , they will be able to.  Of the 100 dioceses in the US Episcopal Church, this really applies to the 8 holdouts, those few bishops who are opposed to same sex couples marrying in the church.  Seven of those bishops have indicated that they will live within these rules, and their choices range from a temporary and limited role for a fellow Bishop, to refusing to have anything to do with the inclusive parishes (except presumably accept their money).  But still, progress, particularly for gay people yearning to be recognized in their faith community, and cover for the bishops who don't have to have anything to do with them.

And then there's Bishop Love of Albany NY.  He released a letter refusing to allow ANY LGBT people marriage in his Diocese, resolution or no resolution.  As the Episcopal Cafe notes, this is a direct challenge to the authority of convention.

The letter is hard and hurtful.  He uses the term "same sex attracted" which is the conservative's current favorite in their attempt to deny our lived reality and make us into a sickness.  (I wrote years ago here about the effort to make us a pathology, rather than a normal human variant.)

Bishop Love writes,

The fact that some in today’s sexually confused society (to include 5 of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices in2015) may have broadened their understanding of marriage to be more inclusive, allowing for same-sex marriages, doesn’t mean that God, “the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth”(BCP 96) has changed His mind.....B012 by its very intent of making liturgies available for same-sex marriages, (while perhaps well intended) is in fact doing a great disservice and injustice to our gay and lesbian Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by leading them to believe that God gives his blessing to the sharing of sexual intimacy within a same-sex relationship

There is the usual citation of Levitical and Pauline clobber passages, and he defines us as distorted and unnatural, struggling with this apparent illness of "same sex attraction". And there are threats:

There are many in the Diocese of Albany who have made it clear that they will not stand for such false teaching or actions and will leave – thus the blood bath and opening of the flood gates that have ravaged other dioceses will come to Albany if B012 is enacted in this Diocese.

Given that Albany and surrounding areas are not backwards or ignorant, I'm going to assume that there are just as many who are outraged at this letter.

And this:

To engage in sexual intimacy outside of marriage between a man and women, is against God’s will and therefore sinful andneeds to be repented of, NOT encouraged or told it is ok.

So, about all those straight couples who are having sex before or outside of marriage--what 's he doing about them?

But what I really want to do is focus on this attempt to minimize our marriages and our relationships.

the Bible does not forbid two people of the same sex from loving one another in the sense of caring deeply or having a strong sense of affection for one another. Strong friendships are a blessing and gift. As already mentioned, God commands us to love one anotherboth male and female. The Bible doesn’t forbid two people of the same sex from sharing a home or life together. It doesn’t forbid two people of the same sex from being legal guardians for oneanother or health care proxies for one another. All God has said through Holy Scripture regarding relations between two men or two women is that they should not enter into sexual relations with one another, and that marriage is reserved for the joining together of a man and woman. 

As we have gone over and over, marriage is not about sex.   Many married couples cannot or choose not to engage in genital behavior, for one thing.  For another, even a sexually active couple spends far more of their time out of bed than in it, and if they are sensible, always working on all the other aspects of relationship that make a marriage.

Moreover, we are not suddenly un-gay when we are not having sex.

Dear Bishop Gene Robinson addressed this lunacy a number of years ago, when the Church of  England decided that gay priests could have civil partnerships as long as they promised to be celibate:

I don't care whether any couple, gay or straight, has sexual intimacy or not. That's not my business. That's their business. But to require someone to give up this piece of one's life, which is so central to who each of us is as a human being, just seems, it seems cruel, and it also, it bespeaks something that I think is not talked about enough around the issue of gay sexuality, which is that gay is not something you do, it's something we are. 

I'm not just gay when I'm making love to my husband. I'm gay all the time. I'm gay right this minute talking to you. And it affects how I relate to the world, how I relate to people. And it comes out of this notion that, you know, it's OK to be gay as long as you don't act on it. 

Well first of all, I don't think that's - I think that statement is disingenuous because the people who say that don't act as all as if it's OK to be gay. But taking them at their word, you know, when do you become gay? I laughingly will say to a more conservative audience, you know, OK, so if it's OK to be gay but not act on it, could two men live together? Could we sleep in the same bedroom if we slept in twin beds? 

Well, could we sleep in the same bed if we didn't touch each other? Well, could we touch each other as long as we only held hands? I mean, at what point, at what point is it gay? Do you know what I mean? It just doesn't make any sense. And it comes out of what I think is a very male understanding of sexuality, which is you're only being sexual when you're making love. 

But the fact of the matter is we are sexual all the time, and this bifurcation of, you know, being gay versus acting on it just seems to me ludicrous at best and cruel at worst.

Indeed.  But here we are, again, with one last holdout.  Bishop Love has drawn a line in the sand, to the dismay of some, but not all, of his flock.  He stands defiant, waiting to see what will happen.  Bishops in neighboring Dioceses offer support to those affected. Presiding Bishop Michael Curry writes that he is considering the implications, and reminds us

As members of the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12), we also are committed to respecting the conscience of those who hold opinions that differ from the official policy of The Episcopal Church regarding the sacrament of marriage. It should be noted that the canons of The Episcopal Church give authority to all members of the clergy to decline to officiate a marriage for reasons of conscience, and Resolution B012 of the 79th General Convention does not change this fact. 

Indeed it is Bishop Love who does not respect the conscience of those who disagree.

PB Curry also says, “In all matters, those of us who have taken vows to obey the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church must act in ways that reflect and uphold the discernment and decisions of the General Convention of the Church.”


Discussions on the Episcopal Cafe suggest that due to differences in New York state law, we aren't going to see an attempt to walk away with the whole Diocese a la Mark Lawrence in South Carolina.  It appears that Bishop Love wants to martyr himself on Title IV, which will bring scandal and bad press on the church he presumes to love.  He should do the honorable thing, and resign.  But I'm betting he wants to be a martyr to the Big Bad Gay Agenda.

The Most Dangerous Catholic Priest

I don't know if you follow Roman Catholic news much these days, but it is fascinating to see the same kinds of cultural divisions and battles occur in the American RC church as in our culture at large, particularly the vehemence of the hard right.  They are united in loathing the more merciful style of Pope Francis, after the hard culture warrior years of JPII and Benedict.

But their current bugbear is a thoughtful Jesuit named Fr James Martin.

And every time he is invited to speak somewhere, the hard right Catholics roll out the hate calls and hate mail, to try to silence him. Sadly it works, more often than not.  (Interesting irony that these people are probably the same ones complaining that conservatives are silenced on college campuses.)

Frank Bruni tells us more:

What’s Father Martin’s unconscionable sin? In his most recent book, “Building a Bridge,” which was published in June, he calls on Catholics to show L.G.B.T. people more respect and compassion than many of them have demonstrated in the past. 

That’s all. That’s it. He doesn’t say that the church should bless gay marriage or gay adoption. He doesn’t explicitly reject church teaching, which prescribes chastity for gay men and lesbians, though he questions the language — “intrinsically disordered” — with which it describes homosexuality.

Think about it. Simply asking people to be kinder is enough for this guy to be attacked and accused.

San Diego's RC Bishop Robert McElroy isn't having it.  Writing in  America, he says

[A]longside .... legitimate and substantive criticism of Father Martin’s book, there has arisen both in Catholic journals and on social media a campaign to vilify Father Martin, to distort his work, to label him heterodox, to assassinate his personal character and to annihilate both the ideas and the dialogue that he has initiated.

This campaign of distortion must be challenged and exposed for what it is—not primarily for Father Martin’s sake but because this cancer of vilification is seeping into the institutional life of the church....The coordinated attack on Building a Bridge must be a wake-up call for the Catholic community to look inward and purge itself of bigotry against the L.G.B.T. community. If we do not, we will build a gulf between the church and L.G.B.T. men and women and their families. Even more important, we will build an increasing gulf between the church and our God.

McElroy, like Cardinal Cupich in Chicago, is decidedly a "Francis Bishop": open to voices and relationship.  Since being appointed, he has made a point of reaching out to many communities, which is wonderfully ironic, given that the evils of proposition 8 (the anti-marriage equality campaign in California in 2008) was largely driven by a previous San Diego Bishop, now Archbishop of San Francisco Salvatore Cordileone.  I suspect Abp Cordileone won't be getting a red cardinal's hat from Pope Francis.  Wouldn't it be delicious if McElroy did?

But the sad fact is that the hard right Catholics, like their Evangelical brethren, think that any kindness to LGBT people is evil.  They truly hate us.

Meanwhile, Down Under

Australia is one of the last of the major Western nations to grapple with marriage equality. After endless to-ing and fro-ing, they settled on have a non-binding postal referendum, asking the people yes or no. Only then will Parliament bring marriage equality up for discussion.

As you might imagine, there has been a lot of the usual stuff, with conservative religious figures barking for a "No" vote and a diverse and apparent majority going for "Yes". This isn't going to be as tear-jerking as the Irish referendum, but the pundits are predicting "Yes" will win.

But as with Prop 8 here in California, there has been a substantial amount of abuse from those of faith, including a A$1 million donation from the conservative Anglican Diocese of Sydney.  More on the fight  detailed here:

Sin and damnation have figured little in the arguments of the last months. The deliberate strategy of the no campaigners has been to muffle their profound hostility to the LGBTQI whose lives are in question here.

It’s only a gambit. Nothing has changed. In the eyes of these warriors, my lot are still bound for hell. They just don’t want to say so right now.

Fortunately, they don't seem to be winning.

The polls in Australia are unequivocal: Christians strongly support equal marriage.

But in August, Shelton brought a dozen faiths and factions of faiths together in the Coalition for Marriage to fight reform. They were an odd bunch from very different traditions with not much in common but this: a deep commitment to the old hatred of homosexuality.

It’s always been a great ecumenical cause.

The real question is, of course, what role to these rump Christian conservatives see for faithful LGBT people?  Considering the Anglicans, the author submits

Forget marriage. Sydney Anglicans are talking no sex for life. “For many, this is a struggle and a frustration. It is one of the many painful consequences of living in a broken and fallen world … ”

Is that bigotry, hatred or simply cruel?

It’s certainly the most fundamental argument of the clerical opponents of equal marriage. All of them come to the same point: no sex ever for gays and lesbians. In a truthful contest that demand should have been a prime focus of debate.

As for the Roman Catholics, the author ponders,

Catholics are directed to accept homosexuals “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” 

So what just discrimination does the church wants to exercise? We asked the archbishop for a brief list. Again we were disappointed. No reply. Surely they have a list somewhere? It seems Australians will be told what freedoms the rest of us are expected to give up for the church only when the votes have been counted.

The referendum concludes on Nov 7. Let us hope for a resounding "YES!"

Why now?

In the relentless onslaught of bad news, North Korean Nukes, assaults on DACA children, one hurricane come ashore and another on its way, now is the time a group of Evangelicals (who claim that they are "Christian") have chosen to release a statement to affirm that LGBT people are icky, and to add that anyone who supports LGBT people's rights can't be "Christian".  Because apparently, this small group of Evangelicals are gatekeepers to Christianity.  And hatin' on the homos is raised to the level of doctrine in this "Nashville Statement".

There have been robust pushbacks from a variety of geographical locations, as more liberal Christians stand up to this.  OF course, the media mostly ignores them, because we all know that the <20% of Americans who identify as Evangelical Christians get to define Christianity for everyone else.  It's a bit like letting ISIS choose who is Muslim.

Writer and pastor John Pavlovitz has had enough.  He translates what the Nashville Statement is really saying.

Evangelical Christians are at the precipice of extinction—and we know it. We are a profoundly endangered species coming to grips with the urgency of the moment, of our impending disappearance, of the whole thing going sideways here in the Bible Belt—and we’re in a bit of a panic. ... we forgot that people aren’t stupid, and they see the disconnect between the President and the Jesus we’re trying to simultaneously claiming allegiance to—and we desperately need a distraction to muddy the waters; we need an easy battle to regain the credibility we’ve forfeited as we’ve sold off our souls and built our personal empires.   

...We’ve chosen to wage cheap war on innocent and vulnerable people in order to feel mighty again. We’ve done this because regardless of all our lip service about love and Grace and compassion—we really just like to pick fights that give us that intoxicating rush of superiority and a small dose of the control that we’ve grown addicted to.  ...   

We’ve made this “statement”, because those still listening to our message, aren’t interested in loving their neighbors as themselves, or caring for the least, or being the merciful Samaritan, or welcoming the outsider or washing people’s feet (or any of that annoying Jesus stuff). They just want an enemy to wage war with. 

Remember, there are pathways to roll back the hard-won progress of LGBT community.  And these people will be cheering all the way, and claim it is CHRISTIAN.  You'll know they are Christians, by their love.

Enforcing Norms

We're in a strange place now, where the norms of good behavior, decency, and mercy seem to be broken. Our president lies with abandon, the GOP doesn't pretend to be interested in anything but tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and the internet is full of trolling, flamewars, and promises of violence.

How does a group enforce its norms and values?  The clearest way is by shunning those who break the norms.  The Republican party is particularly good at this, which is why it's striking when their members don't all vote in lockstep.  (Democratic votes, in contrast, are more like herding cats).

The Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianists are also quite good at this.  As I described in the previous post, the latest example of this was the attack on the elderly writer Eugene Peterson who dared mention that he just might support LGBT people and equal marriage.  Peterson has backtracked and apologized.

Fred Clark writes,

The thing about such apologies is they never work. And also that they’re not really apologies. An apology involves the admission of wrongdoing, along with the offer to correct the wrong, thereby rehabilitating the status of the wrongdoer. But these apologies are not about rehabilitating the “wrongdoer,” only about reaffirming the authority of the gatekeepers. That is their function.

... Battering them into an apology made examples out of them, and that is what they become, henceforth — living examples of what happens when you dare to buck the Powers That Be.

 And he says something interesting, about some former Evangelicals who didn't retract, pointing out Jen Hatmaker and Rachel Held Evans. 

It’s no coincidence that the clearest examples of “those who won’t be beaten into submission” turn out to be women. As women, Hatmaker and Evans were never permitted access to the kind of influence or power or livelihood that the patriarchal white evangelical establishment controls. To their great credit, neither of them ever really sought that kind of role. There’s a sense in which the levers of power the evangelical establishment uses to keep others in line don’t work quite the same way when they’re employed against those who were never allowed to get in line to begin with. ... 

Such resisters also demonstrate a fundamental weakness in the scorched-earth ultimatums employed by the gatekeepers. “Apologize and get back in line,” the gatekeepers demand, “or be cast outside the gates.” That’s not a bluff, exactly, but it turns out there’s a big, beautiful world outside of those gates.  

Sadly, Eugene Petereson wasn't brave enough to stand up to the bullies and venture into that new world.

And the members of the GOP who are decent and thoughtful aren't brave enough to stand up to their bullies, either.

Marriage under attack

Unfathomably, the Texas Supreme Court has decided that just because obergefell finds that gay people can marry each other, they aren't necessarily entitled to the same BENEFITS as straight people.

"The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages,” according to Justice Jeffrey Boyd’s opinion, “but it did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”

The case comes from whether or not Houston should give its employees equal benefits regardless of whether they are in a same-sex or opposite-sex marriage.  But two men claim that as taxpayers, they shouldn't have to "subsidize" marriages they view as obscene.

Honestly, it's no wonder the fastest growing religious group in this country is the "nones", with this sort of bile being spewed by so-called "Christians".

To be fair, the court just turfed the issue back down to a lower court.   They didn't elminate benefits.  But it shouldn't remain a question, surely, and seems clear that they should have trounced it once and for all.

Of course, now that we have Neil Gorsuch on the SCOTUS, the federal appeal to this may not be a slam dunk.  Lots of people claimed he was a good guy, that he wasn't opposed to LGBT rights.

Yeah, not so much.

On Monday, Gorsuch indicated that he opposes equal rights for same-sex couples, dissenting from a ruling that requires states to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. (Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined his dissent.) That, alone, is startling: In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court held that the Constitution compels states to grant same-sex couples “the constellation” of “rights, benefits, and responsibilities” that “the states have linked to marriage,” including “birth and death certificates.” Obergefell, then, already settled this issue. Gorsuch’s dissent suggests he may not accept Obergefell as settled law and may instead seek to undermine or reverse it.

Apparently, the FACT that over 60% of Americans support marriage equality means nothing, when there's a vile group of so called Christians able to attack our rights.  Funny, first they attacked us because we were a minority, and now that support is in the majority, they attack us because of that.

How is it that a minority of Christians who identify with this stuff are still winning legal battles in their intent to do me harm?

Religious Hate

Two pieces to point out to you today.  The first comes from Mississippi, where an elderly man died in 2016.  The funeral home reneged on taking care of his corpse, because they discovered that (gasp!) he was gay! and married!   While they aren't saying anything, I would bet that they claim that burying a gay man is an invasion of their religious liberty to hate gay people.



Hot on the heels of that report comes news that the president is planning to sign his long-planned "religious freedom" bill.  This would give wide latitude to discriminate on the grounds of religious liberty.  This is way beyond baking cakes for a same sex marriage.  This is....well, this is about refusing to bury a man because he is gay.  Or even refusing him medical care.

President Donald Trump has invited conservative leaders to the White House on Thursday for what they expect will be the ceremonial signing of a long-awaited—and highly controversial—executive order on religious liberty, according to multiple people familiar with the situation. 

Two senior administration officials confirmed the plan, though one cautioned that it hasn’t yet been finalized, and noted that lawyers are currently reviewing and fine-tuning the draft language. Thursday is the National Day of Prayer, and the White House was already planning to celebrate the occasion with faith leaders....

The new draft is being tightly held, but one influential conservative who saw the text said it hasn’t been dialed back much—if at all—since the February leak. “The language is very, very strong,” the source said.

 Back in February, Sarah Posner broke the details. The order at the time

construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act.

Basically, it establishes conservative Christianity as a uniquely protected faith and uniquely disadvantages LGBT people and women.    It is widely reported that Ivanka and Jared Kushner managed to head the previous iteration off at the pass, but apparently that victory was fleeting.

We'll see what the new order brings, but I'm ready to march yet again.  You'll know they are "Conservative Christians" by their hate.  Is there any wonder nfewer and fewer people want to be called "Christian"?

The fallacy at the heart of the "Benedict Option"

As we have discussed before, conservative columnist Rod Dreher has proposed "The Benedict Option", whereby conservative Christians withdraw as they can from society, mainly because of LGBT people. Indeed, Dreher refers to LGBT rights (and same sex marriage) as “LGBT activism [as] the tip of the spear at our throats in the culture war.”

Which apart from its appalling hyperbole, will be news to the many faithful gay Christians I know.  Further, I have got news for Rod Dreher.  When it comes to marriage and the integrity thereof, let alone sexual morals, I am pretty darned conservative.  The difference is that I recognize that others may not share my particular view of morality.  My morality does not depend upon theirs, nor do I seek to impose mine upon them.

But I digress. Dresser has now written a book about this, called The Benedict Option which is getting some attention.

Over at the NY Times, David Brooks comments,

Maybe if I shared Rod’s views on L.G.B.T. issues, I would see the level of threat and darkness he does. But I don’t see it. Over the course of history, American culture has tolerated slavery, sexual brutalism and the genocide of the Native Americans, and now we’re supposed to see 2017 as the year the Dark Ages descended?

But Dreher thinks that Brooks has missed his point.

the thrust of the book is not about persecution, but about the loss of Christianity. It’s not a book about how to resist Robespierre as much as it is a book about how to keep your kids and your church from turning into Rachel Held Evans, which would be a precursor to losing the faith entirely.

Ouch. Rachel Held Evans is a prominent former-evangelical-now-Episcopalian liberal Christian. Don't you just hear the love in Dreher's snark?  He doesn't consider liberal Christians to be Christians at all.

The site Women in Theology brings up a certain...shall we say, inconsistency in Dreher's end-times views. 

...in attempting to prove that orthodox Christians are not obsessed with LGBT people, Dreher ends up admitting that orthodox Christians are in fact obsessed with LGBT people. Dreher’s analogy would exonerate orthodox Christianity of any special anti-gay bias if it conformed to the facts. In truth, however, the legalization and cultural acceptance of divorce long preceded any substantive gains made by the LGBT rights movement. Following the logic of Dreher’s analogy, LGBT rights would seem to be the caboose on the freight train steam-rolling orthodox Christian liberty, not its engine.
Yet as Dreher’s own writing attests, orthodox Christians only recently began fearing a future in which they were treated like racists. 

To Progressives, this seems like an unfair double-standard. One wonders why orthodox Christian entrepreneurs yearn for the right to fire only LGBT employees and not also divorced and re-married ones? Why do orthodox Christians assert the right to decline service to LGBT customers but not divorced and remarried ones? Why do orthodox Christians fear that priests will be forced to preside over marriages between LGBT people but not divorced ones? ... 

This discrepancy does not reflect LGBT people’s status as the first line of attack. If traditional marriage refers to a union that is not just heterosexual, but lifelong, then orthodox Christians should have been sounding the retreat eighty years ago. But they did not."

And isn't that the crux of the issue?  The conservatives want the right to deny LGBT people not only wedding cakes, but public services, in the name of religious freedom.  Yet, somehow, these denials are uniquely applied to LGBT people, and not to others of whom the faith might disapprove.

Let us (again) consider the issue of divorce in the Roman Catholic church.  The church is opposed to remarriage following divorce in church.  It denies Holy Matrimony to second marriages of this sort if they lack an annulment (as most do).  Pope Francis is in hot water with conservatives for even suggesting some mercy in offering Communion to the remarried.  But Catholics in the civil polis do not attempt to deny civil marriage to the previously married.  They do not deny them goods and services, ranging from baking cakes to renting them hotel rooms.

Somehow, then, the LGBT folks are particularly tainted.  And therein lies their hypocrisy of religious freedom, for if it were about that, they would be consistent about all sins.  No, this is about the "ick" factor-- the revulsion against LGBT people.

Women in Theology also writes,

LGBT people perhaps understand orthodox Christians’ fears even better than they do: the reality that LGBT people have already lived in fact proves much worse than the future Dreher fears. In addition to being fired, ridiculed, and hunted by state agents, LGBT people continue to endure evils that do not appear even in Dreher’s worst nightmares such as being beaten and killed, ostracized from and even kicked out of their families of origin, denied housing, unable to visit sick partners in hospitals, and disinherited. ....

I want this same protection and acceptance for orthodox Christians like Dreher, should they become an endangered minority. I do not want orthodox Christians to experience any of the injustices inflicted upon LGBT people. ....

Will orthodox Christians like Dreher pledge to do for LGBT people of all religious backgrounds what I have pledged to do for orthodox Christians?

News from the C of E: Bishop comes out

As you may know, our friends across the Pond are having a bit of a wrestle about Teh Gayz.  Although marriage equality is the law of the land, the Church of England (which is established by the State) has managed to get legislation that actually prevents them from recognizing, performing, or participating in same sex marriages, and that inoculates them against accusations of bias for this. Priests and bishops are "allowed" to be gay as long as they are celibate, and under no circumstances can they marry a same sex partner. 

There have been a few cases where priests have married, and been fired, or lost their licenses.  I understand that a letter is forthcoming where a number of gay priests will out themselves as being married.

And, in a reflection of the schism that happened here, some conservatives have started making plans for a shadow synod, a possible break away. That would suggest they know they are going to lose.

Perhaps their fear was inspired by a comment from  Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby (my emphasis)

Welby talked of an "incredible clash that is so important to so many people and goes to the heart of the identity of so many people". He added: "There isn't a simple solution... I haven't got a good answer." To applause, he said "I am constantly consumed with horror" at the way in which the Church has treated the gay community.

But the big news today,  the first C of E Bishop has outed himself, before he was outed by a journalist.

The bishop of Grantham has become the first Church of England bishop to publicly declare that he is gay and in a relationship. In a move that will be embraced by campaigners for equality but is likely to alarm conservatives who fear the church is moving away from traditional teachings, Nicholas Chamberlain said there had been no secret about his long-term – albeit celibate – relationship with his partner. ...

Chamberlain was consecrated last November, and all those involved in his appointment – including Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury – were aware of his personal situation. ...

Chamberlain said he adhered to church guidelines, under which gay clergy must be celibate and are not permitted to marry. In the appointments process, “We explored what it would mean for me as a bishop to be living within those guidelines,” he said.

The celibacy thing allows people to pretend that a gay man isn't actually gay.   But relationships are about much more than sex.  And, as  Bishop Gene Robinson has said, when this celibacy policy in the C of E was first promulgated,

I have to tell you this infuriates me and disappoints me. Let me try to say why. I don't care whether any couple, gay or straight, has sexual intimacy or not. That's not my business. That's their business. But to require someone to give up this piece of one's life, which is so central to who each of us is as a human being, just seems, it seems cruel, and it also, it bespeaks something that I think is not talked about enough around the issue of gay sexuality, which is that gay is not something you do, it's something we are.... 

I laughingly will say to a more conservative audience, you know, OK, so if it's OK to be gay but not act on it, could two men live together? Could we sleep in the same bedroom if we slept in twin beds?

Well, could we sleep in the same bed if we didn't touch each other? Well, could we touch each other as long as we only held hands? I mean, at what point, at what point is it gay? Do you know what I mean? It just doesn't make any sense. And it comes out of what I think is a very male understanding of sexuality, which is you're only being sexual when you're making love.  

But the fact of the matter is we are sexual all the time, and this bifurcation of, you know, being gay versus acting on it just seems to me ludicrous at best and cruel at worst.

Meanwhile, expect heads to start exploding in the C of E in any minute....

#WeAreOrlando

Words fail in response to the horror of the shooting in Orlando where 49 young people were murdered because a madman was angered when he saw two men kiss.

Our "crime" is to love, so we will love, and defeat hatred by our love.  We will teach love. We will not be afraid.

And still we rise.

Purge,denunciation, witch hunt

We have long noted the purges of gay teachers,  musicians, and others who work in Catholic schools or in lay positions, for breaking the Roman Catholic "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and getting married or otherwise coming out.  While it is the right of the church to do this, it is extremely distasteful.

But now it has moved from purge to witch hunt. New Ways Ministry, a pro-gay Catholic ministry, reports:

A Catholic Relief Services (CRS) employee has resigned amid controversy over his same-gender marriage.

Estridge is not a Catholic, and his job did not involve decisions which affected mission, so church affiliation and faith were not a requirement for his employment.

....Estridge’s resignation comes as the result of a vicious witch hunt launched by an anti-LGBT Catholic individual. The release of Estridge’s marriage license, including personal information like his home address, was [an]  intentional act .... he admits he targeted Estridge because he believes only Catholics in conformity with a strict interpretation of the faith should be working for the church. 

...Because this case was resolved by a gay employee losing his job, this type of resolution may ultimately encourage right wing activists’ targeting of LGBT church workers — a dangerous precedent as marriage equality could very well become national law later this month because of the anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Indeed, many of the other cases have come become someone has  denounced the employees, but this is even beyond that. Extremist anti-gay conservative Catholics are relentless in their attacks.  (Indeed if you read the comments of online Catholic media, the anti-gay remarks will curl your hair).   But then, the vehemence is not surprising, given  the like of Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco hysterically calling Caitlyn Jenner's transition "a reversion to the paganism of old, but with unique, postmodern variations on its themes, such as the practice of child sacrifice, the worship of feminine deities or the cult of priestesses."

The  goal of the extremists is to attack and harm LGBT people, driving them from their jobs and community. These  actions are hardly Christ-like, are they?

I'm looking at you, Orlando

Most of the time here we are pretty happy with the direction of the Episcopal Church. Oh yeah, there are still issues (hello, women bishops, where are you? and what the heck is going on at General Theological Seminary?) Like any human institutions TEC can have a tin ear and a lead foot, too regularly. But frail and fallible as it is, things have been going mostly in the right direction.

But social media is doing a face palm over a facebook post by a man in Orlando whose infant son was scheduled for baptism in the Cathedral in Orlando, only to be called 3 days before and told, er, no.

The Dean shared there were members of the congregation who opposed Jack’s baptism and although he hoped to resolve the conflict, he was not yet able to (the Bishop of Central Florida, Greg Brewer, was also involved). After probing further the Dean said “the issue is with you and Eric being the first two men who will baptize their child at the Cathedral.” He offered his apologies and further explained this was a bigger deal because of the exposure that comes along with the baptism taking place at the Cathedral. In essence “this is not no forever, just not now.” Three days before our son was to be baptized he was turned away. At that moment, he was unwelcomed by the church, and denied his rite to be recognized as a Christian. I was speechless, angry, and heartbroken.

ExCUSE me? "members of the congregation" oppose baptism of an infant? Because, why, exactly? Go on, we're waiting.

And the Dean caved? We don't know more than that, but I'm sure we are all cynics enough to think the protestors have a large checkbook. I hope the Cathedral Deans I've known would have told the complainers to get over their fat selves and proceeded on schedule with the service. In fact I know  they would have.

The original poster behaves in a far more Christian way than many of us would. Later word is that the Bishop says he did NOT block the baptism and is seeking a way forward.

But this is a shameful act that shows TEC has yet to attain the position it claims to have reached.  Listen, when you say all are welcome, well, all means ALL.

A Higher Law? Not so much.

Mike Huckabee and other professional conservatives who are upset about marriage equality (and the 60% of Americans who support it) are trying to arrogate unto themselves the mantle of civil rights and Martin Luther King.  They are calling for civil disobedience to resist marriage equality (even as they struggle to articulate how my marriage affects them in any way all).

Ed Kilgore nails it:

In claiming to emulate King's prophetic stance, people like Huck and the other signatories of yesterday's Pledge of Solidarity to Defend Marriage are engaging in a huge act of bad faith. They are not pointing to a constitutional anomaly, but are instead arguing for a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution that sneaks in conceptions of divine and natural law that happen to justify their particular policies. They are not appealing to the consciences of the majority, but claiming those are irrelevant. And most of all, it's insanely laughable that they imagine themselves as self-sacrificing heroes like those of the civil rights movement; they struggle constantly to come up with a single way in which same-sex marriage actually affects them.

Beyond the phony civil rights parallels, what's most annoying about the new "religious liberty" line is that it purports to represent a defense of freedom of conscience when it is actually an assertion that the "higher law" should trump the civil law for all of us.....

"Higher law" appeals are perverse coming from someone running for President of the United States. If Huck wants to stand in the courthouse door and defy a Supreme Court decision declaring marriage equality a constitutional right, he should let his freak flag fly and suffer the legal consequences of following his conscience. Using such arguments to troll for the votes of people upset by social change isn't in the spirit of Martin Luther King, but is entirely consistent with the thinking and behavior of the scofflaws on the other side of the firehoses at Selma claiming a God-given inalienable right to discriminate.

Now, we wait

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard the marriage equality cases from the 6th circuit, which will determine whether or not marriage is legalized across the country, by what means, and potentially whether LGBT people qualify for heightened scrutiny and greater protection from discrimination.

Most people think we will get some form of marriage equality, but it may be found on narrow grounds.  We are hoping for 5-4, but it might be 6-3.  There is no way that we can get Alito, Thomas, or Scalia, all conservative Catholics.

If the court found against equality, there would be chaos as bans were re-instated, and potentially, marriages annulled.

We went through that worry as we waited, after the passage of Prop8, as the first court case played out in California and the pro-H8 side argued that the 18,000 marriages that occured in that brief window should be annulled.  It was a like a kick in the stomach.

Even though our marriage is safe now, it is still a degrading feeling to be talked about and argued about. We are people, with a real life and a real marriage, not a theoretical construct.  And as the opponents of equality lose, they become more shrill and hate-filled against LGBT people.

And in this time of hope, we are still afraid.

The culture war and cultural dominance

The hysterical desire of some of the religious right to oppose recognition of LGBT people is beyond crazy.  In Alabama, the state Supreme Court is arguing that the Federal Constitution does not apply, so even though a federal district court found marriage bans illegal, they refuse to comply.  In Oklahoma,  a GOP lawmaker argues that "gay people don't have the right to be served in every specific store."

If Silk’s bill becomes law, it would mean businesses and individuals denying services to gay people, whom he considers unworthy of equal protection under the law.

Meanwhile, over 300 Republicans who "get it" have filed a pro-equality amicus brief with the Supreme Court.

“Although amici hold a broad spectrum of socially and politically conservative, moderate, and libertarian views, amici share the view that laws that bar same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage, with all its attendant profoundly important rights and responsibilities, are inconsistent with the United States Constitution’s dual promises of equal protection and due process,” the brief states.

GOPlifer  places this in a culture-shift context

When same sex marriage is finally settled law in this country, religious people will remain free to hold their beliefs about the sinfulness of gay couples. They will lose their ability to use those beliefs to constrain the basic Civil Rights of other people. We all have a right to our religious beliefs. No one has a right to legislate their religious beliefs.

This isn’t a dispute about religious freedom. This is a dispute about cultural supremacy. That’s why the last, most bitter holdouts against gay marriage are the same institutions, people and states who were the last bitter holdouts against the Civil Rights movement.

Gay marriage is likely to destroy something, but it’s not marriage. The fight over gay marriage is going to severely damage the lingering cultural supremacy once enjoyed by white Protestants.

We are on the cusp of experiencing real pluralism for the first time in the country. That’s why same sex marriage matters and that’s why the battle lines are drawn across the same boundaries as in the Civil Rights movement.

It's the fear of losing privilege.  It always is.

Pope Francis is no friend

I admit to being bemused at the response of LGBT people to Pope Francis.  Yes, he has attempted to reduce the focus on "pelvic issues" in the Roman Catholic church, with a renewed and welcome focus on the poor.  He has challenged the deeply political Vatican culture.  But he has NOT changed, nor is he likely to change, anything about how the Church views women or LGBT people.

There was a brief moment in the recent Synod on the Family where we all thought there might be at least a smidgeon of recognition that LGBT people are not unremittingly evil.  But that was hastily walked back in the final documents, amidst a conservative uproar.

And now, as if to polish his anti-equality bona fides, the Vatican is sponsoring an ecumenical conference on men and women, where the invitation list is straight out of the US culture wars, with a seasoning of African advocates for criminalizing LGBT people.

And rather than being about men and women, it's all about Teh Gayz. Jeremy Hooper (a married gay man) tells us that the Pope's full-throated speech about straight marriage uber alles thrilled the anti-gay activists. They also loved the speech of the Nigerian Archbishop (Anglican) who advocates for criminalization.

He concludes,

All will tell you that the aim is to "strengthen" marriage and families, yet every speaker pushes an ideal, from softer-toned to Archbishop Okoh, that tells the world my marriage and my family are a threat. There is no room for discussion. There is no consideration that perhaps my own monogamous union of twelve-years-going on-life, with one beloved child for whom and I my husband would instinctively lay down our own lives, is actually part of the strength that they seek. The preconceived thesis is that my marriage, no matter how productively and peacefully lived, is at war with what they are trying to do. And by inviting the types of activists that they have invited, it's clear that the Vatican is eager to disseminate this view into the public policy arena

As Fr Geoff Farrow warns, this is well-choreographed theatre.

The long term goal is to reverse gains made by LGBT people and subordinate them once again. It is to reestablish the Catholic Church as the final authority in morality, with power to translate those morals into legislation in civil governments.

And they slowly, inexorably move to that goal.  See, for example, a recent lawsuit with the claim that religious freedom means that Roman Catholics are exempt from even being sued in court. No court has jurisdiction.  Because religious freedom  means they make their own law.

No, the Catholic church has not changed.    Pope Francis is just a kinder, gentler face on the same views and doctrine that consider us "objectively disordered", and oriented toward "intrinsic moral evil".   They are playing a very long game.  And their goal is to disenfranchise, even criminalize LGBT people, eliminate our legal rights, and destroy our relationships.

Fortunately, the institutional Roman Catholic Church does not speak for the Catholic laity, who remain strongly supportive. Maybe because they know and love their gay children, parents, family, and co-workers well enough to ignore the hot air from the culture warriors.

The polarizing effects of Pope Francis

In the aftermath of the recent Roman Catholic Synod on the Family, a fault line has been exposed between traditionalists who favor discipline, no matter the suffering, and pastoralists who favor mercy, no matter the sin.  In particular, the questions are whether the divorced/remarried can be more gently treated (or even welcomed back to Communion), and the proper response to LGBT people.  The traditionalists narrowly "won", but there is clearly concern.

Conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote a piece in the NY Times that threatened schism if Pope Francis doesn't hold the line against the divorced.

The Catholic Church was willing to lose the kingdom of England, and by extension the entire English-speaking world, over the principle that when a first marriage is valid a second is adulterous, a position rooted in the specific words of Jesus of Nazareth. To change on that issue, no matter how it was couched, would not be development; it would be contradiction andreversal. 

SUCH a reversal would put the church on the brink of a precipice. Of course it would be welcomed by some progressive Catholics and hailed by the secular press. But it would leave many of the church’s bishops and theologians in an untenable position, and it would sow confusion among the church’s orthodox adherents — encouraging doubt and defections, apocalypticism and paranoia (remember there is another pope still living!) and eventually even a real schism. 

Interestingly, he claims that even if a minority, the pure minded traditionalists somehow count more than everyone else.

Those adherents are, yes, a minority — sometimes a small minority — among self-identified Catholics in the West. But they are the people who have done the most to keep the church vital in an age of institutional decline: who have given their energy and time and money in an era when the church is stained by scandal, who have struggled to raise families and live up to demanding teachings, who have joined the priesthood and religious life in an age when those vocations are not honored as they once were. They have kept the faith amid moral betrayals by their leaders; they do not deserve a theological betrayal.

Fr John O'Malley writing in America Magazine scolds Douthat.

What is being said here? I think we can assume that change, if it comes, would come from the synod, a body of duly ordained bishops at a meeting duly convoked by a duly elected pope. It is a body, moreover, that has at its disposal the full range of Catholic theologians and theological opinion on a world-wide basis. I think we can assume that, influential though the reigning pope always is in such situations, Francis neither wants to nor is able to force his agenda (whatever that might be!) on the members of the synod. I say that in the face of Mr. Douthat’s insinuations to the contrary about Francis. 

While the synod is in session as a body of bishops working collegially with the pope to take measures for the good of the church, it is a binding and authoritative teaching organ in the church. Do not all orthodox Catholics believe that that authority is to be accepted over their own personal fears, expectations and hopes? 

Do not all orthodox Catholics believe that that authority is most certainly to be accepted over the objections of “a minority—sometimes a small minority,” as Mr. Douthat describes himself and his fellow-travelers? This minority self-identifies as orthodox and, it seems, potentially more orthodox than the synod. But it is a self-identification without credentials to validate the claim. 

Finally, what are we to make of this: “Remember there is another pope still living!”? “Another pope still living!” This sounds like a threat. Are Mr. Douthat and the like-minded Catholics for whom he speaks appealing to a pope more to their liking over a pope less to their liking? If so, the statement has a regrettable sinister ring. Or what? Let’s hope that Ross Douthat does not mean his reminder to be as schism-suggesting and radically un-Catholic as it sounds to my conservative ears.

Meanwhile, Fr Geoff Farrow, a priest who came out during the Prop 8 campaign, warns us against reading too much into Pope Francis.  Doctrine, he says, isn't changing--it is just wearing a kindlier mask.

The current Synod in Rome is part of the well-choreographed theater intended to bolster Francis’ popular image as a champion for a more tolerant acceptance of LGBT people and to give Catholicism a much needed pass on this issue. The long term goal is to reverse gains made by LGBT people and subordinate them once again. It is to reestablish the Catholic Church as the final authority in morality, with power to translate those morals into legislation in civil governments.

So what's a Catholic family with a gay child to do?  Fr Farrow makes a recommendation:

Join an Episcopal USA Church. Your child will be formed with the positive Christian values that you cherish, you will enjoy a far superior liturgy and more beautiful music. You will also be a member of a community that welcomes and esteems your child and does not merely tolerate him/her or impose impossible conditions (life long celibacy) on your child.

C'mon in, there's always room for another!

Something seismic from the Roman Catholic Synod

Writing in America Magazine, Jesuit Fr James Martin describes a "stunning change" from the Synod on the Family:

The Synod said that gay people have "gifts and talents to offer the Christian community." This is something that even a few years ago would have been unthinkable, from even the most open-minded of prelates--that is, a statement of outright praise for the contribution of gays and lesbians, with no caveat and no reflexive mention of sin. And, regarding same-sex partners, the Synod document declared, remarkably, "Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners." That any church document would praise same-sex "partners" in any way (and even use the word "partners") is astonishing.

The Synod also asks questions, challenging dioceses and parishes: "Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?"

This represents a revolutionary change in how the church addresses the LGBT community. Nowhere in the document are such terms as "intrinsically disordered," "objectively disordered," or even the idea of "disinterested friendships" among gays and lesbians, which was used just recently. The veteran Vaticanologist John Thavis rightly called the document an "earthquake."

Now, no LGBT couple is going to get married in the Roman Catholic church any time soon (and probably never). But it could be that the Synod is expressing some dismay at the effects of the culture war in rejecting civilly married gay Catholics from the pews, purging them from service roles, or rejecting the children of gay parents for Baptism and schooling. We can but hope.

A gay free zone? Religious liberty, the Republicans, and the Christian Right

The Republicans are in agood position.  They can point fingers at the Supreme Court, but thanks to SCOTUS, they can complain about marriage equality without actually dirtying their hands doing anything to stop it.

 Ed Kilgore has a perceptive piece in TPM Cafe on how they are playing this into a "dogwhistle" that nevertheless keeps the footsoldiers of the Evangelical Christians in the tent doing the work (and the voting).   And it's all about "religious liberty" and the gay-free zone that they want:

["Religious liberty"] even more effective than opposing “judicial activism,” because it borrows the aura of an almost universally valued American principle. And it’s less aggressively theocratic, as well, insofar as its proponents do not (at least in this context) propose to ban same-sex marriage (or to ban abortions or contraceptives), but simply to create a zone in which gay marriages don’t have to be recognized (and abortions and contraceptives provided or subsidized). 

So far, claims that same-sex marriages will threaten “religious liberty” have mostly emerged from conservative Christian quadrants of the wedding industry, and proponents of giving them broad exemptions from laws they don’t like haven’t made a lot of progress (though less formally, opposing gay rights on religious grounds has been a boon for businesses like Chick-Fil-A and for careers like Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson). But as the “religious liberty” movement continues to develop, you could see it morph into the theoretical foundation for a parallel society in which the painful diversity of contemporary life, and its disturbing clatter of demands for “equality” and “non-discrimination” and “rights” (other than religious rights and the Right To Life, of course) is simply excluded, along with “government schools” and secular news and entertainment. 

And this is the goal of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and others -- to have the legal right to live in a "gay free zone" where LGBT Americans are legitimately denied services, employment, or recognition as fellow Americans.