Blame for Prop 8

A memo from Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the America Way and herself "a mother who has raised two children in a 30-year relationship with another woman," rejects charges by some gay activists who are blaming black Californians for Prop 8's passage.

She says that responsibility for passage of the renewed denial of same-sex marriage rests not with African American voters, but with the Religious Right – and she calls for a forward-looking strategy.

Read her memo here >>

Here is one summary of exit poll reports on the Prop 8 vote, from CNN >>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PFLAG promises:

"[T]he broad coalition of Americans who support fundamental rights for everyone will continue to work towards a day when the dignity of every American is respected."

This is a note from Jody Huckaby of PFLAG (Parents Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) National:

November 6, 2008

Dear PFLAG Family & Friends,

Earlier today our allies in California confirmed that they believe voters have approved Proposition 8, a measure that rolls back marriage equality in the nation's most populous state.

While our families have encountered a heartbreaking obstacle on the road to full equality in California, the broad coalition of Americans who support fundamental rights for everyone will continue to work towards a day when the dignity of every American is respected. Families are defined by a love, and a commitment, that is beyond the barriers of a ballot. No struggle for equality is won easily, and great strides do not come without great strife. They also, however, require the great strength necessary to push forward in the wake of disappointment and persevere in the face of pain.

On Tuesday, millions of Californians stood with our families and valiantly tried to beat back a mean-spirited, un-American attack on LGBT people. While we fell short of the majority we needed to prevail, each time the public has addressed this issue, those who stand with us grow in number. A decade ago, it would have been unthinkable that so many people would have endorsed marriage equality at the ballot box. If we continue the critical work we began this year, it will be unthinkable, a decade from now, that anyone would not.

All of us at PFLAG remain committed to securing the rights our families and loved ones deserve. With a new Administration and new Congress in Washington, there are many reasons to believe that we will soon prevail. As Dr. King to eloquently reminded us, "[T]he arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." On Tuesday, millions of Californians tilted that arc a little bit closer to liberty, and we must now commit ourselves to finding the strength we need to finish the work they have begun.

Sincerely,

Jody M. Huckaby
PFLAG National Executive Director

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A new legal wrinkle: Legality of Same-Sex Marriage Ban Challenged     [11-12-08]

Ashley Surdin reports in The Washington Post: "The future of same-sex marriage in the Golden State will rest, once again, in the hands of its highest court. But this time, its fate will hinge on a different question: Can a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage go before voters? Or must it go before the legislature first?"   The full story >>

The New York Times (among many others) reports today:

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, reversing a lower court decision that had concluded that the civil unions legalized in the state three years ago had offered the same rights and benefits as marriage.

With the 4-to-3 ruling, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage. California legalized gay marriage in May 2008, and Massachusetts in 2004.

“Today is really a great day for equality in Connecticut,” said Bennett Klein, senior lawyer at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which argued the case before the Supreme Court. “Today’s decision really fulfills the hopes and dreams of gay and lesbian couples in Connecticut to live as full and equal citizens.”

More >>

Rev. Janet Edwards found not guilty, 0-9
[10-2-08]

Today at 2:40 PM, the Permanent Judicial Commission of Pittsburgh Presbytery presented their verdict in the case of Rev. Janet Edwards.

They found Rev. Edwards not guilty on both charges, by a margin of 0-9. A summary and quotations from their decision will follow shortly.

Edwards was accused of presiding over the marriage in 2005 of two women, Nancy McConn and Brenda Cole.  This was the second time these charges had been prosecuted against Rev. Edwards, the first occasion having ended based on procedural issues.

This morning, the prosecution's witness failed to appear, so both parties moved immediately to closing arguments.

The prosecution argued that Rev. Edwards performed a marriage, that she knew it was wrong, and that it was contrary to Scripture and the Constitution. The prosecutors suggested that if Rev. Edwards had wanted to perform a same-sex marriage, the proper approach would be an attempt to change the Book of Order.

The defense argued, mostly, that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate any of the points of their argument. No evidence was presented to confirm that Rev. Edwards actually performed the ceremony. (The burden of proof rests with the prosecution.) No argument was made as to how Rev. Edwards' actions violated either the Scriptures cited in the charges or a mandatory provision in the Constitution.

In addition, the defense observed that it is impossible to amend the Book of Order to change a mandatory provision, if no such mandatory provision exists.

Thanks to More Light Presbyterians, for the reports we're summarized above.

The Rev. Darcy Hawk, of Gibsonia, PA, and the treasurer of the Witherspoon Society, sent this comment soon after the PJC decision was announced.

Word has just come down that Rev. Janet Edwards was acquitted of all charges brought against her for conducting a ceremony uniting two women here in Pittsburgh. I was able to attend the trial yesterday but not the continuance this morning. Yesterday's witnesses for the defense were very good at articulating the plurality of opinions justified by the Bible, our Confessions, Reformed theology, and church polity. Most of the non-clergy I spoke with yesterday were amazed and relieved to find out just how much more freedom our tradition allows. We have been much bullied by "evangelicals" and fundamentalists in Western PA and I believe Rev. Edwards has succeeded in her efforts to make this trial a teaching moment.

More Light Presbyterians now has posted a summary of the decision.
 

Heather Reichgott, a seminary student in Berkeley, California, and a member of the board of More Light Presbyterians, was at the trial, and provides her own insightful commentary. She notes that this decision, like that in the most recent case of the Rev. Jane Spahr, is based in part on the inference from the Book of Order that a same-sex marriage is in fact not a marriage.  Much remains to be done.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A report from Presbyterian News Service adds details

[10-6-08]

Presbyterian News Service provided a report on October 3, the day after the Rev. Janet Edwards was exonerated of charges brought against her for presiding over the marriage in 2005 of two women.  The report provides some more details about the arguments in her defense, and offers comments from Ms. Edwards and others involved in the case.

The full report >>

The rollicking More Light Presbyterians dinner on Saturday, June 21, was climaxed by a wedding, to the surprise and delight of the large crowd.

Forty-three of the seventy-three Christian clergy from across the state of Maryland who have endorsed a "Statement on Equal Access to Marriage" gathered on Tuesday, 2/8/05, to release it publicly at a press conference. The seventy-three clergy are from eight Christian denominations: American Baptist Church, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Metropolitan Community Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, and the United Reform Catholic Church.

The American Psychological Association, meeting in Honolulu, has adopted a policy supporting gay marriage, and urging that gay unions be granted all the legal rights of straight couples. The new policy reflects growing research-based evidence the children raised by same-sex couples are as mentally healthy as those raised by straight parents.

Divisive legislation threatens independence of courts

Motivated by the failed Federal Marriage Amendment and growing discontent over the war in Iraq, House Republicans passed the Marriage Protection Act. By a vote of 233 to 194, the measure blocks federal courts -- including the US Supreme Court -- from being allowed to hear challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Virginia moves toward a major reversal of gay rights   [6-21-04]

Eugene Rogers, writing in The Christian Century, argues from within the tradition of the Orthodox Church that marriage "is not primarily for the control of lust or for procreation. It is a discipline whereby we give ourselves to another for the sake of growing in holiness--for, more precisely, the sake of God." And, he argues, if God's creative action is a clear affirmation of diversity [think mosquitoes and giraffes!] then diversity of sexual and familial relationships should also be affirmed and sanctified in marriage.

On Sunday, May 16^th, on the eve of the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, the Right Rev. Steven Charleston, Episcopal bishop and now President and Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, offered remarks at an interfaith celebration sponsored by the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry.

Titling his talk "Behold, I am doing a new thing," Charleston called the occasion a time for celebrating three things:

First, we celebrate a victory of freedom over oppression. We celebrate justice. The dawn of a new hope for justice for millions of people who have been denied equality before the law. ... Secondly, we have come to celebrate a victory of love over fear. We celebrate marriage. We honor the beauty, the dignity, the holiness of two human beings who make a life-long vow to love, cherish, and support one another. ... Finally, we come to celebrate a victory of human dignity over blind prejudice. We celebrate community. We celebrate a new unity -- not just between couples -- but between whole communities who have joined together to proclaim that we choose love, not hate; freedom, not fear; respect, not bigotry. Tonight is not just a celebration for gay, Lesbian, bi, or transgendered people, but for all people.

Dr. Joseph C. Hough, Jr., President of Union Theological Seminary in New York, has issued what he calls "A Personal (not Institutional) Statement on the Proposal for a Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment."   [3-30-04]

He argues that such a ban would be legally wrong (enshrining discrimination in the U.S. Constitution), morally wrong (lending support to those who hate some people simply because of who they are), and theologically wrong (because values such as commitment, hope, love and faithfulness should be affirmed for all couples).

Perhaps responding to recent statements by some African-American leaders denying any parallel between same-sex marriage and black civil rights concerns, Coretta Scott King spoke out for the first time on March 23 against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, saying that it is an important civil-rights issue.

For a report sympathetic to the opposition of the Congressional Black Caucus to the treatment of gay marriage as a civil rights issue, see a recent Washington Times report.

Californian accused of marrying a lesbian, then marrying two lesbians    [3-16-04]

This interesting list was published in Steve Lopez' column in a recent LA Times.

You might look at his earlier column on "In a Pinch, Wedded Bliss Is History."

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan who bore him a daughter 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced.

Senator Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced.

Governor John Engler of Michigan - divorced.

Governor Pete Wilson of California - divorced.

George Will - divorced.

Senator Lauch Faircloth - divorced.

Rush Limbaugh - and his current wife, Marta, have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Senator Bob Barr of Georgia - not yet 50 years old, has! been married three times. He had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr - WHICH marriage are you defending?!?)

Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced.

Senator John Warner of Virginia - once married to Liz Taylor.

Governor George Allen of Virginia - divorced.

Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced.

Senator John McCain of Arizona - divorced.

Representative John Kasich of Ohio - divorced.

Representative Susan Molinari of New York (Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker) -- divorced.

The bottom line (as noted by the one who forwarded this list) -
"Don't let gays destroy marriage - that's the job of the Republicans!"

[A note from your WebWeaver:  Let's be very clear that Republicans have no monopoly on marital problems.  We know that.  But there's some virtue in a decent and modest restraint in making claims for the "sacredness of marriage" and the dreadful "threat" being posed by same-sex unions.]

Affirms definition of marriage as a man-woman covenant     [3-16-04]

The New York Times, in an editorial on Sunday, March 7, offered a calm, reasoned look at the emerging changes in our nation's dealing with same-sex relationships through civil unions and marriage.

Pointing to the changes that have already taken place in our society, the editorial states:

"The controversy over same-sex weddings has obscured the remarkable transformation in opinion over civil unions. Less than 20 years ago, the United States Supreme Court enthusiastically upheld a Georgia law making gay sex a crime. Last year, the court reversed itself, and a national consensus seems to be forming that gay couples have a right to, at the least, enter into civil unions that carry the same rights as marriage. Even President Bush, who has endorsed a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, has suggested he had no problem with states' recognizing civil unions."

Here are some helpful resources that may provide material for your own thinking, and for discussions with others.

A little note of reassurance: Your WebWeaver is not suggesting anything to deny the dignity of our President, but reflecting our conviction as Christians - and maybe even as Americans - that election (if that's what it was) to high office does not convey a higher value on any person. We are all, as we say, equal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Washington Office director speaks against constitutional amendment defining marriage

[3-6-04]

The Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory, Director of the Presbyterian Washington Office, joined a number of people on March 3, 2004, speaking out prior to a Senate hearing on a possible constitutional amendment to define marriage. Among the other speakers was Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., who is a Presbyterian, and who spoke against the amendment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Earlier material follows below
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First, you may want to look at President Bush's announcement of his support for an amendment banning gay marriage, on February 24, 2004. This comes from the Presbyterian Washington Office, which provides a short prefatory note about Presbyterian policy on this matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Wedding Church and State"

Susan Jacoby writes about "Wedding Church and State," warning that the Bush approach to the marriage question seriously blurs the separation of church and state. She begins by quoting New England Baptist minister who, in 1773, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

She also cites a letter to Congress from Americans United for Separation of Church and State saying that the Bush-support "marriage amendment" would violate the First Amendment's establishment clause by giving the government's "greatest imprimatur" to religions that prohibit gay marriage -- while relegating to second-class status those religions that recognize same-sex marriage.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nothing Sacred

An article from The American Prospect points out (in case you've missed it) that Republicans warn that gay couples will undermine the sanctity of marriage -- unlike straight couples who, of course, show only respect for the institution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A resource list on legal issues

Paul Axel-Lute of the Rutgers Law Library has compiled a very helpful list of legal material, including the full text of the November, 2003, decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, legal documents from many states and other nations, law journal articles, and more.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Biblical Definition of Marriage

Charles Henderson, Presbyterian minister and host of the Christianity section of about.com, offers a really inclusive view of marriage as seen in the Bible. If that's what defines marriage, then it must include such Biblical requirements as

There's much more, too!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One man's experience

Bill Moss, co-moderator of More Light Presbyterians, was married on Saturday, February 14 (!!) at San Francisco's City Hall, to his partner of 13 years, Chris.

He writes:

"... It was a beautiful sunny day. We ended up standing in line outside of City Hall about 3 ½ hours before we made it through the doors of City Hall and into another line to get our marriage license from the Clerk's office (another hour). Once we had our license in hand we headed to the fourth floor where the marriages were being conducted. We ended up going to the Board of Supervisors' chambers on the second floor with another gay couple to married by openly gay Supervisor Bevan Dufty. It was very moving as we held hands and exchanged our vows affirming a commitment we had made to each other years ago.

Chris and I have been together for more than 13 years. Although we are registered Domestic Partners with the state, I've always viewed that as a token recognition of our relationship. Finally, we were able to have our relationship honored and recognized as any other couple in the state of California. Who knows what will ultimately happen to the almost 3,000 gay marriages that have taken place in San Francisco this past week. We felt that it was important to claim this civil right and to stand up amidst the anti-gay rhetoric coming from the White House and state houses from across the country to demonstrate the importance of equality and affirming love rather than hate.

Bill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you have comments on the pros and cons of same-sex marriage? Do you know of other helpful resources?

Please send a note, so we can share them here!

"GAY MARRIAGE" (more precisely, "GLBT MARRIAGE") OR "CIVIL UNIONS"?
[12-29-03]

It appears that our Issues Analyst, Gene TeSelle, has never met an issue he didn't at least like to think about. Here are two reflections, one on an issue - same-sex marriage - that is of direct concern to the PC(USA), the other - legislative redistricting in Texas and Colorado - an issue that is a matter of "good citizenship" for all of us.

He offers these points with the hope they will generate some good conversation, and perhaps ideas for actions to be suggested at the 2004 General Assembly.

If you have thoughts, please send a note and we'll share it here!

Just yesterday we announced a "poll on homosexual marriage" being taken by the American Family Association, which "represents and stands for traditional family values."

We encouraged anyone who wanted to add a bit of diversity to the poll to register their own opinions on the AFA website.

As of mid-day on Saturday, Dec. 20, 2003, they report these results:

I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and "civil unions"
38.78%      (164946 votes)

I favor legalization of homosexual marriage
52.88%     (224886 votes)

I favor a "civil union" with the full benefits of marriage except for the name
8.34%      (35466 votes)

You can check their latest reports, and add your own vote, at http://www.afa.net/petitions/marriagepoll.asp

Titled Same-sex Marriage? A Christian Ethical Analysis, a new book by Marvin M. Ellison, co-editor of Body and Soul: Rethinking Sexuality as Justice-Love, examines the arguments for and against same-sex marriage and concludes that as a matter of justice, the institution should be open to same-sex couples. But he adds the interesting point that marriage is not necessarily ideal for all lesbian or gay people, and that marriage is not for all straight people either.

In an article in the L A Times, Harvard law professor and noted attorney Alan M. Dershowitz urges that our nation, like many others, might ease some of the tensions about "gay marriage," while offering guarantees for the rights of lesbian and gay couples, by observing the distinction between the government's role in recognizing stable, committed relationships and supporting them by protecting "the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc."

The Washington Post offers a report.

PVJ's Facebook page

Mitch Trigger, PVJ's Secretary/Communicator, has created a Facebook page where Witherspoon members and others can gather to exchange news and views. Mitch and a few others have posted bits of news, both personal and organizational. But there’s room for more!

Voices of Sophia blog

Heather Reichgott, who has created this new blog for Voices of Sophia, introduces it:

John Harris’ Summit to Shore blogspot

John Shuck’s Shuck and Jive

Got more blogs to recommend?

Plan now for our 2010 Ghost Ranch Seminar!

GHOST RANCH SEMINAR

July 26-August 1, 2010

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon  Bookkeeper: