United Church of Christ OKs Same Sex Marriage

[aric]

CNN

Church panel endorses same-sex marriage

United Church of Christ leadership to vote on resolution

Monday, July 4, 2005; Posted: 8:15 a.m. EDT (12:15 GMT)

ATLANTA (AP) -- A committee of United Church of Christ representatives has approved a resolution that moves the church one step closer to becoming the largest Christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage.

Still, members of the committee acknowledged Sunday that some congregations could leave the church entirely if the resolution is approved as written.

"There are churches and individuals who will be deeply, deeply wounded by this decision," said committee member Emily Jean Gilbert of Allentown, Pennsylvania. "I ask you to treat these people with respect and honor their feelings."

The resolution supported by the UCC's president, John H. Thomas, drew overwhelming support and was recommended for approval when the General Synod votes on it Monday.

It would specify that bisexual and transgender persons merit the same support and protections as gays and lesbians.

The wording was revised Sunday, however, to include the "recognition that this resolution may not reflect the views or current understanding of all bodies within the gathered church."

UCC churches are autonomous, meaning the leadership does not create policy for its more than 5,700 congregations.

In addition to the same-sex resolution, which was submitted by the Southern California and Nevada Conference, the committee of about 50 church representatives voted against adopting a resolution declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Some argued the same-sex resolution contradicts Biblical instructions.

"Throughout the Scriptures, marriage is always defined as being between one man and one woman," said the Rev. Brett Becker, pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cibolo, Texas.

Sunday's debate and vote continued the church's tradition of support for gays and lesbians. In the early 1970s, the United Church of Christ became the first major Christian denomination to ordain an openly gay minister.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well, good for them.

- Aric

[Stouthorn]

Well, clearly these people are all going straight to Hell.

aric said:

A committee of United Church of Christ representatives has approved a resolution that moves the church one step closer to becoming the largest Christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage.

[/b][/quote]

Which others have?

aric said:

"There are churches and individuals who will be deeply, deeply wounded by this decision," said committee member Emily Jean Gilbert of Allentown, Pennsylvania. "I ask you to treat these people with respect and honor their feelings."

I wonder what they mean. Do they mean to be sensitive to those people, or that the resolution should be changed?

aric said:

"Throughout the Scriptures, marriage is always defined as being between one man and one woman," said the Rev. Brett Becker, pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cibolo, Texas.

Can anyone vouch for this? Does the Bible ever state that marriage is between a man and women or does it just understand it to be.

[aric]

stouthorn said:

Well, clearly these people are all going straight to Hell.

stouthorn said:

aric said:

A committee of United Church of Christ representatives has approved a resolution that moves the church one step closer to becoming the largest Christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage.

[/b][/quote]

Which others have?[/quote]
I have no idea. Maybe it's more of a comment on the size of the denomination alone rather than a comparison to other denominations that may or may not have approved same sex mariage.

stouthorn said:

I wonder what they mean. Do they mean to be sensitive to those people, or that the resolution should be changed?

I think that they're talking about the people.

stouthorn said:

aric said:

"Throughout the Scriptures, marriage is always defined as being between one man and one woman," said the Rev. Brett Becker, pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cibolo, Texas.

Can anyone vouch for this? Does the Bible ever state that marriage is between a man and women or does it just understand it to be.

*shrug*

Might want to ask Anonymous on this one.

I do know that there are parts specifically forbidding same sex relationships. Especially in Leviticus, I think. Don't know about whether marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, though.

- Aric

[Stouthorn]

Yeah, Leviticus says things about a man lying with another man as he would his wife...what a roudabout way of talking about bonking a dude...

[Christopher]

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

~GENESIS 2:24~

So, it says that men should marry women. But really there aren't any verses I can think of that say men can't marry men, so it's just assumed. The best verse that says they can't is the one you mentioned:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

~LEVITICUS 20:13~

But as you can clearly see, it dosen't say they can't get married, just not....have intercourse. So, in a nutshell, it never says they can, but dosen't say they can't, either. Unless there's a verse I can't think of at the moment.

[Stouthorn]

Well intercourse is usually implied in marriage, especially since a marriage historically wasn't considered official and legally binding until it was consummated.

[aric]

Didn't want to start a new thread and this one was already talking about same-sex marriage.

Just thought I ought to post an interesting article about same sex marriage's relationship with heterosexual marriage from the New York Times.
--------------------------------------------------------------

July 5, 2005
The Heterosexual Revolution
By STEPHANIE COONTZ

Olympia, Wash.

THE last week has been tough for opponents of same-sex marriage. First Canadian and then Spanish legislators voted to legalize the practice, prompting American social conservatives to renew their call for a constitutional amendment banning such marriages here. James Dobson of the evangelical group Focus on the Family has warned that without that ban, marriage as we have known it for 5,000 years will be overturned.

My research on marriage and family life seldom leads me to agree with Dr. Dobson, much less to accuse him of understatement. But in this case, Dr. Dobson's warnings come 30 years too late. Traditional marriage, with its 5,000-year history, has already been upended. Gays and lesbians, however, didn't spearhead that revolution: heterosexuals did.

Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.

The first step down the road to gay and lesbian marriage took place 200 years ago, when Enlightenment thinkers raised the radical idea that parents and the state should not dictate who married whom, and when the American Revolution encouraged people to engage in "the pursuit of happiness," including marrying for love. Almost immediately, some thinkers, including Jeremy Bentham and the Marquis de Condorcet, began to argue that same-sex love should not be a crime.

Same-sex marriage, however, remained unimaginable because marriage had two traditional functions that were inapplicable to gays and lesbians. First, marriage allowed families to increase their household labor force by having children. Throughout much of history, upper-class men divorced their wives if their marriage did not produce children, while peasants often wouldn't marry until a premarital pregnancy confirmed the woman's fertility. But the advent of birth control in the 19th century permitted married couples to decide not to have children, while assisted reproduction in the 20th century allowed infertile couples to have them. This eroded the traditional argument that marriage must be between a man and a woman who were able to procreate.

In addition, traditional marriage imposed a strict division of labor by gender and mandated unequal power relations between men and women. "Husband and wife are one," said the law in both England and America, from early medieval days until the late 19th century, "and that one is the husband."

This law of "coverture" was supposed to reflect the command of God and the essential nature of humans. It stipulated that a wife could not enter into legal contracts or own property on her own. In 1863, a New York court warned that giving wives independent property rights would "sow the seeds of perpetual discord," potentially dooming marriage.

Even after coverture had lost its legal force, courts, legislators and the public still cleaved to the belief that marriage required husbands and wives to play totally different domestic roles. In 1958, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the traditional legal view that wives (unlike husbands) couldn't sue for loss of the personal services, including housekeeping and the sexual attentions, of their spouses. The judges reasoned that only wives were expected to provide such personal services anyway.

As late as the 1970's, many American states retained "head and master" laws, giving the husband final say over where the family lived and other household decisions. According to the legal definition of marriage, the man was required to support the family, while the woman was obligated to keep house, nurture children, and provide sex. Not until the 1980's did most states criminalize marital rape. Prevailing opinion held that when a bride said, "I do," she was legally committed to say, "I will" for the rest of her married life.

I am old enough to remember the howls of protest with which some defenders of traditional marriage greeted the gradual dismantling of these traditions. At the time, I thought that the far-right opponents of marital equality were wrong to predict that this would lead to the unraveling of marriage. As it turned out, they had a point.

Giving married women an independent legal existence did not destroy heterosexual marriage. And allowing husbands and wives to construct their marriages around reciprocal duties and negotiated roles - where a wife can choose to be the main breadwinner and a husband can stay home with the children- was an immense boon to many couples. But these changes in the definition and practice of marriage opened the door for gay and lesbian couples to argue that they were now equally qualified to participate in it.

Marriage has been in a constant state of evolution since the dawn of the Stone Age. In the process it has become more flexible, but also more optional. Many people may not like the direction these changes have taken in recent years. But it is simply magical thinking to believe that by banning gay and lesbian marriage, we will turn back the clock.

Stephanie Coontz, the director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, is the author of "Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage."
----------------------------------------------------------

I like the idea that Dobson thinks pair bonding has been the exclusive form of legitimate marriage for 5000 years. Woe to the polygamists. LOL!

Anyway, I guess traditionalists are fearing the coming of the gay gestapo that coerces people to abandon "traditional" marriage and engage in homosexual behavior. I mean, how else is same sex marriage supposed to destroy traditional marriage.

- Aric

[Azonthus]

chrisindixie said:

But as you can clearly see, it dosen't say they can't get married, just not....have intercourse. So, in a nutshell, it never says they can, but dosen't say they can't, either. Unless there's a verse I can't think of at the moment.

Thankies for the verses Anon;) However, as to the Bible saying that homosexuality is wrong... Ever hear of Sodom and Gomorrah?

[Stouthorn]

True, but "immoral sexual practices" is a very broadly reaching term -- one poorly worded Google search will teach you that much.

But yeah, I'll grant you that homosexuality is included...hence "Sodomy," which is technically any anal penetration. (Hey, you brought it up!)

[RedFeather]

"Well, clearly all these people are going to hell."

Oh? Are you God to make that kind of judgment?

[aric]

minstelae said:

"Well, clearly all these people are going to hell."

Oh? Are you God to make that kind of judgment?

He's joking.

- Aric

[RedFeather]

Oh, okay, then. Joke away, then! ;D