Pages

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

From the poet's workbook, a working poem in its raw state: Visions of Light

by Peter Menkin




It was hot today, 100 degrees someone said. That is hard to imagine, but it was so. Sometimes in unusual weather what is created is an unusual day, since the extreme leads to a chance to see something different or in a different way the something that is usual.

This poem about a vision of light was caught this Summer, 2010. But the vision appeared another day, too. And it was the more ordinary of a day, like others, but special because of the gift of the way this writer saw the light.

Perhaps there is a sympatico the following poem elicites, a resonance that you as reader recognize. Is this proof that God is present, whether we know it or not? Is the peace described in the working version of the poem the peace of Christ? This writer thinks, Yes.


Vision of Light toward end of Day
By Peter Menkin
August 24, 2010


The light towards end of day at Fort Cronkite
Beach, moving to the evening as dusk arrived this summer day.


Visions this week: the sky--looking down the road,
As in the distance traveling south towards San Francisco
Beautiful hills, again the light as dusk arrived…summertime


With an empty mind, not blank, but quieted, so quiet, enjoying
The latter part of day, the vision of peace. This refrain began,
Twilight by Fr. Arthur Poulin
If briefly: May the Lord bless us. May the Lord shine upon us.
May the Lord grant us peace.

Visions of peace, a good vision, like mercy it comes from time
To time as I age into my 60s. I am glad for these moments,
And in the snatches of time here and there, while waiting,
Or visiting, I find the vision again. The goodness of creation
Noted in a vision of the end of day. Quietude.














Artwork: Descending like a Dove



Sally

Brower


e-Mail sbrowerphd@aol.com


My art emerges from the intersection of the deepening of the personal spiritual life and participation in the communal life of faith. Through photography, I retrace the footsteps of Christian pilgrims and record the vestiges of their journeys, the shrines, altars, and thin places where they meet God. My art is both my spiritual practice and an invitation to others to awaken to the mystery of God, risk holy encounter, and cross the threshold of their heart's deep hopes.

As seen on Episcopal Church Visual Arts here.

Saturday, August 14, 2010


Interview: Stanford University's Michael Wald talks about Gay Marriage & Christian issues--he legal scholar as well as Constitutional Law expert
by Peter Menkin


Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (located in Northern California, USA) offered the availability of an esteemed law professor for commentary on Judge Vaughn Walker’s legal opinion regarding gay marriage in the State being declined; it originally passed through a voter initiative known as Proposition 8. Emeritus Professor Michael Wald generously agreed to a fuller interview on Gay Marriage, and some of its effects of its dimension on Christian issues of “discrimination” based on Christian beliefs.

Professor Wald has been involved in these issues of Gay Marriage for a number of years and related areas of concern, engaging in work in favor of Gay Marriage, being involved in public debates (Pace Law School), and as a legal scholar in children’s rights, is published in notable fashion extensively. The reader may want to note that Professor Wald in his interview with this writer done by email and via telephone call (lasting an hour) offers a legal scholar’s secular scope of discourse and educated commentary on the questions.





THE INTERVIEW

Please let us know Professor, as a start, what it means to be an Emeritus Professor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California and tell us about the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law Chair. Also, as part of this introduction, I see you were a Guggenheim Fellow, 1982-1983. What was your area of study? You’ve also been at Stanford University since 1967. Have you liked the school all those years, and if you were to tell us what in those years was most significant to you, what would it be.

An Emeritus Professor is retired. I still retain a position at the university. I no longer teach classes on a regular basis, but still work with students and conduct research.  I teach on children and family policy. I hold the Jackson Reynolds Chair. Being given a chair is a way for faculty to be given some kind of honor. I have, throughout my career, also done a lot of government service related to children’s welfare.

Let us turn to the legal questions regarding Gay Marriage & Christians, now that we’ve learned a little about you as a Professor. By the way, I see you were deputy general counsel for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration, executive director of the San Francisco Department of Human Services. First about children:


1.      Is adoption by gay couples really a social experiment on children?  Though this has political ramifications, what of their welfare and health? Is it fair for the law to regulate culture and religious observance when it comes to religion’s formal declarations of activity; a specific issue is the Catholic Church and Gay adoption.

No. Adoption by gay couples or individuals is not an experiment on children. It clearly benefits children to be adopted if their parents cannot care for them.  The evidence is clear that children adopted by gay parents do just as well as those adopted by heterosexual parents.   

Moreover, it must be understood that the issue for most of these children is whether they will be adopted at all or be left to impermanent upbringing. Most often, children adopted by same sex parents do not have other families looking to adopt them and they would be raised in institutions or foster care if they are not adopted... It is definitely better for these children to be adopted, since adoption provides stability and much greater parental commitment…in all adoption situations, 

The adoption agency and courts are required to protect the child’s best interests and place the child in a family that best fits the needs of the individual child. The law in the United States does not require Catholic adoption agencies, or other adoption agencies with religious affiliations…that they have to consider place gay couples or any other couples for adoption, unless the agency receives funds from the state to do adoption services.

When an organization, religious or other kind, receives funds from the state to perform a state function, such as adoption, that organization has to do so on a basis that is non-discriminatory and that meets the goals of the law. Thus, an adoption agency that receives state funds cannot refuse to place children with couples that are Jewish or Black or interracial; all couples who apply for adoption with state agencies will be considered and it must be determined on a case by case basis what is best for the child.  If a Catholic or any other agency wanted to work only with couples of a certain religion or sexual orientation, it could do so but not with State funds. ,



2.      A recent case that went before the Supreme Court considered issues of Christian conscience and freedom of religion regarding membership of gay students at a California law school in a Christian club. The Court said that was discrimination. Some fear this ruling as a precursor to an attitude of forcing Christians to bend their religious faith to conform to legal rights set by society regarding its concern for gay people. How do you think this will be acted on as a trend and attitude maker regarding future laws and Christian religious rights? Does it inhibit Christians in their faith? Is this fair, and is it an uncommon legal result in other public issues?

Basically, this case raises the same issues as the adoption case. The Christian Law Group at Hastings Law School could limit membership to whomever they want. But once they want to use law school space, all organizations must follow general law school policy.

The law school, which is publicly funded, had a rule that all clubs or organizations that were recognized or received support from the School had to be open to all law students. No organization could limit membership based on an applicant’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or other such factor. The rule is if you want to be an organization with formal recognition of the law school, you need to be open to all students. The Court decision would have been the same if the applicant had been an atheist and therefore rejected.



3.      What difference is there between the secular and the religious marriage, as you see it in this public area? And secondly, in some denominations the minister or Priest performs a wedding and acts for the state in signing a marriage license. Some ministers, in specific Priests in the San Francisco Bay Area who are Episcopalian, refuse to act for the State because it makes them agents of discrimination at this time when Gay Marriage is illegal. They think it should be legalized, so have refused to do so. Significantly, some even refuse to perform marriages at all as a Sacrament as protest because within the Church, Gay Marriage is not equal to traditional marriage. The question is specifically, what kind of turmoil do you see in legal and public acceptance of Gay Marriage and especially Christians judging by the turmoil the controversy already has caused. Is it worth it, in the ethically legal sense?

In the public arena, there is only secular marriage. Marriage is a set of legal commitments between two individuals. The requirements for marriage are established by state law.

Religious communities in giving marriages a religious blessing may set other regulations. For a long time the Catholic Church and the Church of England did not let people who were divorced get married in a religious ceremony; but those people could still marry under secular law...Ministers of different faiths are authorized to perform marriages, as are judges and some other officials. However, no minister is required to perform a marriage he or she does not want to perform. No judge is required to perform a marriage he or she does not want to perform. The only people who must perform a marriage when requested are county clerks. Religious officials are just one group of officials who may perform marriages, but they do not have to perform them.

There is obviously a great deal of controversy regarding same sex couple marriage. From my perspective as a scholar of family law…marriage, in general, is a good thing for the adults and for the children. It is an equally good thing for same sex couples and their children as it is for opposite sex couples and their children. While recognizing same sex marriages creates some turmoil, it is certainly worth the controversy, because in my judgment it is good for society.

The evidence in places like Massachusetts, Sweden, Denmark, and the other countries and states that have recognized same sex marriage for some time is that there is no ongoing turmoil. The public comes to accept and value these marriages. Interestingly, some very religious countries, Spain, Mexico, Argentina, have recently adopted a policy of recognizing marriage of same sex couples.


4.      Will people in social work fields and counseling have their jobs protected if they conscientiously or religiously refuse to work with gay couples? This is a particularly significant area as some have lost their jobs and even careers over such issues. You may be familiar with some of these cases.

The issue of when a social worker, doctor, pharmacist or other professional cannot refuse to provide services to a particular group of people is complicated and not fully resolved.  Various constitutional rights sometimes are in conflict, including rules on non-discrimination, rules relating to freedom of association, and rules relating to property rights. The courts have tried to strike a balance. I cannot fully address the complexities here. However, when one must provide services…it is possible that social workers and counselors may be required to provide some services, depending on the circumstances.

For example, in California, landlords must make their rental property available in a non-discriminatory manner. Landlords may not say they will not rent to gay couples or Black couples or those of a particular religion...  When you open your business to the public, the law says you have to do it on a non-discriminatory basis. Because we are a country that values individual freedom and properties rights and freedom of association, there is a tension between the public goal of preventing discrimination and these other public goals: freedom of association, property rights, etc. The law in the United States has generally resolved these by saying that the value of non-discrimination is more important than these other values.

We’ve previously talked about how the goal of non-discrimination has been seen as limiting some other rights of people, as in the case of a landlord not being allowed to  discriminate in renting her or his property. Now whether people in counseling fields who hold themselves out to the public should have to counsel people is a difficult balance. [To probe more deeply.] We don’t want discrimination.

There is a relationship between counselors and people being counseled that requires some degree of relationship. So the balance may be different. And it hasn’t as much public rejection, as a restaurant or a rental unit. On the other hand, for certain types of jobs where people have a very important kind of function, for example pharmacists…pharmacists cannot refuse to give people birth control pills….pharmacists have to give what medications are prescribed by doctors. They cannot give patients medicines based on their religious beliefs. Similarly, if a social worker worked for a public agency or took public dollars for their practice, like Catholic charities… if organizations want to use public money to support the services they are offering, then in almost all situations, we have decided and I agree with this decision… these services have to be decided on a non-discriminatory basis.


5.      In England, Gay Rights trump Christian religious sensibilities and public practice by individuals to a confining extent. At least judging by a number of cases, especially a notorious one where a nurse prayed a Christian prayer for a patient in a hospital and spoke to her about faith and healing in the patient’s hospital bed. She was severely reprimanded and suspended, if memory serves correct. The point is does the legal broadening of Gay Rights shake the social fabric in a way that constrains and influences public attitudes and social practices in discriminatory ways towards Christians?

I don’t know the facts of this case; it is a general duty of doctors and nurses to perform their duties in a manner that is very sensitive to the patient’s sensibilities and well being. If a patient doesn’t want counseling of a religious or of any other nature, it would be bad professional conduct for a doctor or nurse to do that.

For some patients, it may give them a great deal of comfort if a nurse prayed for them, for others, this would be unacceptable. The helping professional must be very careful that her or his actions are what the patient wants. It’s my understanding that Chaplains and other professionals are trained to approach the person in the way that is most helpful to each individual. If it’s with religious support they will do it; if not with religious support they will find a way that helps them.


6.      That’s the question list I’ve prepared for our interview, and at this time I ask if you’d like to add anything of your choosing, or make some statement on the subject.

Obviously the issue of same sex marriage raises a number of fundamental value issues for people. Some people have criticized Judge Walker in the Proposition 8 case for overruling the vote of a public majority. They say it is wrong for a judge to be able to overrule the will of the people. However, that’s what the Constitution was designed to do--to have courts protect minorities from majority rule in certain situations. 

For example, the judges over-ruled the will of the people in many states to keep Black students in segregated schools. Just recently, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court over ruled the will of the people of Chicago and the District of Columbia, to limit the possession of guns.  

These gun bans reflected “the will of the people” but the Justices said they violated the constitutional rights of the minority of people who want to possess guns.  Judge Walker’s striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional is the same as the Supreme Court declaring Chicago’s ban of handguns illegal.
End interview




ADDENDUM 1

Professor Emeritus Michael S. Wald, Stanford University…
As posted by Stanford University and reposted here in part:

Biography
Deeply devoted to the cause of children’s rights and welfare and a frequent expert advisor on youth and children’s legal issues nationwide, Michael Wald has had a distinguished career as an academic researcher and teacher. He is one of the leading national authorities on legal policy toward children, and he drafted the American Bar Association’s Standards Related to Child Abuse and Neglect, as well as major federal and state legislation regarding child welfare.
Professor Wald has served as deputy general counsel for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration, executive director of the San Francisco Department of Human Services, and senior advisor to the president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. He is currently chair of the San Francisco Youth Council and the Faculty Scholars Program of the William T. Grant Foundation, and previously served as a Guggenheim Fellow. He has been a member of the Stanford Law School faculty since 1967.
Key Works
Publications & Cases
Recent Publications View All
Affiliations & Honors
Professional Affiliations
  • Board Member, Chapin Hall, Children's Center, University of Chicago
  • Board Member, Legal Services for Children, San Francisco, CA
Honors and Awards
  • Recipient, Miram Aaron Roland Volunteer Service Prize, 2006
  • Guggenheim Fellow, 1982-83
Education
  • BA, Cornell University, 1963
  • MA (political science), Yale University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
  • LLB, Yale Law School, 1967
Expertise
  • Children and the Law
  • Education Law
  • Public Interest Practice



This article first appeared in The Church of England Newspaper, London.

Monday, August 09, 2010



Compilation of quotes on Gay Marriage ruling in California, Judge Vaughn Walker reverses voter's will
by Peter Menkin
The August 5, 2010 front page of a CaliforniaCounty afternoon daily declared: “California’s Prop. 8 Ruled Unconstitutional: Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban.” The American controversy being acted out by a Federal Judge Vaughn Walker, Chief U.S. District, overturned the previous State wide election results. On that Wednesday he set in motion the probable decision being finalized by the United States Supreme Court.


Chief Judge Vaughn Walker
On the overturning of the electorate decision to ban homosexual marriage in California, a celebration in some public areas began. In San Francisco’s streets, gay couples waved rainbow and American flags. This city, called by that same County newspaper “a haven for gays,” was joyous over the Judge’s decision. It remains so.
A lesbian woman, part of a couple, reportedly declared in Marin County, North of San Francisco (the celebration was widespread and local, too), “I know its baby steps going in the right direction.” The 39 year old Kelly Kuhlman, quoted by the paper’s reporter Richard Halstead of The Independent Journal is married to her “partner”, Celia Graterol who have three children, 16, 18, and 19. Though she says she is married, marriages must wait for same-sex couples.
Apparently, homosexual marriages must wait, despite the ruling, as an appeal is in the works. Hence, Kuhlman’s characterization of the significant decision as “baby steps.”
Judge Walker was told by attorneys in closing arguments, which resulted in his decision of more than 120 pages, that religious tradition and religious fears of harm to married unions between men and women were insufficient grounds to discriminate against homosexual couples.
Associated Press reporters Lisa Leff and Paul Elias quoted a woman’s sign as reading, “Life Feels Different When You’re Married,” holding it as she (Shelly Bailes) “…embraced her wife, Ellen Pontac….”  Others were ecstatic in their celebration in front of San Francisco City Hall.
Rt. Reverend Marc Andrus
The Rt. Reverend Marc Andrus (Episcopal), Diocese of California who is a San Francisco Bishop, said as an exhortation addressing the crowd before San Francisco City Hall:
Another generation said, “Blessed are,” when they translated Jesus’ great words to those walking the path of peace and reconciliation. Some today have translated “Blessed are” as “Congratulations!”
So, today Jesus says to you, “Congratulations, you who have been mourning! You are being comforted!”
“Congratulations all of you who have been hungering and thirsting for righteousness! Aren’t you feeling filled and nourished now?”
“Congratulations, all of you who have been compassionate with those who have hated you and acted against you, and who still do! You are able to receive the world’s compassion in turn.”
“Congratulations all you peacemakers. You truly are God’s children, for God brings peace.”
“And congratulations all of you who have been persecuted for the sake of goodness! You live in a different world now, where God is all-in-all, and love is over all.”
All these congratulations and blessings are so that we can keep on moving, to extend congratulations to LGBT people in places where persecution is still intense, to use our great energies to help children get food and education, to give strength and support to women everywhere, to fight world-class diseases like HIV/AIDS, to heal the wounded planet.
We rejoice today, and tomorrow we continue the fight, lending our strength, the blessing of God, to those who need it.
In his public statement the San Francisco Bishop wrote on the Diocesan Website:
I am very pleased with today’s ruling overturning California’s Proposition 8. All of God’s children are equal in God’s eyes, and today Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker affirmed once again that all Californian families share equal protection under the law.
The Episcopal Church has reached resolution on the issue of full civil rights for lesbian and gay persons and, speaking for myself as a bishop and person of faith and as a representative of the Episcopal Church, I am gladdened whenever discrimination is rejected and fundamental rights are acknowledged as equal rights.
The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus
Bishop, The Episcopal Diocese of California
The 2006 General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Columbus, Ohio, passed Resolution A095 that said,
"Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the Episcopal Church's historical support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God and entitled to full civil rights; and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the 71st General Convention's action calling upon municipal council, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protection[s] such as: bereavement and family leave policies; health benefits; pension benefits; real-estate transfer tax benefits; and commitments to mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention oppose any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions."



The Reverend Michael Schuenemeyer

Queried by email, the United Church of Christ responded this in writing:
The Rev. Michael Schuenemeyer, the UCC's Minister for GLBT Concerns and HIV/AIDS Ministries, made the following statement:
"I am extremely happy by this just ruling overturning Proposition 8.  This historic decision soundly rejects the irrational basis for discrimination and rightly recognizes the equal status of same sex couples and their families. It appropriately identifies the role of government under the U.S. Constitution to grant due process and equal protection to every citizen, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Because the decision will be appealed and will likely ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court, the journey to marriage equality is not over and much work is yet to be done. Nevertheless, we cannot underestimate the significance of the Judge Walker’s eloquent, well-reasoned and just decision.
The United Church of Christ Press Officer added: 
“In addition, here is some background information that might be helpful:”
In overturning Proposition 8, the court has agreed in large measure with what the 25th General Synod of the UCC (the bienniel meeting of the denomination) said in 2005 when it affirmed “equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender,” and declared that “the government should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized marriage.” The basis for the court’s decision reflected the General Synod’s recognition that “marriage carries with it significant access to institutional support, rights and benefits,” “children of families headed by same-gender couples should receive all legal rights and protections,” and legislation that “bans recognition of same-gender marriages further undermine the civil liberties of gay and lesbian couples”
The UCC General Synod joined with the both California UCC regional Conferences and other religious bodies in an Amici Curiae Brief supporting the plaintiffs. The brief argued that Proposition 8 was “enacted to codify religious attitudes hostile to homosexuals and homosexuality” and Proposition 8 “denies, rather than protects religious liberty.”  The brief concluded that Proposition 8 amounted to “an unconstitutional codification of hostility toward, and sectarian doctrine concerning, homosexuality and homosexuals. It should be stricken.”
This writer made inquiry by email of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and here is their Press Statement in its entirety, quoted here:
“What business does a federal judge have declaring as a ‘finding of fact’ that religious beliefs are harmful or beneficial to any group?”
-Alan Wisdom, IRD Vice President for Research and Programs, Director of Presbyterian Action
Washington, DC— U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, in his August 4 ruling overturning California’s Proposition 8, attacked religious doctrines disapproving of same-sex relations and distinguishing them from the marriage of man and woman. “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians,” Walker stated as a “finding of fact.”
Walker classified such beliefs among the “stereotypes and misinformation,” the “fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples,” that allegedly motivate those who uphold the marriage of man and woman. As examples of such prejudicial beliefs, the judge cited official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Orthodox Church in America, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the Free Methodist Church.
Walker’s decision cast suspicion on the campaign for Proposition 8 because religious groups were prominent among its endorsers. He looked askance at the fact that “84 percent of people who attend church voted in favor of Proposition 8.” The decision concluded that there is no rational basis for “the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
Alan Wisdom
Alan Wisdom, IRD’s Vice President for Research and Programs and Director of its Presbyterian Action committee, commented:
“What business does a federal judge have declaring as a ‘finding of fact’ that religious beliefs are harmful or beneficial to any group? Who is he to look into the hearts of religious believers and see only ‘stereotypes and misinformation,’ ‘fear or unarticulated dislike’? Since when was a law held in suspicion because religious bodies endorsed it and churchgoers voted for it?
“Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, and others who affirm the marriage and man and woman regard it as a blessing, not a harm, for all of society. They counsel people against all non-marital sexual relations, heterosexual or homosexual, because marriage provides the best environment for both adults and children to flourish. And there is abundant social science evidence to confirm this moral conviction. Judge Walker, sadly, discounts all this evidence and prefers to attack the motives of Proposition 8 supporters.
“The judge insists that ‘Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.’ But his ruling confirms the warnings about what happens to traditional religious believers when the state decrees that there is no difference between marriage and same-sex relationships. He singles out by name America’s largest religious bodies and labels them as oppressors of gay people and prejudiced enemies of state policy. Can it be long before the full weight of government pressure will be brought to bear upon these allegedly ‘misinformed’ religious people who distinguish between marriage and other sexual relationships? We have already seen the dangers with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, where the Catholic Church has been driven out of the adoption business.”
Alan Wisdom’s paper “Is Marriage Worth Defending?” is viewable on the IRD website. www.TheIRD.org
Cardinal Roger Mahony
The Catholic News Agency reports on Cardinal Roger Mahony’s analysis of the Gay Marriage ruling by Judge Walker. Here compiled by this writer is that report:
Cardinal Roger Mahony said on Wednesday. He added that the judge wrongly assumed that marriage is of human origin and can mean “anything any person wishes.”
Writing in a Wednesday statement, the Archbishop of Los Angeles responded to U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling that Prop. 8, which restored California’s legal definition of marriage to be a union of a man and a woman, was unconstitutional.
The cardinal offered the question whether marriage is of divine or human origin.
“Judge Walker pays no attention to this fundamental issue, and relies solely upon how Prop 8 made certain members of society ‘feel’ about themselves,” Cardinal Mahony wrote.
He said that those who supported Prop. 8 did so because they “truly believe that Marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God's plan for the world and human society. Period.”
The belief in marriage has been unanimous across cultures and histories and is “embedded deeply” into the spirit of human beings, he noted.
The cardinal further stated that Judge Walker was wrong to assume that marriage is of human and civil origin and “can mean anything any person wishes to ascribe to the institution.”
“The union of a man and of a woman in a life-long loving and caring relationship is of divine origin. No human nor civil power can decree or declare otherwise,” Cardinal Mahony wrote. “For many of us, we will continue to believe that God is the origin of marriage, and we will follow God's constant revelation to that effect
In a related article by Catholic News Agency, found here, says in part (quote):
The ruling, issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, overturned Prop. 8, the California measure which passed in November 2008 to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The legal decision listed as its 77th “finding of fact”: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
In a list of supporting citations, the ruling quoted a 2003 document issued by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), “Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons.”
“Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as ‘a serious depravity’,” is the first CDF phrase quoted in Judge Walker's decision.
The document was signed in 2003 by the CDF’s prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who was elected to the papacy in 2005….
…The ruling of Judge Walker, who is reported to be homosexual, also cited the document’s statement that “legal recognition of homosexual unions … would mean … the approval of deviant behavior.”
In full, the passage reads: “Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.”
Baptist Press comments in a story by Michael Foust:
If the nation's highest court upholds the decision it likely would result in the reversal of constitutional amendments and statutes in 45 states defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Only five states and the District of Columbia currently recognize "marriage" between homosexuals.

Already, some are warning the decision, if upheld, could become the Roe v. Wade of "gay marriage."
The New York Times in an Editorial of August 4, 2010 notes:
The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”
He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.
Atlantic Monthly Wire writer Heather Horn ends her piece with this quote and citation:
  • The Important Facts in This Decision  The "FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence," writes Marc Ambinder, "will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come." Among the crucial determined facts Ambinder highlights: 
Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors ... California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate ... Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages. ... 'Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.'
With all due apology, as this writer compiles the last of the excerpts, these were cribbed from The Washington Post article “Under God Proposition 8 Ruling…” by Elizabeth Tenety. This is part of her, “Religion Roundup…”
"Traditional Jewish values recognize marriage as being only between a man and woman. In addition to our religious values - which we do not seek to impose on anyone - we fear legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" poses a grave threat to the fundamental civil right of religious freedom." 

Bishop J. Jon Bruno
"Justice is advancing thanks to today's ruling affirming Californians' constitutional right to marriage in faithful, same-gender relationships."
"Proposition 8, adopted by ballot initiative in 2008, effectively denies gay and lesbian individuals the same rights afforded heterosexual couples under the law. Judge Walker's decision reaffirms the strong commitment to equality upon which our nation is built."
Rev. Welton Gaddy, Baptist minister and President of Interfaith Alliance:
"We are pleased to see that Judge Vaughn Walker was sensitive to the concerns of people of faith who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds but that he recognized, as do we, that their religious freedom will not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage. America's diverse religious landscape leaves room for a variety of theological perspectives on same-gender marriage; indeed, some faiths enthusiastically support it and others vehemently oppose it. Under this ruling, as with any constitutionally based marriage equality law, no religion would ever be required to condone same-gender marriage, and no member of the clergy would ever be required to perform a wedding ceremony not in accordance with his or her religious beliefs."
This writer sent an email to The Methodist Church, and to the Presbyterian Church. The Methodist Church replied they have no statement. The Presbyterian Church USA has no statement. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America may make a statement at a later time.
An interview with Stanford University’s Emeritus Professor Michael Wald on the subject of Gay Marriage and especially in specific its effect on Christian civil rights is being worked on at this time and will appear at a later date. Professor Wald is an esteemed man in the area of children rights and legal matters, with familiarity with Gay Marriage issues because of his work with their legal civil rights organizations that are fighting for those marriage rights.
 This article appeared in The Church of England Newspaper, London.

Sunday, August 08, 2010

Friends of the Earth Middle East says Jordan River polluted:
not suitable for Baptism
by Peter Menkin


In a surprising story to this writer, Ecumenical News International reports it is a bad idea to visit the Jordan River for Baptisms. This will interest San Francisco Bay Area Pilgrims who may be planning on visiting the Jordan River in the near future. Who is the environmental organization? Time magazine in 2008 called the Middle East organization’s three directors Environmental Heroes.


EcoPeace/Friends of the Earth Middle East describe this about themselves on their website: Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME) is a unique organization that brings together Jordanian, Palestinian, and Israeli environmentalists. Our primary objective is the promotion of cooperative efforts to protect our shared environmental heritage. In so doing, we seek to advance both sustainable regional development and the creation of necessary conditions for lasting peace in our region. FoEME has offices in Amman, Bethlehem, and Tel-Aviv. FoEME is a member of Friends of the Earth International.

The surprising report by the environmental organization warns, according to ENI:

Lower Jordan River, where the Bible
says Jesus was Baptized: polluted.
Health concerns relating to water quality have triggered an environmental advocacy group to call for the banning of baptisms in the lower Jordan River, where the Bible says Jesus was baptized. "For reasons of public health as well as religious integrity, baptism should be banned from taking place in the river," said Gidon Bromberg, the Israel director of EcoPeace/Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), which has offices in Tel Aviv, Bethlehem, and Amman. Israeli authorities said on 27 July that tests done on the water of the lower Jordan River show the popular site for baptismal ceremonies at Qasr el Yahud on the West Bank meets health ministry standards. Bromberg said, however, they should not take place until pollutants are removed from the water.

In the Great Rift Valley this cultural, religious and georgraphically important river is important to billions of people, the report says. People in their diversity of religions, countries worldwide are under threat. Fresh water is being diverted, 98 percent of it, and discharges of “large quantities of untreated sewage…threatens to irreversibly damage the River Valley.” The upper stream waters have been diverted for domestic and agricultural uses, and the result is a once thriving ecosystem is left with precious little fresh water.

Genesis 13:10-11 refers to the beauty of the Jordan Valley.
Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord.
Who is interested and why? Friends of the Earth Middle East answers, “The River Jordan is mentioned in several stories of the Old Testament. Genesis 13:10-11 refers to the beauty of the Jordan Valley: "And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord." The river is also closely associated with the life of Jesus Christ, where he has been traditionally thought to have been baptized along its banks. Although the exact site of the Baptism of Jesus is disputed, hundreds of thousands of tourists flock each year to sites on either side of the river to be close to the original site…”

In their report, the environmental organization believes the river “need no longer be a symbol of separation.” They offer ideas for the interaction between “peoples, cultures…” to promote prosperity and peace for the Jordan River Valley.

The objectives include sustainable and environmentally friendly tourism, as they define it. This is a significant objective of the organization. They desire “sustainable and organic agriculture in a cross border and cooperative atmosphere.”

As part of their plan, they desire:

... the establishment of micro-credit programs. Farmers, small local investors, women and youth could benefit from these grants to start small businesses, to establish family-run guesthouses, to open women's and youth associations, and to improve farming methods and marketing.

Many Churches are familiar with the kind of outreach that encourages micro-credit programs. The report on the environmental problems and the environmental organization’s recommendations is found here.

Photos courtesy: Friends of the Earth Middle East.