Interview: Wayne Grudem talks about Gay Marriage & Same Sex Blessings from his home in Arizona

by Peter Menkin

I want to encourage the nation as a whole to decide through a political process that one man and one woman is best for society.To see the political process working in society and not see the judicial side by fiat put such marriage on us. The standard of the bible specifies marriage between one man and one woman. –Paraphrase of words by Reverend Doctor Wayne Grudem
Click to watch an interview with Wayne Grudem

INTRODUCTION
In this unique hour and a half interview with The Reverend Doctor Wayne Grudem by telephone from the writer’s home north of San Francisco to his study in his Phoenix area home. So much was covered regarding Gay Marriage and Same Sex Blessings, some in more depth because of Dr. Grudem’s generous willingness to spend so much time with the interview. This interview is the fourth in a series of what are now six interviews on the subject. It is the first with an Evangelical. To give the reader some idea of what kind of Evangelical are we talking about and with in this interview, here is the complete quote from Phoenix Seminary where Dr. Grudem is a teacher:

1. We believe the Bible alone (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) to be the inspired, inerrant, authoritative word of God.
2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
4. We believe that all human beings are lost and sinful by nature. For their salvation, regeneration by the Holy Spirit and (for all who have the mental capacity) personal faith in Jesus Christ are absolutely essential. Salvation is a gift from God, it is not earned.
5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
6. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ. The true Church is the body of Christ of which He is the head.
7. We believe in the resurrection of the saved unto eternal life and the lost unto eternal condemnation.

Phoenix Seminary students must affirm the above statement of faith. Words in italics are modifications to the National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith. Phoenix Seminary’s resident faculty, administration, and board members hold to the Faculty Teaching Position.
He and his wife Margaret have been married since 1969 and have three adult sons. Readers may email Dr. Grudem: wgrudem@phoenixseminary.edu

Reverend Doctor Wayne Grudem, Evangelist

Without further introduction, this writer asks your indulgence as the interview is started, then followed by three Addendum: (1) An excerpt of longer length from Dr. Grudem’s new book with the subtitle: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture; (2) An excerpt of shorter length from Dr. Grudem’s new book published by Zondaverum, Politics—According to the Bible; (3) Excerpts from an interview with Dr. Grudem that tells us something of his interests and life.


INTERVIEW


1. That there is this non-controversy of Gay Marriage and Same Sex Blessings is something this writer hears. It seems for some clergy, these matters are a done-deal and they support it, the non-controversy, the done-deal, and practice it in their work, and believe society accepts the matter. My question will lead us to a statement by a prominent clergyman, but first tell the reader, is the subject and practice of Gay Marriage and Same Sex Blessings no longer a controversy and of public and Christian debate and discussion? Is it a done-deal in our society given the success of the “Gay Agenda” in the Military, American Foreign Service, California Courts, Massachusetts, other States in America and even in the present Presidential and Federal Administration’s practice of no longer supporting the federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act?

No, it’s not a done deal. Every state that has voted on Gay Marriage in a statewide referendum has voted to retain marriage as one man and one woman. That is 31 States. The voters of 30 states have passed constitutional amendments affirming marriage as one man and one woman, and Maine voters overturned the legislature’s legalization of same-sex marriage. The only “defeat” was in Arizona in 2006, and that was reversed in 2008.]


It isn’t true that “society” accepts the matter if you accept democracy as a means of determining what society wants. Even in California 52 percent of the population voted to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

As for clergy acceptance, it depends on which clergy you mean. I’m past president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that has over 4,000 members and represents evangelical professors in theology and Bible across the United States. All of its current executive committee and 24 past presidents have affirmed that if you believe the Bible, then marriage is between one man and one woman. This was an affirmation made in an amicus brief filed in February, 2010, with the United Sates Supreme Court. It said, “Upholding marriage between one man and one woman is an entirely proper consequence of belief in the Bible and the inspired word of God.” (page 18 of Evangelical Theologians’ amicus brief in the case CLS v. Martinez).

I estimate that over 90% of evangelical Christians in the United States would say marriage must be restricted to one man and one woman. For evangelicals, the controversy is certainly not over. That is 15 to 30% of the U.S. population.

The main thing I want to emphasize in this discussion is this: The primary question in this controversy is what kind of intimate, cohabiting, potentially child bearning relationship does society want to encourage and reward and protect? Up to this point, American society has decided to encourage and promote marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman, because it gives immeasurable benefits to a society that no other relationship can provide. This relationship is better for raising children, better for protection against domestic violence and abandonment, better for encouraging lifelong companionship and care, better for encouraging sexual faithfulness, and better in many other ways, that I explain in my book Politics—According to the Bible.

But homosexual relationships do not give these benefits. Male homosexuals experience a 25 to 30 year decrease in life expectancy, and much higher incidence of many chronic diseases.

Sexual faithfulness is far different among married heterosexuals: 90 percent of heterosexual women, and over 75 percent of heterosexual men have never engaged in extramarital sex. But among male homosexuals the rate of sexual faithfulness is around 2 percent, even when “faithfulness” is generously defined as ten or fewer lifetime partners. Such statistics are seldom reported in the mainstream media. The question is, is this the kind of relationship we as a society want to encourage, reward, and promote by giving it the status of “marriage” and all the societal encouragement and endorsement that that status carries?

I don’t think any society today should criminalize homosexual conduct (as some legislators in Uganda are now attempting to do), any more than I think society should criminalize adultery or fornication, because these are private acts between individuals that government should not intrude into. But I also don’t think society should encourage and promote such relationships by calling them “marriage” and giving them all the benefits that go with marriage. And so the issue is not whether homosexual couples can get married, but rather, do we as a society wish to redefine marriage in its entirety so that it is no longer a relationship between one man and one woman? The homosexual agenda is attempting to redefine what marriage is, and I think that would be a terrible mistake for our society.

Dr. Grudem and wife Margaret visiting New York City

1. 2. Senior Rabbi Stephen Pearce is spiritual leader of Temple Emanu-El in San Francisco, California. He says about homosexuals: “These are people who seek and receive the blessing of the community, the force of the tradition, and they are embraced by the community. It is difficult to envision a God who condemns same sex relationships as sinful.” “… Is God a just God, or does God want people to be punished because it is an orientation that is God given.” “…The prophetic tradition is one that teaches God wants justice and that we certainly honor the prophetic position when we speak out. So when we exclude someone from having the happiness of a sanctified relationship, we deny the God of justice.” “Justice, Justice shall you pursue,” is found in Deuteronomy 16:20.” Dr. Grudem, will you respond one by one, if possible, to the Rabbi’s remarks (statements in quotes)? I know you speak as a Christian, and I am not asking that you enter into a dialogue or debate with the Rabbi. I ask that you take his as contemporary and widely held values and attitudes by religious institutions and clergy in our United States who support and practice the matter of these questions by performing Same Sex Blessings and Gay Marriage.

The question is who gets to define “justice.” I think the Bible is the only reliable source of information how God himself defines justice. I understand justice to mean fairness in upholding conformity to God’s moral standards in the Bible. Where Rabbi Pearce says it is “difficult to envision a God who condemns same sex relationships as sinful,” I wonder if he has read Genesis 19 where it says that God brought judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. It portrays the city as filled with homosexual activity, and then it says that God caused sulpher and fire to rain down from heaven and destroy the city. It is a pretty frightening and sobering story.
Rabbi Pearce says one more thing that I would disagree with. He says that homosexual orientation is an orientation that is God-given. My response is that James 1:13-14 in the New Testament says this, Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. ESV).(The Bible I am using here is the English Standard Version, and I am one of the translators.) But his [Rabbi Pearce, Temple Emanu-El, San Francisco] position is not surprising for clergy who do not accept the absolute authority of the Bible’s moral standards as applicable for today.

1. 3. Why should a nation have only one definition of marriage? Why can’t different people just make up their own definitions as they please?

Every society needs to have public knowledge of who is married and who is not. There are many reasons: The society needs to know who is responsible for the care of children and who is responsible for the care of spouses with medical or financial needs. The society also needs to provide legal protection to keep women from being exploited by men who might abandon them or any children they may have borne.
In the debate about marriage, the importance of caring for and protecting children cannot be overstated. Children can’t care for themselves. Or educate themselves. Or train themselves for moral values. So every society needs to have agreed-upon standards for these responsibilities, or women and children especially will suffer immense destructive consequences and the society will begin to disintegrate.
The United Sates decided in the Mormon Polygamy Controversy that we could not allow two standards of marriage to exist in the nation. Utah territory, which was dominated by Mormons, applied for Statehood seven times beginning in 1849, but Congress did not permit it to become a State until 1896, after Utah inserted a ban on polygamy into its Constitution. So Congress imposed a kind of national standard for marriage – it excluded polygamy. (From Dr. Grudem’s book Politics—According to the Bible, p. 223).

1. 4. One clergy member told me this definition of community: “Community is a group of connected individuals who believe in a vision of social justice and connecting with a higher source to make the world a better place.” It was his belief that community supported Gay Marriage and Same Sex Blessings, giving the authority necessary of that religious community to do these things. Will you give us your definition of community in the Christian and Church sense? Will you also tell us where on the Evangelical spectrum as a Christian you stand in the political direction in general? That is, are you Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, or Progressive? What does this mean to you? I know, these are hard questions, but please with the short time we have together, do as best you can. If we must talk again by phone to fill in gaps later, this writer is happy to do that to help in this interview.

Individual communities don’t have the right to define marriage for themselves. The civil government has reserved for itself the right to define what marriage is. In Colorado and Arizona we’ve had this Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. It’s a splinter group from mainstream Mormonism, and it practices polygamy. They wanted to define marriage for themselves. But the leaders had multiple underage wives contrary to the laws of the United States, and some have been arrested for sexual conduct with minors. The civil government has to define marriage for the society, and not leave it up to all sorts of different communities to decide for themselves. What would we say if a new community formed that wanted to count incest as marriage? Or to allow marriage to 12-year-olds? This would just bring hopeless confusion and harm to society.
As for my book Politics – According to the Bible, it largely advocates political positions that are largely conservative ones. But I advocate them because I think they flow from the teachings of the Bible and a Biblical worldview, as I explain in chapters 3 and 4.

If there is a key Bible vision that commands the issues of Gay Marriage & Same Sex Blessing, please give Biblical example and explain something of your vision on interpretation? Or if there is not, in both New and Old Testament, do the same. Who else shares this sensibility and understanding we might know or recognize? Will you speak to the subject of your book, Politics–According to the Bible by Wayne Grudem (Zondervan, 2010), 624 pages, in relation to the issue and public controversy, as well as Christian Church controversy on Gay Marriage on how Politics is influenced by the Bible? (Reverend Doctor Wayne Grudem of Phoenix Seminary, Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary. Dr. Wayne Grudem holds degrees from Harvard (BA), Westminster Seminary (MDiv), and Cambridge (PhD). He is the author of over fifteen books including the bestselling Systematic Theology.)
The Bible’s pattern for marriage is established in Genesis 1 and 2 where God creates Adam and Eve and refers to them as a man and “his wife.” The pattern is between one man and one woman. Such marriage is protected in the Ten Commandments where it says, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14).

The Bible prohibits conduct such as incest and adultery, and it also prohibits homosexual conduct (see Romans 1:26-27; 1^st Corinthians 6:9-11; 1^st Timothy 1:9-10; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Jude 7).

Virtually all Evangelical pastors and Bible teachers, as well as most conservative Roman Catholics, share this sensibility and understanding: There was a public statement that Evangelical and Roman Catholic teachers and leaders signed November 20, 2009 to affirm this view. It was called the Manhattan Declaration and the leaders of it were Charles Colson, Robert George, and Timoth George. Other prominent signers included James Dobson, Al Mohler, Chuck Swindoll, and Tony Perkins. (I was also one of the early signers.)

I also mentioned the amicus brief filed by officers and former presidents of the Evangelical Theological Society in February, 2010. It affirms that if someone believes that the Bible is “the inspired word of God,” and uses established standards of interpretation (“grammatical-historical exegesis,” p. 18), then it becomes a core religious belief of Christians to uphold a moral standard that prohibits “fornication, adultery, and homosexual conduct.” (p. 10). That amicus brief argued that in attempting to force the Christian Legal Society to change these standards for voting membership and leadership, the Hastings College of Law was “attempting to compel CLS to recant, and betray its deepest core beliefs.” ( p. 18). The case was Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

. (The CLS lost 5-4, unfortunately, on a narrowly-defined ruling based on an understanding of the standards for recognized student groups at the Hastings College of Law in San Francisco.)

I think these statements are as close as you can come to saying that a statement represents the mainstream consensus of the academic and pastoral leadership of the evangelical world, because of all the signers.

1. 5. What book do you recommend readers read that leads to an understanding of your stance and your statements regarding Gay Marriage & Same Sex Blessing?

There are many resources noted in Chapter 7 of my book, Politics—According to the Bible. In addition, the first book I would mention is by a psychiatrist, Jeffrey Satinover, called Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. He has lectured at Yale and Harvard and graduated from MIT, Harvard, and the University of Texas. Another important book is by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda.

1. 6. Have you performed a Same Sex Blessing, and if so, will you tell us some of the words you used? Where did you do this? Have you turned any request down for performing a Same Sex Blessing or Gay Marriage, Reverend Doctor?

No, and no.

1. 7. I suppose we’ve covered the subject, but to rephrase the previous question as I think it important to our topic, what does Church mean to you as Bible professor? What is your vision, as one might say?

The Church is the community of all people redeemed by Jesus Christ and forgiven of their sins.

1. 8. This posting from Facebook opened these questions up to some people that this writer knows, and I wrote on my Facebook page: “I am trying to think of questions for Reverend Doctor Wayne Grudem (Ordained in the Baptist Church). Here is a possible question: “Faith and belief in Jesus Christ is thought of as freedom in life. Is a Christian Church’s acceptance of the practice of offering Gay Marriage a form of Christian freedom expressed by the Church?” That’s the first part of this question as we come towards the end of this interview. This is the response: Gay marriage should be a “right”! Not “offered” by anyone! This writer said on the Facebook page: “That’s a question worth thinking about: Is marriage a right? Does that mean like driving a car, or voting, or taking Eucharist, or joining a Church. Or just the pursuit of happiness as a Constitutional ‘right.’” The answer to the first question is asked, and as a response to the two parts of the Facebook posting, please comment on not only is Gay Marriage and Same Sex Blessings a right for them in the Christian faith and in the Christian Church, but is it required to be done because not to do so makes them unhappy. Do Gay and Lesbians have a right in the Christian life and Christian Church to happiness, or at least its pursuit?

The basic question is whether moral standards come within individual hearts or from a divine source outside of us, that is, from God. That question explains the deepest political differences in our society over social issues today. Do moral standards come from our internal feelings, or is there an external standard of right and wrong, of what constitutes true virtue or morality?
As for happiness, I believe that true happiness only comes from following God’s moral standards that he has given in the Bible. After all, he is the Creator! Regarding freedom, I believe that the only true freedom is freedom from sin.
The Facebook statement that marriage should be a “right” and not “offered” by anyone assumes that the entire historical agreement of all the nations in the world has been wrong, because all nations have decided that the civil government must regulate the standards for marriage. When someone advocates a position that goes contrary to what all societies have done in all of recorded history, it does not inspire confidence in the legitimacy of that position.

1. 9. This posting by Facebook, part of a discussion, came up with an interesting question. Let me frame it here with some of the Facebook dialogue: I would draw the question somewhat differently. I don’t think at the end of the day that the Church offers marriage to anyone. Marriage is the purview of the couple — they offer it to one another. The State can confer legal benefits and responsibilities. The Church, for its part, can confer blessing and support… (a) Reverend Doctor, I ask: Do you think marriage is conferred and the Church merely sanctifies it with blessing and support? Discussion comment: I don’t know precisely how evangelicals in general or any one particular church would view my approach. What I do know is that sacramental language is likely off the table, and probably appeals to scriptural language around marriage… would be a place to hold the conversation. Would still be interested to know however, how that biblical basis informs their understanding of the Church’s role in marriage. I speculate it would be a teaching and supportive role, not necessarily in contradiction to my take above, but there may be a bigger piece missing in my take of which I am ignorant… (b) Reverend Doctor, this writer asks: Will you comment on how the Biblical basis of marriage informs the Church’s role in marriage.

I think the State delegates to the Church or to clergy the authority to perform marriage ceremonies, just as it delegates that same authority to Justices of the Peace. It is not up to a Justice of the Peace to make up his own standards for marriage, but he must follow the standards of the State. And the Church must do this as well.

When I perform a marriage ceremony, I pronounce a couple to be husband wife on the basis of the authority given to me by the State of Arizona as a minister of the Gospel. I have no right to make up my own definition of marriage contrary to the laws of the state.

But let me return to the main question that I stated at the beginning: The question is what kind of intimate, cohabiting, potentially childbearing relationships the society wants to encourage and reward and protect? Up to this point, and I hope forever in the future, American society has decided to encourage marriage as only between one man and one woman, because this relationship alone gives immeasurable benefits to a society that no other relationship can provide.




ADDENDUM I

LONGER EXCERPT FROM HIS RECENT BOOK



Does the Bible indicate what marriage should be?

Not surprisingly, the Bible contains clear and explicit teachings about marriage. Many of these teachings are relevant to our consideration of governmental laws and policies about marriage.

1. God created marriage at the beginning of the human race as a lifelong union between one man and one woman
In the first chapters of the Bible we read that God created Adam and Eve and told them that together they should bear children:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it …” (Gen. 1:27–28).

But were Adam and Eve actually a married couple? Yes, because the next chapter calls them “the man and his wife” (Gen.2:25).
The Bible actually views the relationship between Adam and Eve as the pattern for all marriages to follow on the earth. This is clear from the more detailed description of their creation that comes in chapter 2 . . . . [which] uses this union between Adam and Eve as the pattern for marriages generally, for it says,
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (v. 24).

The phrase “a man shall leave his father and his mother” pictures a situation in which the man departs from the household of which he was a part, and it implies that a new household is being established. The phrase “hold fast to his wife” indicates that this new relationship, between a man and his wife, is the basis of the new household that is established. Therefore marriage in general is defined here as a union between “a man” and “his wife.”

This is also Jesus’ understanding of Genesis 1–2 when responding to a question from the Pharisees about divorce:
Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:3–6).
Jesus understands that the essence of marriage was established when God “created them from the beginning” and “made them male and female” and also said that “a man shall … hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (vv. 4–5). He also affirms that marriage is therefore an institution God creates between a man and a woman, because he calls marriage a relationship between two people whom “God has joined together” (v. 6) . . . .
In addition, it is clear that sexual faithfulness to one’s partner is an essential component of marriage, for adultery is regularly viewed as a sin. In fact, the command “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod. 20:14) is one of the Ten Commandments, and it is reaffirmed several times in the New Testament (see Matt. 19:18; Rom. 2:22; 13:9; James 2:11).

2. God’s definition of marriage was not for the Jewish people only, but was intended to apply to all people in all societies for all time
This establishment of marriage is not like a number of laws in the Old Testament that were intended only for the Jewish people and only for a particular time in their history, such as the laws about the sacrifices of animals and clean and unclean foods. All of those laws came after the Exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt (see Exod. 1–15). These laws were given in Exodus 20–40 and in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
But the basic material about marriage comes from the beginning of the human race, at the time when Adam and Eve were created. It comes even before there was any evil or sin in the world (which came in Genesis 3). That is why Jesus says that these truths about marriage come “from the beginning” (Matt. 19:4) and they belong to the essence of God’s creating us as “male and female.”
Therefore this understanding of marriage as the lifelong union between one man and one woman is intended by God to be understood as the correct definition of marriage for all people on the earth, for all cultures and societies, and for all periods of history until the beginning of the new heaven and new earth. (In Matthew 22:30 Jesus indicates that a significant change will occur after the final resurrection of believers: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” )
Thus God can bring judgment, for example, on the gentile (non-Jewish) cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their widespread practice of homosexual conduct (see Gen. 19:1–28, especially 19:5; also Jude 7). He can bring judgment against Pharaoh, King of Egypt, if he commits adultery with someone else’s wife (see Gen. 12:17–20). The book of Proverbs, which contains much wisdom not merely for the people of Israel in the Old Testament but for the conduct of life generally, gives frequent warnings against adultery (see 2:16–19; 5:1–23; 6:20–35; 7:4–27; 23:27–28).
In the New Testament, John the Baptist rebuked Herod Antipas, an Idumean and not part of the people of Israel, for wrongfully committing incest by taking his brother’s wife (Mark 6:17–18). Paul can say that Gentiles, who do not have the Jewish laws, are still guilty of violating God’s moral standards regarding sexual conduct (see Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 5:9–10, 13; 6:9; cf. 1 Peter 4:3–5). The great city called “Babylon,” which is the center of earthly rebellion against God, is judged in the end of the book of Revelation for many sins, and among them is “sexual immorality” (Rev. 18:3, 9). And those outside the heavenly city in Revelation 21 include “the sexually immoral” (v. 8).
Therefore, from Genesis to Revelation—from the beginning of the Bible to the end—God has established moral standards regarding the nature and conduct of marriage, and he repeatedly indicates that he will hold all people on the earth accountable for disobedience to those standards.
Further evidence of this is seen in Leviticus 18, which states that the Canaanites were morally responsible before God for many kinds of sexual sin (specified in vv. 6–23): “For the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean” (v. 27). God held these Canaanites accountable for violating his standards regarding marriage, even though they did not have the written laws of Israel and were not part of the Jewish people. Yet they had God’s moral standards written on their hearts, and they had their own consciences that bore witness to those standards, and therefore God rightly held them accountable (see Rom. 2:14–15).
For Christians who are thinking about what kind of definition of marriage a civil government should adopt, these passages indicate that the definition of marriage as established by God in the Bible (a lifelong union between one man and one woman) should be the standard adopted by all governments. (This does not mean that all divorce should be prohibited: Because of the advent of sin in the world, later teaching in the Bible specified some conditions under which God allowed for divorce to break the lifelong commitment of marriage; see below.) And this legal standard for marriage should apply to all people, not merely to Christians or those who personally happen to agree with the Bible’s standards.

3. Marriage between a man and a woman is the most fundamental institution in any society
The establishment of marriage in Genesis 1–2 comes before the establishment of any other institution in human society. It comes immediately after the creation of man and woman.
It is significant that God establishes marriage before there is any establishment of cities, nations, courts of law, or any human laws. It certainly comes before any national government, state government, or city government. It comes before any establishment of schools and universities, or businesses and corporations, or churches and other nonprofit organizations. It comes before the establishment of any institution in any human society. And it is foundational to the establishment of any society.
Human societies have long recognized the need for some kind of normalization of a dependable, ongoing, faithful marriage relationship between men and women. So far as I know, every human nation on earth, every society of any size or permanence at all, has recognized and protected the institution of heterosexual marriage. (Though some have had polygamy as a recognized form of marriage, it is still heterosexual marriage.)
British anthropologist J. D. Unwin reached this conclusion after conducting exhaustive research to investigate the assertions made by Sigmund Freud. Unwin discovered that Freud’s call for the liberation of sexual behavior had grave consequences for society. In his research Unwin chronicled the historical decline of eighty-six different cultures and found that “strict marital monogamy” was central to social energy and growth. Indeed, no society flourished for more than three generations without it. Unwin wrote, “In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence” (by which he meant abstinence from sex outside of marriage). (Joseph Daniel Unwin, Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1934); Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior (London: Oxford University Press, 1935); and Hopousia: Or the Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1940), cited by Daniel R. Heimbach, “Deconstructing the Family,” The Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, The Religion and Society Report 22:7 (Oct. /Nov. 2005). www.profam.org/pub/rs/rs_2207.htm#endfn57.)

[Adapted from Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, p. 213-217]. 1700 words




ADDENDUM II

SHORTER EXCERPT FROM HIS RECENT BOOK



Q: If Christians insist that marriage should be between one man and one woman, isn’t that an unconstitutional “establishment of religion” that is prohibited by the First Amendment?

A: No, it is not, because marriage is not a religion! When voters define marriage, they are not establishing a religion. In the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the word “religion” refers to the church that people attend and support. “Religion” means being a Baptist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Jew. It does not mean being married. These arguments try to make the word “religion” in the Constitution mean something different from what it has always meant.

These arguments also make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law. There were religious reasons behind many of our laws, but these laws do not “establish” a religion. All major religions have teachings against stealing, but laws against stealing do not “establish a religion.” All religions have laws against murder, but laws against murder do not “establish a religion.” The campaign to abolish slavery in the United States and England was led by many Christians, based on their religious convictions, but laws abolishing slavery do not “establish a religion.” The campaign to end racial discrimination and segregation was led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist pastor, who preached against racial injustice from the Bible. But laws against discrimination and segregation do not “establish a religion.”

If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed in court, they could soon be applied
against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments against abortion. Majority votes to protect unborn children could then be invalidated by saying these voters are “establishing a religion.” And, by such reasoning, all the votes of religious citizens for almost any issue could be found invalid by court decree! This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established, and the direct opposite of what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the First Amendment.
[Adapted from Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, p. 31]. 350 words.



ADDENDUM III

Interview by Adrian Warnock, reproduced by permission and from his web page: http://adrianwarnock.com/2006/12/interview-dr-wayne-grudem-highlights-and-reflections/


“We moved to Phoenix Seminary in Arizona in 2001, primarily because of Margaret’s health. She had been experiencing chronic pain after an auto accident a number of years earlier, and we found that the pain was aggravated by cold and humidity. Well, the Chicago area is cold in the winter and humid in the summer! After a couple of trips to Arizona, which is hot and dry, we realized that Margaret felt much better there. So I phoned the academic dean at Phoenix Seminary and asked if there might possibly be a job opportunity there for me. It is a long and wonderful story of the Lord’s guidance and provision, but the result is that we have been here since June of 2001, Margaret has felt much better, and I also love the seminary where I am now teaching. So we are thankful for God’s blessings in many ways. I am thankful to the Lord that when we were making a decision about whether to move to Phoenix, on the very day we were talking and praying about it, I came to Ephesians 5:28 in my regular schedule of daily Bible reading, and the Lord used this verse strongly in my own decision process: “In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” After reading that, I thought it was important for me to move for the sake of Margaret’s physical body, her physical health.
 Part 2 – Systematic Theology and Controversy
Dr. Grudem’s answer to my question about his book, Systematic Theology, further demonstrated his humility, but in other ways was also quite revealing. A big difference between men like Grudem and certain other theologians is that he believes it is his task to make complex theological truths understandable by ordinary “lay” people without theological degrees – people like me. I cannot agree more, as quite frankly, if a theologian cannot write about his ideas and the evidence he bases them on in a way that a person of reasonable education can understand, then there is something very wrong. I thank God for men like Grudem who can do just that.
“I am surprised, and thankful to God for the way the book seems to continue to be a blessing to people – and not just to pastors and seminary students, but lots of other Christians from all walks of life. As you know, I believe that God intended His Word to be understood, not just by specialists, but also by ordinary Christians. The “blessed man” in Psalm 1 is held up as an example for all of us: “His delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” (Psalm 1:2)”


This interview appeared originally in Church of England Newspaper, London, May, 2011.

Reprinted from The Christian Post, an article on Lesbian Marriage (recently held 2011, January)...

|Tue, Jan. 04 2011 04:01 PM EDT

2 Lesbian Episcopal Clergy Marry on New Year's

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

Two lesbian Episcopal priests kicked off the New Year by marrying in Massachusetts.

The Very Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, dean and president of Episcopal Divinity School, and Mally Lloyd, canon to the Ordinary, married on Saturday at St. Paul's Cathedral in Boston in front of nearly 400 guests. The Rt. Rev. M. Thomas Shaw, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, solemnized the marriage.

For orthodox Anglicans, the lesbian union was another act of defiance.

"This is another action of reckless disregard for the life of the Anglican Communion and the authority of the Bible by The Episcopal Church," the Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, president and CEO of the American Anglican Council, told The Christian Post. "They continue to ignore the Communion’s pleas for restraint and continue to go their own way."

The Episcopal Church in the U.S. defines marriage as between a man and a woman. But in 2009 the national body passed a resolution allowing bishops, particularly those in civil jurisdictions where same-sex marriage and civil unions are legal, to provide "generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church."

That year, Shaw gave the green light for clergy in the Diocese of Massachussetts to solemnize all marriages. Same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004.

The blessing of same-sex unions within The Episcopal Church is nothing new and such actions have drawn rebuke from the wider Anglican Communion, which is comprised of more than 77 million members worldwide.

Anglican leaders worldwide agreed to a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions in 2004. They also agreed to practice restraint on the consecration of bishops living in same-sex relationships. But the U.S. body has continued to defy the moratoria to the frustration of conservative Anglicans.

Robert H. Lundy, spokesman for the American Anglican Council, noted that The Episcopal Church has long blessed same-sex unions. But the latest union between Ragsdale, 52, and Lloyd, 57, is being touted as a marriage, and the first lesbian marriage of two senior Episcopalian clergy at that.

"For many people, this is splitting hairs," Lundy commented. "It may be the first time it's being called a marriage, but it's nothing new."

"All this will do for others around the Communion is further illustrate what we've been saying here," he said. And the AAC has long stated that The Episcopal Church has departed from traditional Christian and Anglican Communion teaching.

"For most people, they already broke the camel's back a long time ago," Lundy said.

Last year, The Episcopal Church consecrated its second openly gay bishop despite calls by the wider Anglican Communion to practice "gracious restraint." As a consequence, The Episcopal Church was suspended from participating in ecumenical dialogues and stripped of any decision-making powers on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order – a body that examines issues of doctrine and authority.

PRESS RELEASE

Lesbian Episcopal Clergy Married by Massachusetts Bishop 

“The majority of the Episcopal Church is increasingly practicing a separate faith.”
-Jeff Walton, Spokesman for IRD’s Anglican Action Program

Washington, DC—The marriage of two lesbians, both high-profile Episcopal priests in Massachusetts, has spotlighted anew the long-running controversy over same-sex unions in both the U.S.-based Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion with which it is affiliated.

The Rev. Mally Lloyd, a ranking official of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, married the Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, dean and president of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, on New Year’s Day in Boston, according to the Patriot-Ledger. Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, the state’s highest ranking Episcopal prelate, presided. Ragsdale has been a controversial figure in the 2.1 million-member denomination for both her outspoken affirmation of same-sex “marriage” and homosexual clergy, as well as her unqualified defense of abortion as a “blessing.”

Bishop Shaw has also openly supported gay marriage for years. Shaw gave his parish priests permission to perform same-sex marriages soon after the 2009 Episcopal General Convention voted to allow “generous pastoral response” in such situations.

Jeff Walton, spokesman for IRD’s Anglican Action Program, commented:

“Much like the consecration of openly partnered homosexual Bishops Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool, the Episcopal Church’s embrace of same-sex unions continues to drive a wedge between liberal Anglicans in the U.S. and traditionalists in the Global South.

“Ultimately, this is a dispute about scriptural authority, with liberals following what they attest to be widening human experience about sexuality, while traditionalists appeal to historic teachings of the Church and a plain reading of Scripture.

“The majority of the Episcopal Church is increasingly practicing a separate faith from what most Anglicans practice worldwide.”

Alan Wisdom, IRD Vice President for Research and Programs, commented:

“The Scriptures consistently teach that marriage is instituted by God as a gift to all humankind, and that we are to honor that gift.

“Shall we assert the right to redefine marriage to suit our own contemporary notions of justice? Shall we treat marriage as if it were no different from other sexual relationships? Or shall we reaffirm the vision of an exclusive, lifelong, one-flesh union of the two complementary sexes created by God? Only the latter option is faithful to the Scriptures and the worldwide Christian tradition.”

Alan Wisdom’s paper “Is Marriage Worth Defending?” is viewable on the IRD website.

The Institute on Religion & Democracy works to reaffirm the church's biblical and historical teachings, strengthen and reform its role in public life, protect religious freedom, and renew democracy at home and abroad.

http://www.theird.org/NetCommunity/page.redir?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theird.org%2f&srcid=4291&srctid=1&erid=976737

###

Commenting on this Press Release, and "Is Marriage Worth Defending," the Rector of the Church I attend in Mill Valley, California (Church of Our Saviour) responded by email in this way:

Dear Peter,

Regarding the IRD piece, I think most or all of these points from the perspective of scripture, tradition, and reason are much more comprehensively handled in Tobias Haller’s scholarly Reasonable and Holy. ( https://www.churchpublishing.org/products/index.cfm?fuseaction=product&productID=6228 )

I agree with some 90% of what the IRD author articulates as goods of marriage. The deeper question is what is essential to marriage. He appears to argue that procreation, amongst a few other goods, is essential. I find this assertion fallacious, as we know numerous heterosexual couples who are biologically childless, and I think we would be loathe to claim that their marriages are any less valid than, say, my own. Moreover, the assertion that marriage can only be between a man and woman is largely just that : an assertion without any deeper appeal to reason, along the lines of “we’ve never done it this way before.”

I also quibble with the author over the assertion that the Bible offers a consistent view of marriage. Given the tacit acceptance of polygamy amongst some of the patriarchs, concubinage amongst the heroic kings of Israel, the primacy of celibacy in the New Testament, and Jesus’ largely negative view of the institution of marriage as it was manifest in his time (our appeal to the wedding in Capernaum in our wedding liturgy is amongst the flimsiest of scriptural arguments in the BCP – the focus is never on the bride on the groom, but rather on what Jesus is up to in the kitchen!), I find the assertion, along with the remark that marriage should be the “norm” dubious. Moreover, the understanding of marriage and sexuality – even in Jesus’ time – is very far removed from our own. Much of the biblical world regarded sexuality as the domain of the man (the woman was regarded as passive, and idealized as obedient) and marriage largely about the transmission of patriarchal property and legitimacy and the protection of male honor. This is a very far cry – probably farther than we can imagine – from the legal equality and protections that are mutually held and enjoyed by married couples today, or the legally recognized agency of women in sexual relationships (prohibiting rape in marriage is a strikingly recent addition to the law in many states), or the recognition that same-sex orientation is found naturally occurring in the human family and wider creation.

For these reasons, I think it best to say the biblical record seems to hold this overarching theme: that fidelity, mutuality, and charity define a healthy relationship of any kind. Given the ways marital fidelity and infidelity are used as images by the prophets and in the apocalyptic literature, faithful marriage exhibiting these virtues is held as an example of the fidelity that God hopes for His people.

As Tobias Haller has argued more eloquently than I in Reasonable and Holy, I do not believe that same-sex marriages pose the threat that the IRD and others appear to argue they do. Quite the contrary. The question has helped raise up the goods of marriage which I believe are essential, and have been too often lost in a hyper-sexualized, unchaste, and shallow depiction of married life in much popular media. For starters, the goods of marriage include:

• Mutuality (which assumes, as I understand it, monogamy)

• Fidelity and stability

• The creation of a locus of hospitality that brings good to the wider community (the establishment of the household) – and this can include hosting a family, including children – biological or adopted.

The sexual relationship is meant to help support, reflect, and cultivate these goods in the relationship. It is not an end (a good) unto itself. In this sense, marriage helps us discipline our sexuality. The witness of same-sex couples in my own lifetime has been to precisely this. In many cases, I have learned more about how to be faithful to my marriage vows and wife from them than from many heterosexual married couples I know. Put another way, and contrary to the assumptions of the IRD article, to argue the good of heterosexual marriage does not necessarily negate the possibility of these same goods in homosexual marriage.

I am concerned that much of the argument coming from the far right tends to raise marriage to the level of an idol. It is clearly not the ideal state for all people. In this regard, however, I remain quite conservative (and I believe orthodox) in that permanent fidelity or continent celibacy are the ideal choices held for us vis à vis sexuality both in the overall biblical record and in Catholic teaching. Christian marriages are healthy and fruitful only in as much as they cultivate the charity of each member of the family and charity in the wider community. For me, marriage is certainly not the end-all and be-all of Christian life. But I see no salient reason yet to withhold it from those same-sex couples who feel called to it. This is something the wider Episcopal Church is studying presently.

Unlike the IRD, I think we’re actually turning a corner with younger generations. I see younger people entering marriage with far greater care and attention to the vows and content of marriage than did many of their parents in the “me” generation. In The Episcopal Church, we have gotten much more serious about premarital preparation. Even for couples who are already cohabiting, this has turned out to be incredibly important work to forge a lasting and faithful marriage.

Another irony of our times: it is my understanding that the highest divorce rate is not found in the more liberal parts of the country, but in the Bible belt and the deep South. My analysis of this is actually marriages are set up to fail by overly high expectations often clothed as Christian ideals and exacerbated by the economic pressures and inequities and the sexual romanticism of our age.

I don’t have to tell you (or anyone) that marriage is hard work. So is living in community. Both require considerable discipline. But then, a life of charity always does, whether we’re coupled or single, right?

The Reverend Richard Helmer +
Rector, Church of Our Saviour
Mill Valley, CA

Self identified Lesbian minister tried for homosexual marriage ceremonies, Presbyterian Church USA

by Peter Menkin

The Rev. Jane Adams Spahr testifies at her trial for violating her ordination vows
 by conducting same-gender marriage
ceremonies

A blatantly gay player for changing the Presbyterian Church USA to accept Gay Marriage is again up for appeal on charges of committing her fourth offense of marrying homosexual people in another Church ceremony. Openly Lesbian herself, as she self-describes her position as an ordained Presbyterian Church USA minister, now retired, her lifelong mission has been to get the Church to let gays and Lesbians be married in the sight of God, though this is against Church doctrine.

The Redwood Empire trial was reported as: Spahr officiated at 16 same-sex weddings during a window when the unions were legal in California. She is a former San Francisco lesbian minister who has challenged the church on its stance on homosexuality. The Napa Register also reports she “persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience” against the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) between June 17 and November 2008 by performing the ceremonies as marriages.

The Church trial was described by reporter Alisha Wyman, Covenant Presbyterian Church in Napa, drew a crowd of ministers, media and other interested people. Six commissioners from the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of the Redwoods, which represents 54 congregations in Northern California, presided over the proceedings, sitting at a covered table at the end of the sanctuary.

Testimony from the Lesbian couple in the trial gave the usual heart rendering story of their sadness concerning the nature of denial of marriage rights in the Church, and the usual claim of their being second class citizens as a result of the Presbyterian Church USA refusing to accept marriages that are not between a man and a woman.

As argument of the defense, Scott Clark, who is representing Spahr along with defense counselor Reverend Beverly Brewster, offered Spahr didn’t do anything in violation of the constitution or the Bible. It is the defense’s opinion that both call for the church to be open to its members and love of all God’s people, Scott Clark said.

The Gay activist, retired minister, Reverend Spahr, who is 68 years old and as a Lesbian minister who is sexually active, was charged in the Presbytery of the Redwoods with violating governing documents of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) by calling those ceremonies “marriages.” Prosecutors are asking for the lowest level of censure: public rebuke. Many opposed to Gay Marriage in the Presbyterian Church USA may be asking why so slight a punishment for so chronic and blatant an act done in a near chronic series of actions for which she is neither repentant, nor sorry, but very proud of committing.

In another Napa Register newspaper report. The discipline decision was explained this way: In its acquittal of Spahr, the commission reasoned that the definition of marriage is a definition only and is not subject to discipline. Spahr also didn’t define the ceremonies as “marriages” in her reports.

Scott Clark, representing Spahr, said she was adhering to of inclusion and openness in her acts.

The ten couples stand with Janie Spahr and Defense Counsel Scott Clark and Beverly Brewster for the reading of the decision. Jim Spahr, Sphar's former husband and long-time supporter, sits with Prosecuting counsel JoAn Blackstone who is a friend of the Spahr family.

These Progressive religious theological arguments that are so popular and widespread in California and especially Northern California and San Francisco, are held by Reverend Spahr, who has been a minister as an evangelist for the progressive organization That All May Freely Serve since before retiring in 2007. She has been an ordained minister for 36 years and served at the First Presbyterian Church in San Rafael, California (Marin County and north of San Francisco), the Metropolitan Community Church in San Francisco and the Downtown United Presbyterian Church in New York. So notes reporter Alisha Wyman in a second Napa Register story. This writer assumes reporter Wyman was eyewitness at the trial just held.

In its guilty verdict, the commissioners censured her with rebuke; they stayed her sentence until an appeals process is complete.

Spahr, a lesbian activist, at the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Napa, California USA was told, the commissioners urged the church to re-examine its policies, which are contradictory and against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, moderator Jim Jones read from the opinion. So the eyewitness report said.

By the Napa Register newspaper story, a reader would believe the members of the Church that held the most recent attempt at forming a religious marriage between homosexuals favors such actions:

“Please understand, there is nothing but love for Jane and the work she is doing for us,” said Covenant Presbyterian Church elder Elizabeth Groelle.

In an August 30, 2010 press statement by the Presbyterian Church USA with the titled, “Spahr found guilty on same-gender marriage charges”: ‘Journey of reconciliation’ needed as state, church law diverge, court says”—

Civil law was not the issue in this trial. “This is an ecclesiastical trial,” Blackstone said, “and we are not here to debate civil law.” The prosecution called no witnesses.

Spahr, 68, an honorably retired member of the Presbytery of the Redwoods, was charged with presiding over the June 20, 2008, marriage ceremony of a same gender couple while such marriages were recognized and recorded as legal by the State of California.


In addition Spahr was charged with presiding over an additional 15 same-gender marriages during that period of time.


The third charge was that in presiding over the secular marriage ceremonies, Spahr was violating her ordination vows by failing to obey an Authoritative Interpretation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Book of Order.

“I am deeply proud of the PJC and all involved with the process,” Redwoods Executive Presbyter and Stated Clerk Robert Conover said, “and I am profoundly moved by the sadness of those who feel hurt by this decisions.” “I am deeply proud of the PJC and all involved with the process,” Redwoods Executive Presbyter and Stated Clerk Robert Conover said, “and I am profoundly moved by the sadness of those who feel hurt by this decisions.”

[A defense witness named] Krause testified … on the scriptural understanding of marriage and how Spahr did or did not act in violation of her vows of ordination. She argued that the Book of Order definition of marriage is based on a contemporary understanding of partnership, while the scriptural understanding is based on the idea of a wife as property and subordinate to the husband.


Krause noted that one of the PC(USA) predecessor denominations, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., changed the definition of marriage in its constitution in the 1950s in response to cultural changes that opened up the opportunity for remarriage in a church after divorce.

Thus, Krause noted, marriage is a unique blending of state and church authority.




"Calvin taught that the civil authority creates the contract and the church solemnizes it,” Krause said. When the definition of marriage was in harmony between the two institutions, Krause continued, the 2008 authoritative interpretation had logic…

The statement for Presbyterian Church USA as released to the Press is credited to: Anitra Kitt…a free-lance writer in northern California and a candidate for the ministry under the care of the Presbytery of the Cascades.

Susan Childress, Special to The Layman Online, Posted Monday, March 6, 2006 said in her web report, A seven-member California Redwoods Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission found that the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr, an ordained Presbyterian minister, evangelist and lesbian activist, committed “no offense” and acted “within her right of conscience” when she pronounced each lesbian couple “bride and bride and partners in life” in 2004 and 2005. (Note this is Jane Spahr’s prior trial, not her recent one of 2010 reported on in The Layman.)

It remains clear by the Presbyterian Church USA Layman website that Reverend Spahr remains both unrepentant and “swears” to continue her revolutionary purposes to change marriage in the Presbyterian Church USA so it is also between avowed and practicing homosexuals:

“Today is just a beautiful day for us,” said Spahr immediately after the Commission’s 6-1 ruling at Church of the Roses in Santa Rosa, chosen because of its location within the Redwood Presbytery and for the lack of its association with either the defense or prosecution.

“Today there was an honoring of who we are, and we can’t tell you what this means to us,” Spahr said. Proclaiming that she will continue to marry both lesbian and gay couples, Spahr added, “I know we’ll continue to do our work with love, with integrity and with justice.”

Ten couples stand with Janie Spahr and Defense Counsel Scott Clark
and Beverly Brewster for the reading of the decision. Jim Spahr, Sphar's former husband and long-time supporter, sits with
Prosecuting counsel JoAn Blackstone who is a friend of the Spahr family.

Part of the practice and belief held by homosexuals regarding homosexual marriage is they are the future, as is gay and lesbian marriage the future. One Lesbian who is married said to writer Susan Childress, and she quoted her:… Douglass, 41, a Rochester resident raised in San Rafael, California, said she met Spahr 27 years ago when she attended a Presbyterian youth group where Spahr served. “Being a lesbian in a Presbyterian church has been really hateful because you’re not seen as being okay,” she said. Douglass resolved the issue by staying in the denomination and believing that “the church would just have to catch up.”


The San Francisco gay newspaper The Advocate reported briefly on the findings:

“This is such a sad moment for the Church” Spahr, who has been a minister for 36 years, said in a statement. “Today, the Church rejected God’s” amazing hospitality and welcome. It deeply troubles and saddens me.�

Interestingly, in its verdict, the church praised Spahr:

In the reality in which we live today, marriage can be between same gender as well as opposite gender persons, and we, as a church, need to be able to respond to this reality as Dr. Jane Spahr has done with faithfulness and compassion.�

Spahr and her legal team are looking into options for appeal.


Addendum


Janie began her “out” liberation work with and for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people

as the Minister of Pastoral Care in the Castro area of Metropolitan Community Church in San

Francisco from 1980-1982 when her own Presbyterian denomination did not know what to do

with this “lesbyterian”.


In November of 1982 Janie, along with many friends, founded the Ministry of Light which became the Spectrum Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns. She served

as their Executive Director for over 10 years. From youth groups, parent groups, PFLAG, support groups, family camps, AIDS Ministry, speakers bureau, this ministry has become the L/G/B/T center in Marin County, California, where it continues to flourish. Janie completed her work there on February 28, 1993.


In November of 1991 Janie was called to serve as one of four Co-Pastors at the Downtown

United Presbyterian Church in Rochester, New York. She was denied that call by the

denomination’s highest court in November 1992. In March of 1993 The Downtown United

Presbyterian Church invited Janie to become their evangelist to spread the good news by

“personing the issue” and challenging exclusive church policies.

Janie has traveled throughout the country, educating and informing Presbyterians and others working on behalf of greater

inclusiveness for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.CLGS is honored to include her papers in the CLGS Archives, together with materials from That All May Freely Serve, a pioneering LGBT-oriented justice ministry within the Presbyterian Church (USA). Both collections are currently being catalogued and archived. CLGS will make an announcement when these are accessible and available for research.

(Biographical data comes from the LGBT Religious Archives Network Profile Gallery.)


This article appeared originally in The Church of England Newspaper, London where it may still be found.

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 25^th 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…”

Jewish Orthodox Union:

"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

Episcopal Bishop Bishop J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles:

"Justice is advancing thanks to today's ruling affirming Californians' constitutional right to marriage in faithful, same-gender relationships."

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism:

"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.