Sexual Issues

It seems the gay marriage crowd has gone from human sacrifice to cannibalism. According to Mother Jones:

zombieLast week, the online dating site OkCupid switched up its homepage for Mozilla Firefox users. Upon opening the site, a message appeared encouraging members to curb their use of Firefox because the company’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, allegedly opposes equality for gay couples—specifically, he donated $1000 to the campaign for the anti-gay Proposition 8 in 2008. “We’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together,” the message read. “If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal.” The company’s action went viral, and within a few days, Eich had resigned as CEO of Mozilla only weeks after taking up the post. On Thursday, OkCupid released a statement saying “We are pleased that OkCupid’s boycott has brought tremendous awareness to the critical matter of equal rights for all individuals and partnerships.”

But there’s a hitch: OkCupid’s co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.

Next up: the Human Rights Campaign performs magic, resurrecting Joe McCarthy to ask CEOs across the land, “are you now, or have you ever been…”

The gods of gayness are angry, and demand a sacrifice. Mozilla has obliged:

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.

Apparently the standard on which Mozilla prides itself is absolute conformity of thinking, and punishment of those who dare to defy theZeitgeist. But when the gods are angry, they must be propitiated.

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

We forgot that freedom of thought was not supposed to exist at Mozilla, and didn’t remember fact enough. Self-flagellation will begin immediately.

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.

We built an auto da fe in the company atrium, and Brendan was gracious enough to jump right into it.

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Mozilla believes in freedom of speech. Feel free to exercise it on the unemployment line.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

You are welcome to any opinions you like, as long as we approve of them. We believe that all people who think just like we do are equal, while everyone else is welcome to work for Google.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

I’m sorry, there’s more, but I just ate dinner, and I can feel the bile rising. Mozilla obviously belongs to the IngSoc School of Political Doubletalk. Orwell would be proud.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, no, they never mention what the whole brouhaha was about. Because, transparency and stuff.

On this page, you will find a list of Mozilla products. Until Mozilla decides to respect the First Amendment, I will never use any of their products or recommend them.

You’re on your way to taking over the leadership of a business. You’re a leading thinker and innovator in your industry, a person of impeccable business credentials, someone that any company in your industry would love to have as its CEO. However, it turns out that you don’t hold the correct opinions about a social issue that has nothing to do with your business. So…off with your head! According to the UK’s Independent:

Staff at tech company Mozilla are calling for CEO Brendan Eich to resign a week after he took the job, after it emerged that he gave donations to an anti-LGBT campaign.

Eich contributed $1,000 (£601.11) in support of California’ Proposition 8 in 2008, an initiative which opposed same-sex marriage.

His controversial donation was discovered on a public database, with Mozilla named as his employer, in 2012, the Telegraph reported.

Eich was made CEO of Mozilla, which is behind the Firefox web browser, in late March after his predecessor Gary Kovacs announced his resignation in April last year.

He was previously the organisation’s chief technology officer, and has been associated with Mozilla in its various guises since the 1990s.

According to Mozilla, Eich invented JavaScript, the Internet’s most widely used programming language.

Since his appointment, his colleagues, who regard his anti-LBGT stance as against the company’s ethos, have taken to Twitter to post the message: “I’m an employee of @mozilla and cannot reconcile having @BrendanEich as CEO.”

The company’s ethos? When did Mozilla become a lobbying organization advocating for gay rights? It’s a tech company, for goodness sake. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with what Mozilla does. What’s happening is that employees have decided that they want a political litmus test for their CEO. What’s next? A demand that the CEO support Obamacare? How about a cap-and-trade carbon tax? Or an expansion of food stamps?

Of course, gay marriage is different. It is one of the two sacraments (the other being abortion) of the new secularist religion that is in the process of being established in the United States. Mozilla is a private company, and they can set any requirements they want for their CEO. But this is an indication of a growing societal mindset that says that non-believers are to be ostracized and driven out of not only public life, but any form of leadership public or private. That way lies tyranny.

Alan Sears of the Alliance Defending Freedom tells the story of a case in Canada that foreshadows what is inevitable in the United States:

Perhaps a case now unfolding in Canada will open a few more eyes to what lies in store for our own country, if a hearing in the Elane Photography case is denied.

A Toronto pastor, Randy Harris – a devout Christian and ordained minister – was asked to officiate at the marriage ceremony of “Matthew Commandant and Rui Oliveira.” Knowing “Rui” as a not uncommon female name in the Orient, Reverend Harris assumed the couple was a man and a woman. As he prepared for the ceremony, he learned differently. He told the two men that, due to his religious convictions and the requirements of his denomination, he would not be able to perform their ceremony, and, apologizing for his mistake, refunded their fee.

The two men were not satisfied, and filed a discrimination lawsuit against the pastor with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, asking for reimbursement of their travel costs (which Pastor Harris had already offered), and $1,000 each for “injury to dignity.” But that’s not all. They are also demanding that Harris be required to undergo “sensitivity” training, as well as attend meetings of LGBT organizations. And they are pushing for a government order requiring all marriage officiates in the province to perform any kind of ceremony, for anyone who asks – regardless of the officiate’s religious beliefs.

This is the logical – indeed, inevitable – next step for legal proceedings in our own country, if the rulings like the one against the owners of Elane Photography are allowed to stand. All too often, those pressing the homosexual legal and political agenda are not interested in “tolerance” or a “live-and-let-live” society. Many are demanding that all people of faith bow to the new Caesar … embracing, affirming, applauding, funding, and encouraging homosexual behavior.

This case is still pending, so we don’t know whether the gay couple will win or not. This is also being heard not by a regular court, but by a “human rights tribunal,” of which there are few (though their number is growing) in the U.S. The point, however, is not necessarily to win, regardless of the forum. The left in North America–and especially the gay rights left–has been engaged in “lawfare” against its opponents for many years now. The aim is not to win every case, but rather to intimidate, to silence, and eventually make dissent so costly that no one will stand up to them.

Thank God for organizations such as the ADF and the Becket Fund for being willing to take on such bullies. They deserve both our prayer and financial support.

student group at Stanford University asked for funds from the student government to put on an event subversive of community standards, guaranteed to provoke outrage among the establishment, and challenging of accepted mores. Was it a production of the Vagina Monologues? An evening with performance artist Karen Finley? A public hanging in effigy of the Koch Brothers? No, something far, far more disturbing:

The student government at Stanford University voted to rescind funding to a conservative student organization that was attempting to host an event in support of traditional marriage.

The event was deemed hateful by the Stanford Graduate Student Council.

The Stanford Anscombe Society had requested funding in order to host a conference geared toward the promotion of secular arguments in favor of traditional marriage. Anscombe asked for $600, according to The College Fix.

During the meeting, at which Anscombe’s request was discussed, several students insisted that merely funding the event would increase the rate of suicide among LGBT students on campus. Others claimed that gay people would no longer feel welcome at Stanford if the event proceeded.

Brianne Huntsman, a student and employee of the LGBT center on campus, told Campus Reform that she did not object to the event taking place, but rather to the idea that the student government should fund it.

“I’m so glad that GSC chose not to fund this event-because it shows the grad community (and the larger Stanford community) that Stanford is a safe space filled with people who work hard to make sure it stays that way,” she said in a statement.

Now, I know it’s incredible to think that anyone at an institution as august as Stanford would even dream of doing such a thing. As all right (or left) thinking people know, discussion of the subject of traditional marriage on the property of any elite college has been shown by the Centers for Disease Control to cause LGBTQQIIXYZ people to come down with hives, shakes, the screaming meemies, elephantiasis, schistosomiasis, cancer of the Achilles tendon, the heartbreak of psoriasis, night sweats, and an irrational obsession with bridezillas. It has therefore been prohibited in the interest of public health and accommodating the wussiest members of the QBITGIZYLXQ community.

Personally, I can’t believe that the members of the Anscombe Society could possibly be so insensitive, so gauche, so threatening toward those who are so powerless and despised. They need to be locked in a pink room and forced to undergo extensive re-education at the hands of Rosie O’Donnell, Dan Savage, and Bishop Gene Robinson. That’ll learn ‘em.

So why has Vladimir Putin undertaken perhaps the most dangerous military move since the end of the Cold War? Is it because he is pursuing a policy of traditional Russian imperialism, trying to forestall greater Western influence in Ukraine, seeking to exploit Russian nationalism in his neighbor for strategic advantage? No, according to world-renowned geo-political strategist Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, it’s all because of Teh Gay or something:

What do you get when you combine ultra-nationalist religious and political conservatism along with homophobia and sexism? Some might say you get the Tea Party in the United States, but today that is the toxic mix that is fueling Vladimir Putin’s militaristic moves against the people of Ukraine.

In other words, Pussy Riot is right. The lyrics of this Russian feminist, punk rock protest group, based in Moscow, are exactly on target. The themes of their protest music, as can be seen in Pussy Riot! A Punk Prayer for Freedom connect feminism, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender rights, opposition to the dictatorial tendencies of Putin, and the links between Putin and the leadership of the Orthodox Church.

Putin’s unholy stew of nationalistic religion, homophobia and sexism needs to be part of informing the diplomatic response to Russia’s aggressively moving troops into the Crimea. This action has drawn condemnation from the new Ukrainian prime minister, who said it amounted to a “declaration of war to my country,” and from Secretary of State John Kerry who has called this “an incredible act of aggression.”

Yes, you read that right. Putin and his allies in the Russian Orthodox Church–the Slavic equivalent of the Tea Party!–have invaded their sovereign neighbor because of religion (most Ukrainians are Orthodox as well, but whatever), homophobia and sexism. Thistlethwaite does not really explain what connection these sins have to do with the invasion of Crimea, but I’m sure that somewhere in the dark recesses of her sexuality-obsessed mind there is an explanation that would at least make sense to a weasel on crack, if not to people.

Gay brownshirts triumph over religious freedom in Denmark. According to the <i>Daily Telegraph</i> (U.K.):

The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Denmark’s church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote “historic”.

“I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married. Today, it’s only heterosexual couples.”

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

I have no doubt that after a suitable waiting period, that right of refusal will be revoked in the interest of human rights. And yes, I know that Denmark has a state church, but the first paragraph says “all churches.” Whether that just means all CofD churches or not, I’ll try to find out and update this post.

UPDATE: Get Religion is on the case, and reports that the Copenhagen Post says that it is only Church of Denmark churches that have been deprived of religious freedom. That’s the price of Erastianism, I reckon.

The 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is in the books, and I’ve got to say its been an eventful week. It started off looking like it was going to be a disaster for evangelicals, supporters of traditional marriage, and supporters of Israel, but in the end the lemmings managed for once to step away from the edge of the cliff.

First, on traditional marriage: the good news is that the Assembly refused, by a 52%-48% margin, to change the way marriage is defined and practiced in the PCUSA. “One man and one woman” remains the standard. It continues to be the case that those who perform ceremonies that are represented as solemnizing marriages will be in violation of their ordination vows and subject to presbyterial discipline (though the latter is very much a hit-or-miss proposition).

The bad news is that for the next couple of years, the denomination will engage in a “season of study and prayer,” which will essentially mean people continuing to shout at one another, the Louisville headquarters putting together propaganda for gay marriage, and more evangelicals leaving because they know the issue is going to come back at them relentlessly every other year. In addition, as more and more presbyteries decide that it goes against the local ideology, or because they can’t afford it, or simply because it’s too much trouble, there will be fewer and fewer judicatories that will take the prohibition on same-sex marriage rites seriously. That, in turn, will speed up the exit of evangelicals as they see the problem is no longer just with the national church, but with their next-town-over neighbors, and the refusal of their presbytery to do anything about it. I don’t know whether the tipping point will come in the next Assembly (I thought it would be this one, and was obviously wrong), but it will come. For now, the lemmings stand at the edge and look over, and contemplate what it would be like to take that last step.

On another homosexuality-related matter, the Assembly revisited the subject of ordination of sexually active gays, and refused to send to the presbyteries a constitutional amendment that would have restored the status quo ante that existed before the “fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness” requirement was deleted last year. In a discussion so ridiculous that one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry, a proposal to add the phrase “repentance of sin and diligent use of the means of grace” to the qualifications and manner of life expected of ordained persons turned out to be very controversial. James Berkley of the Layman Online reports on the discussion:

One teaching elder dramatically called the introduction of repentance “redundant, unnecessary, and possibly confusing.”

To that, teaching elder Pat Thompson from Central Washington Presbytery asked questions he had asked in committee. “Why wouldn’t we want the phrase ‘repentance of sin’ or the use of ‘means of grace’?” he asked incredulously. “What is wrong with the repentance of sin? If you are against the repentance of sin, then vote against it. If you’re against Jesus dying on the cross, then vote against it.”

In the end only 46% of the commissioners thought calling for a life of repentance on the part of the ordained was “redundant, unnecessary, and possibly confusing.” They did decide, however, to pass a resolution that declared, “We decline to take an action that would have the effect of imposing on the whole Presbyterian Church (USA) one interpretation of Scripture in this matter” of homosexual behavior. Berkley said that this amounted to “declar[ing] formally that Scripture is too confusing, too subject to varied interpretations to unite around to decide matters of same-sex sexual morality.”

The other matter that was especially controversial had to do with Israel. The Israel Palestine Mission Network and its various non-Presbyterian, non-Christian, and far-left allies sought to enlist the PCUSA in their single-minded crusade to boycott and divest from companies doing business in Israel, as a way of indicating their belief that Israel is the focus of evil in the world. (No similar efforts were made with regard to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, or any of the other murderous and totalitarian regimes that blight our planet. Israel alone is apparently worthy of being so condemned and treated.) After tortured debate that included a full-court press on the General Assembly Twitter feed (which got so bad that some pro-divestment commissioners were calling on the activists to knock it off), the Assembly finally decided by a 30 vote margin to not authorize divestment, but rather to support investment in the Palestinian territories. One commissioner memorably complained about “parliamentary sleight of hand,” simply because her side lost. As it turned out, she was engaged in a whopping piece of projection.

She and her allies tried every parliamentary trick in the book to bring divestment back for another vote. They tried to amend other resolutions to tack it on, they tried to claim they’d been denied a fair vote, one even claimed that she’d voted the wrong way in order to get the divestment resolution reconsidered (there was no way for her to prove this claim, since individual votes aren’t recorded, but the moderator allowed to to make the motion anyway–it lost, in part because of people getting frustrated with the tactics of the activists).

The activists also tried–again–to get the Assembly on record as believing that the Israeli occupation constitutes “apartheid.” This is a claim that has no relationship to reality–one commissioner, who described himself as a “fifth generation South African,” said so, not that it mattered to the True Believers–but is very important for those looking to demonize Israel, in the same way that certain segments of American society find that the most effective way to ostracize someone they don’t like is to call them a racist. Despite the fact that the Israel Palestine Mission Network and at least some of its allies have no problem associating with Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites, they are fanatical is trying to label Israel “racist.” They failed, badly.

In the end, the anti-Israel forces had to settle for a meaningless boycott of Israeli companies using products made in the settlements or using resources found on Palestinian lands (even when willingly sold to those companies by Palestinians themselves). It’s meaningless because 1) a year from now fewer than 1 in 100 Presbyterians will know anything about it; 2) many who do know will not participate; and 3) many don’t even have access to the products in question. So what it amounts to is that the activists, who are already boycotting, will continue to do so, and a handful of others may join them. The practical effect: zero. But that’s not what this is about, of course. It’s being able to say, “see, even the PCUSA thinks the Israelis are evil, rotten, racist no-goodniks!” I’ll let you judge whether they succeeded in that or not.

So there you have it: the PCUSA stays on the edge of the cliff, small pieces of it continuing to break off underneath its feet. It will have another opportunity, two years from now, to decide whether to step back from the crumbling precipice, or to boldly jump over the side. I know what my money will be on, even if I hope I’ll be wrong again.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly has just begun the debate over gay marriage. I’ll be live blogging the debate (which you can watch for yourself here), and let you know whether PCUSA is ready to head over the cliff.

UPDATE: The moderator is extolling the Civil Union and Marriage Committee’s ability to “be divided without being divisive.” Whoopee.

UPDATE: First recommendation is to call denomination to “a season of prayer and study” on Christian marriage. The second recommendation is to go ahead and change the Directory on Worship to essentially approve of the use of same sex blessings and marriage liturgies in the PCUSA. Lord save us from irrational compromisers.

UPDATE: First item to be dealt with is Resolution 13-04, which would change PCUSA worship to allow same sex marriage. That, of course, is the primary action. The other item is a sop to evangelicals, and essentially meaningless, except as a way of facilitating denominational propaganda.

UPDATE: Another member of the committee is presenting the minority report, which is to leave things as they are. He makes the point that study and listening is what are needed, not legislation that will do nothing but explode infighting.

UPDATE: A commissioner is asking for a point of order that contends that Res. 13-04 conflicts with the current PCUSA Constitution, and specifically its confessions. Advisory Committee on Constitution responds by separating Book of Confessions from PCUSA government, meaning confessions can be ignored in order to force change through. In other words, PCUSA can ignore its statements of belief at will. ACA guy ends by tossing it back to the leadership, which rules against point of order. The ruling is then appealed to the full GA. Debate follows. So essentially here’s what the Assembly is voting on: to uphold the moderator’s ruling that the Book of Confessions can be ignored as the Assembly desires in order to change polity, even if such changes conflict with the uniform teaching of the Confessions. The vote is to uphold moderator’s ruling by 70-30%.

UPDATE: There’s now a move to limit debate. I don’t know what the motives of the commissioners are, but this is a standard mainline leadership procedure–wait until late in the week of a denominational meeting, in order to limit debate on the most important issues before the body, rather than dealing with the most important or controversial ones first. They get away with it time after time. They did so again, by 344-300.

UPDATE: They have now moved on to main debate, which begins with the question of whether to substitute the minority report that leaves the status quo in place. The debate is about what you’d expect: advocates of the minority report offering dire predictions about the future of the denomination, as well as opposition to same sex marriage; opponents asking that proponents of same sex marriage be allowed to “live into their calling,” and citing individual situations that are supposed to justify institutional change. Director of World Mission offered information to the effect that of almost 100 “mission partners,” 40 said OK, 35 indicated that changes in definition of Christian marriage would damage relationships, 6 would make public statements against such a move, while 17 said they would have to break relationships. (If I were guessing, I’d say that most of the “yeas” were in Europe and North America.)  A Korean pastor in California sought to reinforce this message. And then the feed from Pittsburgh cut out. More shortly.

UPDATE: Feed back. Apparently while I was away, a lesbian Young Adult Advisory Delegate emoted. Twitter feed goes wild. Yawn. A teaching elder from New York, an “out lesbian,” essentially says it doesn’t matter what the GA does; she has done and will continue to do it anyway.

UPDATE: After a minute of silence in which commissioners were invited to listen to see if the Holy Spirit will contradict Himself regarding the nature of Christian marriage revealed in Scripture, they are now going into small groups to share what they “heard.” We will soon find out if God has indeed changed His mind because some judges and state legislatures in the United States have persuaded Him to Do The Right Thing. I appreciate the desire to be prayerful in business sessions, but there is no point to praying for discernment about this–the truth is already out there, and does not have to be sought, as if God has been trying make up His mind about this since the Stonewall Riots made Him notice that maybe He’s been wrong all these years.

UPDATE: Debate has ended on whether to substitute the minority report. Young Adult Advisory Delegates (whose votes are only “advisory,” and thus don’t count for the actual action) voted 28-105 no, Theological Students Advisory Delegates voted 1-17 no. Tells you a lot about the future leadership of the denomination, no? Anyway, here’s the vote that counts:  Anyway, here’s the vote that counts: 323-346-3. The minority report is defeated.

UPDATE: There is a second minority report. This one reaffirms the current definition, and does so via what’s called an “Authoritative Interpretation” of the <i>Book of Order</i>, which would state in unambiguous language exactly what the definition of marriage is. Given the vote on the previous item, I don’t see this one passes, but they’ll debate it nonetheless. At this point, my suspicion is that the PCUSA is about to throw itself headlong over a cliff. They’re in recess for five minutes. Back shortly.

UPDATE: Debate now on substituting second minority report. Began with the Ecumenical Advisory Delegate from the Presbyterian Church of Guatemala, who suggested that if the Assembly cares about its ecumenical partners, it will actually listen to them and consider their opposition to re-defining Christian marriage. A later commissioner basically told the Guatemalan delegate to pound salt, since other partners think same-sex marriage is hunky-dory. Commissioner says adoption of minority report will “only continue intimidation and bullying” of homosexuals in the PCUSA. Thanks for that. A theological student from South Louisiana claims that he’s a “conservative,” but that he stands for “social justice,” and redefining marriage. Right. So here’s the vote on this possible substitution: 266-397-2, the substitution being defeated.

UPDATE: So now they go to the original motion from the committee, which will change the understanding of marriage embodied in the Directory of Worship. This debate also went essentially the way you would expect–lots of “shellfish” arguments, lots of Scripture quoted, not all of it helpfully, worries about the future of the church, recitations of personal anecdotes, etc. To cut to the chase, here’s the vote: 308-338-2. They backed away from the cliff!

The Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly will soon consider the following amendments to its Book of Order, passed last night by the Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues, which will change the definition of marriage:

1. Amend W-4.9001 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract covenant between a woman and a man two people, and according to the laws of the state also constitutes a civil contract. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman two people are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage, two people make a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith.”

2. Amend W-4.9002 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“a. In preparation for the marriage service, the teaching elder shall provide for a discussion with the man and the woman two people to be married concerning” [The remainder of this section remains the same.]

3. Amend W-4.9004 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“The service begins with scriptural sentences and a brief statement of purpose. The man and the woman two people to be married shall declare their intention to enter into Christian marriage and shall exchange vows of love and faithfulness. The service includes appropriate passages of Scripture, which may be interpreted in various forms of proclamation. Prayers shall be offered for the couple, for the communities which support them in this new dimension of discipleship, and for all who seek to live in faithfulness. In the name of the triune God the teaching elder shall declare publicly that the woman and the man they are now joined in marriage.” [The remainder of this paragraph remains the same.]

4. Amend W-4.9006 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“A service of worship recognizing a civil marriage and confirming it in the community of faith may be appropriate when requested by the couple. The service will be similar to the marriage service except that the opening statement, the declaration of intention, the exchange of vows by the husband and wife two people,and the public declaration by the teaching elder† reflect the fact that the woman and man they are already married to one another according to the laws of the state.”

Translation: The PCUSA will, if this amendment is passed by the General Assembly and approved by the presbyteries, will no longer hold to a Christian definition of marriage, and will instead adopt that of a minority of state governments. Way to speak truth to power, folks.

Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers