Rev. Waltz should do a lot of praying because, as she said, she would be violating the book of Discipline were she to officiate at a gay wedding and would deserve to be brought up on charges. If she wants to officiate at a gay union she should go join the ELCA.

I would hope someone in her congregation or her bishop gets Rev. Waltz to tell us what “God’s children” means and to expand on where she derives her concept of “justice.” Pray for her and her parishoners as she teaches “discipline.”

>”...a significant number of Catholics in New York — 39 percent — expressed support for legal gay marriage…”

Fortunately, NY Catholics do NOT the Catholic Church make. Marriage will forever remain a sacrament requiring the valid matter of one woman and one man.

Interesting that the Methodist congregation “officially considers marriage an act”. Protesting long established sacraments has consequences.

God bless…

When it suits your argument, just over 1/3rd of Catholics is certainly “significant”.  And it’s too precious by half to find some cafeteria Catholic and give him twice the space as you give those bad old bishops. In any case, surveys of Catholics are valid only when tey control for practice: a Catholic who goes to Mass sporadically (Easter, Christmas, baptisms, and weddings) is certainly likely to fall prey to the cultural norms.

But why limit this to “monogamous?” Aren’t polygamistes God’s children also? Don’t they deserve social justice?

  the argument that amarriage is essential to receive the social benefits complained of is nonsense. Civil partnerships will provide these benefits.
This particular gambit, like the monogamous gambit, is just gaming the system. It is therefore astounding how many people buy into it.
Larry

NO. 5:  I agree that civil union secular arrangements would eliminate the legal disparity between M-F and SS relationships.  But these changes to the secular legal regime governing relationships have been strongly opposed across the country on religious grounds.  In my state we enacted a constitutional amendment (that was supported from the pulpit of my church) forbidding any legislation that would replicate the benefits of marriage in a civil context.  It seems to me (and I think you have expressed a similar view in another thread) that one way to protect the religious significance and content of marriage is to support secular measures that provide equivalent legal status to same-sex unions.  That would defuse this problem of disparate legal treatments, but leave the churches with full authority to defend and enforce the nature of religious marriage.