Homophobia go the way of slavery in matters of faith?

The measured tone of Spokane, Washington, Bishop Blase Cupich's letter on the same-sex marriage referendum attracted the attention of Bold Faith Type. He stood firm on church teachings but, to his considerable credit, also said:

Proponents of the redefinition of marriage are often motivated by compassion for those who have shown courage in refusing to live in the fear of being rejected for their sexual orientation. It is a compassion that is very personal, for those who have suffered and continue to suffer are close and beloved friends and family members. It is also a compassion forged in reaction to tragic national stories of violence against homosexuals, of verbal attacks that demean their human dignity, and of suicides by teens who have struggled with their sexual identity or have been bullied because of it.

...

I also want to be very clear that in stating our position the Catholic Church has no tolerance for the misuse of this moment to incite hostility towards homosexual persons or promote an agenda that is hateful and disrespectful of their human dignity.

At Spiritual Politics, Mark Silk gently suggests that the bishop take an additional step:

At the risk of seeming unappreciative, I would urge Cupich, sub specie rationis, to promise that if evidence for bad social consequences from SSM fails to materialize, he will cease urging his church's position on society at large. All that would be left at that point would be his religious convictions, and as I expect he would agree, these ought not be imposed on those outside his faith community.

After all, he writes, slavery was "a cornerstone of society" when the church was young. No more.

Indeed. The Southern Baptist Convention, originally formed in part around support of slavery, last week found itself chiding a Mississippi church which refused to host the wedding ceremony of a black couple. The church apologized and will presumably sin no more.

GOP Rep. West's Chick-fil-A slap in the face to the Congressional Black Caucus

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) pulled the Chick-fil-A chicken and biscuits stunt about six months ago but recent events brought it back to mind. Jennifer Bendery writes at Huffington Post

"We have a rotation in the Congressional Black Caucus where every member provides the lunch one of the weeks when we meet," Hastings said in a Monday interview. The lunches, he said, are often quite delicious.

"We have fried chicken. And we have catfish and BBQ. We do not have watermelon, although sometimes people will have fruit. We serve a full course meal with collard greens. We have Jamaican beans and rice," Hastings said. But West "sent Chick-fil-A with biscuits. Ok?"

"That was an 'in your face.' Every member of the Congressional Black Caucus that was there was offended," he said.

Asked more specifically why lawmakers were insulted, Hastings said it was because they saw West's actions as making a statement in support of the conservative views held by Chick-fil-A leaders. West is the only Republican member of the caucus.

Everyone, certainly including Rep. West, has a right to his opinion. Being taken seriously, not so much.

The Rev. Owens' NOM astroturf ruse

When the Rev. William Owens called for President Obama to recant his stand in favor of same-sex, marriage, CNN, NBC, the New York Post, the Christian Post and others treated the black pastor's claim to speak for thousands of members of a Coalition of African-Americans Pastors (CAAP) as a valid news story. There was, as intended, hyperventilating speculation that Obama's stand on gay marriage would somehow cost him "the African American vote."

Not taken in was Lisa Miller of the Washington Post's "On Faith" column. She wrote:

In reality, though, Owens isn’t a story. He’s a figurehead in what political operatives call an “Astroturf” campaign. It looks like a grass-roots movement, but it’s really a political stunt. And his threat is not a threat

Longtime religious liaison for the National Organization for Marriage, a Southern Poverty Law Center hate group, he's simply attempting to carry out the NOM wedge strategy. As Think Progress explained:

To see what NOM is trying to do here, one need only look at that leaked internal memo: “Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage.” Bill Owens is that spokesperson, even though CAAP only boasts about a dozen members. CAAP’s only purpose since its founding has been to attack same-sex marriage. According to Owens yesterday, there is “not one issue more important than holding the family together.”

Having contrived the vague, unpersuasive appearance of something, NOM then went out and proclaimed it to be real:

To drive home the point: The day after Owens’s press conference, NOM’s president, Brian Brown, went on Fox and said that “key Democratic constituencies do not support same-sex marriage.” NOM created a truth and then went out and proclaimed it.

Yet CAAP is still transparently a NOM vanity publication for which their is no broad market. This cynical series of manipulations underestimates the intelligence of its target market.

Plurality American support for gay marriage

A clear plurality of American public support for gay marriage is evident in polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in a survey of 2,973 adults conducted from June 28-July 9. This is a dramatic change from 2004, when 60% of those polled opposed gay marriage. The long-term trend has been inexorable, in part because "Younger generations express higher levels of support for same-sex marriage." Both the magnitude and strength of opposition have declined.

Among religious groups, majority opposition is sustained only by evangelical protestants. That leaves the Catholic bishops out of touch with self-described Catholics, 52% of whom Pew found to be in support of gay marriage. More specifically:

Nearly six-in-ten white non- Hispanic Catholics (59%) favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry, as do 57% of Hispanic Catholics.

Politically, support has risen among Democrats and independents. Some two thirds of Democrats support gay marriage.

For years, the trend for men and women has been an increase in support for gay marriage.

There was then every public opinion reason for the Biblical Recorder to expect a strong response to its Chick-fil-A story.

The argument by Louisiana Baptist Message Editor Kelly Boggs for majority support of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy's anti-gay views, willfully confuses various ballot box results with overarching public opinion. Nor does Mike Huckabee's Chick-fil-A appreciation day alter either the data or its direction.

The challenge for evangelicals is better addressed by Southern Baptist Pastor Wade Burleson of Enid, Oklahoma, who is concerned about who will best witness to "the next generation." For among the young, the there is clear majority (and growing) acceptance of gay marriage. The polling data suggests that the view most likely to prevail was expressed by Rev. Dr. Angela M. Yarber, of is Wake Forest Baptist Church at Wake Forest University, in an open letter to Chick-fil-A's Cathy:

We are the only Baptist church in the country with two lesbians as head pastors. I serve a diverse congregation; many of our members are LGBT families raising children. And I refuse to look into their eyes and tell them that their families do not deserve the same rights as your family. For me, that is unethical. It is un-American. And it is unchristian.

Scotland on the way to legalizing gay marriage in civil & religious ceremonies

Opposition has come from religious institutions:

The Roman Catholic church, backed by senior Muslim organisations and evangelical and presbyterian churches, organised a huge postcard and internet petition campaign against the proposals.

It has been overwhelmed by popular support:

...detailed responses using the Scottish government's own online consultation document showed a majority in favour of gay marriage: by 65% to 35% against. Major public opinion polls also showed that most Scottish voters supported same-sex marriage, with about two-thirds of Scots in favour.

So it is expected to pass, and not as an isolated phonomenon:

he measures are expected to be passed by Holyrood next year before similar but weaker measures in England and Wales, to allow same-sex marriages in registry offices, are put before Westminster.

Church-led opposition continues but BBC reports:

Scotland could become the first part of the UK to introduce gay marriage after the SNP government announced plans to make the change.

Ministers confirmed they would bring forward a bill on the issue, indicating the earliest ceremonies could take place by the start of 2015.

SBC's Richard Land et al. unhappy about gay immigration partners

Unsurprisingly certain evangelicals reject gay partners in immigration bill.

Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission czar Richard Land joined Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver and at best a handful of other Religious Right leaders in signing a statement of opposition to the proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Although the National Evangelical Association, "which [Yahoo News reports] includes members from 40 evangelical denominations," seeks to rally support for immigration reform.

You may struggle to make heads or tails of the Baptist Press story on Richard's out-Land-ish stunt here. Or visit Right Wing Watch's review of the little band of others attempt to kidnap the larger group's spotlight here.

Laura Bush vs Pope Benedict XVI on gay marriage

Former First Lady Laura Bush said "yes" to gay marriage:

Pope Benedict XVI in his visit to a famous Portuguese shrine to the Virgin Mary denounced gay marriage:

In a speech here to Catholic social service groups, Benedict called for initiatives aimed at protecting “the family based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, help to respond to some of today’s most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good.”

Does gay marriage raise divorce or species-extinction rates?

A tentative "no" to the first, says Nate Silver, after an analysis using CDC data.

Specifically:

Overall, the states which had enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as of 1/1/08 saw their divorce rates rise by 0.9 percent over the five-year interval. States which had not adopted a constitutional ban, on the other hand, experienced an 8.0 percent decline, on average, in their divorce rates. Eleven of the 24 states (46 percent) to have altered their constitutions by 1/1/08 to ban gay marriage experienced an overall decline in their divorce rates, but 13 of the 19 which hadn't did (68 percent).

There is a lot more, none of which implies that states which permit gay marriage pay a consequent divorce-rate penalty.

Regarding gay marriage and environmental issues, Eduardo Peñalver reports that the pope, as a part of his disappointment over failure to reach a climate change agreement in Copenhagen, said:

Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes.

Peñalver reasons his way through the associated papal moral logic, concluding:

There seems to me to be a consistent failure here to acknowledge the existence of a point of view that largely accepts the Pope’s suspicion of liberal rights and autonomy talk, but that nonetheless supports gay marriage (and contraception) on grounds rooted in the same traditional beliefs in duty, the family and public morality on which the Pope relies. I don’t support gay marriage because of a radical conception of individual autonomy, but because I don’t think homosexuality is immoral. And, because I don’t think it is immoral, I think the law should encourage and assist gay couples, as it does for heterosexual couples, to root their sexual lives in the stability of legally sanctioned marriage.

Very different paths through altogether different thickets to very similar conclusions.

Gay marriage the New England way

Vermonters, more irreligious than most Americans, are going for a bill to permit gay couples to legally wed. So Mark Silk tells us, and explains this New England way's religious-attitudes roots.

Proposition 8 foes hold “marriage equality training camps”

They want to win back the lost ground.

The LATimes reports:

Determined to avoid the mistakes of their last, losing campaign for gay marriage, gay rights activists are launching the first of what they hope will be many “marriage equality training camps” in Los Angeles this weekend.

The idea is to train activists in "the practical, hands-on skills to organize in their communities to restore marriage equality for same-sex couples to California."

The rest is here.

Focus on the Family Action of Colorado Springs, Colo., lobbies in Wyo. on gay marriage

The Casper Star-Tribune says:

Focus on the Family Action of Colorado Springs, Colo., has been making telephone calls to voters in key Wyoming senate districts.

The group is trying to drum up support for Senate Joint Resolution 2. The measure would let Wyoming voters decide whether to amend the state constitution to specify that the state won't recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Wyoming already has a law in place that says only marriages between a man and a woman may be conducted in the state. However, the state is currently bound to recognize marriages performed in other states, some of which allow same-sex marriages and civil unions.

The rest is here.

Fire over California's Prop. 8

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is under external fire for heavily promotinng the campaign for California's Proposition 8, which is intended to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling that permits gay marriage.

There is also fire within as some Mormon families to leave. ABC affiliate News10 in Sacramento, California reports:

SALT LAKE CITY, UT - There's backlash against the LDS church over Proposition 8. LDS members in Utah, even some entire families are leaving the church because of its opposition to gay marriage.

Division within the church began well before the Nov. 4 vote in California, according to the Salt Lake Tribune and others.

Dissent has reached so high into the church's hierarchy of members that in at least one case, that of Nebraska's Andrew Callahan, steps toward excommunication are being taken.

Callahan, who describes himself as a "high priest in good standing" in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has apologize for and explained his stand in a letter.

At the letter's conclusion he asks several questions:

When gay marriages began to be performed in Massachusetts and later California, did it cause you to want to leave your wife? Did it cause you to become gay or want to become gay? Did it cause your you or your wife to abandon or want to abandon your children? Did it cause you to fall into a life of debauchery and sin? Did it cause you to change your life in any way for the worse? If none of these things happened to you, was that because you are superior to others, or because there is no real harm to come from gay marriage? If you didn’t experience these terrible things and I didn’t, and President Monson didn’t, and I can find no one else who did, then what harm is there to the family? Please, tell me what catastrophes or terrible outcomes await us if gay marriages continue as opposed to if they are stopped? Would not the precedent of a religious minority able to codify its own morality offer a greater risk to Mormonism and to society than gay marriage? Is going down the slippery slope of taking rights away from minorities really a good idea?

If only it were merely an internal church argument now.

Intensity of the rhetoric appears to be escalating.

Anti-gay violence has been linked to the matter.

Catholic Church and Mormon involvement have built, largely because of questions about nonprofit church involvement in electoral affairs, a terrible fire.