Skip to main content

Church hails court decision affirming same sex marriage

From Ekklesia...

United Church of Christ leaders in the USA have hailed a unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court to reject the state's ban on same-gender marriage as unconstitutional - writes J. Bennett Guess.

Iowa now joins Massachusetts and Connecticut in becoming the third state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

"Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are three states whose cultures were shaped profoundly by the Congregational experience," said the Rev. John H. Thomas, UCC general minister and president. "I can't help but believe and affirm that there is a connection at work here."

The United Church of Christ has 179 local churches in Iowa and Grinnell College - one of state's most prominent liberal arts schools - is historically related to the denomination.

"Words can hardly express how delighted and relieved I am for same sex couples in Iowa - more than a few of whom are my friends - for whom the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling is a gift," said the Rev Rich Pleva, UCC Iowa Conference Minister. "I'm also aware that the people and churches of the Iowa Conference are not of one mind on this issue. This is a time to underscore and affirm our covenant to being of one heart and one body, even at times when we may not agree."

More at Ekklesia.

Comments

Tea Logar said…
interesting title ;)
May 11, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Anonymous said…
Wow - there really are some good guys amongst the faithful! Well done the UCC.
May 12, 2009 at 4:35 AM
david said…
words that appear so good inspiration for me to learn to write
May 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Danny said…
As it stands I'm against homosexual marriage, but then again, as it stands I'm against heterosexual marriage as well...

My proposal would be that no secular state or authority should issue, endorse or recognise anything called a "marriage". Leave that term and concept in the hands of religious organisations and individuals, to deal with however their particular theologies or beliefs stipulate. The state should only deal in "civil partnerships", legal contracts between two parties, regardless of gender.

I think it would be a simple and effective solution that would clear up a lot of mess. For the religious, the sanctity of the concept of marriage is maintained, (everyone can get "married" according to their beliefs, whether that's by a vicar in a church or by a white witch in the woods for all it matters) and the state can wipe its hands of the concept, and merely issue (without ceremony of any kind) civil partnerships to those wishing certain financial, legal and administrative benefits specifically useful for long-term co-habiting.

What do you think?
May 13, 2009 at 1:41 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more