Skip to comments.Episcopal Leader Denies Bible Condemns Gays
Posted on 11/02/2006 1:50:05 PM PST by Abathar
Woman Believes People Are Created Gay
NEW YORK -- The Presiding Bishop-elect of the Episcopal Church said she doesn't believe that the Bible condemns "committed" gay and lesbian relationships.
Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori, who'll be installed Saturday at Washington National Cathedral, supports ordaining gays and allowing blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.
In 2003, she voted to confirm the denomination's first openly gay bishop.
For that reason and others, seven conservative Episcopal dioceses have rejected her leadership.
In an Associated Press interview, Jefferts-Schori said she believes homosexuality is "how one is created," so the church should offer what she calls "a sacramental container" to help gays and lesbians find "holy ways of living in relationship."
Meanwhile, the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas said it's not one of the conservative dioceses asking the archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a conservative national leader to oversee them.
Dallas Bishop James Stanton said in a statement Monday that he still disagrees with the direction of The Episcopal Church, which in 2003 ordained its first openly gay bishop and this year elected a new presiding bishop who supports ordaining gays and blessing same-sex couples.
But he said the language in the request from the seven other dioceses rejecting incoming Jefferts-Schori and seeking an alternate leader had "caused confusion and some anxiety" in his diocese.
Jefferts-Schori is scheduled to be installed as presiding bishop on Saturday in Washington.
"I haven't come across that passage yet...."
Me neither...maybe she has an "updated" version of the NLT???
Oh that whole abomination thing... God must have gotten over that by now.... /sarcasm
I believe this is called "apostasy".
It's in the Book of Heathens right after God dug up Sodom and Gomorrah, apologized for being a homophobe and created a Starbucks out of stardust.
Then she hasn't read the bible.
About the best case I can think of for that definition.
I wasn't aware of that.
Not sure how else to "interpret" it.
Also try: Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9
He must think it's a "living, breathing" Bible.
Not gonna go there...not gonna go there...
SHE not He...
I seem to recall something about fire, brimstone, and a pillar of salt.
A lot of that stuff's just optional, you know.
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 1st Corinthians 14: 33-35
PROTECT MARRIAGE !... Your children deserve it as wholesome as possible
You saw what happened in NEW JERSEY!... Don't let it happen in your state! Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, Idaho, Wisconsin, South Dakota and South Carolina see details below how to vote on all 8 states - links to each states election boards - etc)
| Why gays hate marriage - By Kevin McCullough - Sunday, October 29, 2006 -- [ excerpt ] --
Despite of all that their angry-mob front groups argue for in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution and more importantly the sanctity of marriage. That is also the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.
This week - dateline Trenton New Jersey... where a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal, utopia.
With utter contempt for God, and for the voters of their state the New Jersey seven unanimously said that all who live in the confines of its borders must fundamentally agree to the moral premise, that what the Bible terms perversion, the voters should call healthy.
But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges, and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral world view? The answer is simple, no longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over the actions of their sexual behaviors because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy - that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong .
Eight states are voting on amendments to their Constitutions. All of them seek to protect marriage essentially the same way as Arizona's amendment describes it below
All of the eight states define the amendment (change/addition to the state's Constitution) essentially the same way.
All states handle this by having the voters vote on once, except for COLORADO that requires voting on twice: one amendment and one Referendum.
Now look at this ***FANTASTIC WEBSITE *** published by the AFA (American Family Association) IT HAS EVERYTHING...
-- Public Announcement from EP -- :)
* WISCONSIN Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for WISCONSIN at the bottom)
* TENNESSEE Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for TENNESSEE at the bottom)
* ARIZONA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for ARIZONA at the bottom)
* SOUTH DAKOTA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH DAKOTA at the bottom)
* SOUTH CAROLINA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH CAROLINA at the bottom)
* IOWA *** APOLOGIES TO IOWA *** (Duh!). It is IDAHO voting for the "marriage amendment!!!.. shame on me!"
The only state I could not find the information.. what a mess.. even the Servers were so slow. Drove me crazy!... Found the documents but seems like they did not include the amendment .speaks poorly of that state to me)
* IDAHO Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for IDAHO at the bottom)
* COLORADO (Colorado is more complicated. It has 2 items: Adding Amendment 43 (Vote "YES) and approving Referenum I (Vote NO or Do NOT approve). See COLORADO at bottom for details)
****** On Amendment 43 (Marriage)> Vote "YES" (to add amendment)
****** On Referendum I: Vote "Do not approve" or "NO" (To reject it, depending on how the question is phrased. Don't trust homosexual groups - they lie and use disinformation to confuse voters - this should be looked more carefully since it can be approved later anyway.
1 FINAL COPY Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Be Voted on at the November 7, 2006, Election PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Article I. Bill of Rights. Section 15-A. Marriage. BALLOT QUESTION NUMBER 1
EXPLANATION Present Law The Constitution does not define marriage. Under current statutory law in Virginia, persons who marry must have a license and be married by a licensed minister, judge, or other person authorized by law to perform marriages. Present law prohibits marriages between certain individuals. For example, the law prohibits a marriage between a brother and sister, between a couple where one of the parties is married to someone else, and between couples of the same sex. In 1975, the General Assembly enacted a statute (present Code of Virginia § 20- 45.2) that states "A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited." In 1997, the General Assembly added a sentence to § 20-45.2 that states that: 2 Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable. In 2004, the General Assembly passed a law to prohibit certain civil unions or other arrangements between persons of the same sex. That law (Code of Virginia § 20- 45.3) states that: A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
Thus, civil unions or other arrangements which purport ?to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage? are prohibited by statute.
Proposed Amendment If approved by the voters, this proposed amendment will become part of the Constitution of Virginia. The proposed amendment adds a definition of marriage as the ?union between one man and one woman? to the Constitution's Bill of Rights and prohibits Virginia and its counties, cities, and towns from creating or recognizing any legal status by any name which is comparable to marriage. Marriage in the Commonwealth creates specific legal rights, benefits, and obligations for a man and a woman. There are other legal rights, benefits, and obligations which will continue to be available to unmarried persons, including the naming of an agent to make end-of-life decisions by an Advance Medical Directive (Code of Virginia § 54.1-2981), protections afforded under Domestic Violence laws (Code of Virginia § 18.2- 57.2), ownership of real property as joint tenants with or without a right of survivorship (Code of Virginia § 55-20.1), or disposition of property by will (Code of Virginia § 64.1- 46).
A "yes" vote on the proposed amendment will result in the addition of the proposed Section 15-A to Article I, the Bill of Rights. A "no" vote will mean that there will be no change made in Article I, the Bill of Rights."
 Referendum I: Referendum I Referendum I Colorado Legislative Council Staff FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: August 31, 2006 Fiscal Analyst: Janis Baron 303-866-3523 BALLOT TITLE: SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TO AUTHORIZE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, and, in connection therewith, enacting the "colorado domestic partnership benefits and responsibilities act" to extend to same-sex couples in a domestic partnership the benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted by colorado law to spouses.....
Summary of Legislation
Upon voter approval, Referendum I establishes legal domestic partnerships in the state of Colorado. Additionally, it specifies eligibility requirements, definitions, procedures, rights, responsibilities, and means for terminating domestic partnerships. The fiscal note cannot accurately project the number of domestic partnerships that would be entered into in Colorado should Referendum I be adopted. For purposes of this analysis, the fiscal note assumes 3,500 annually.
Constitutional Amendment #1 (Page 3)
Shall Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section: SECTION___. The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.
OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
proposing an amendment to the constitution of arizona; amending the constitution of arizona; by adding article xxx; relating to the protection of marriage
The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment will preserve the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prohibit the creation of any other legal status similar to that of marriage. It will assure that marriage is defined by the voice of the people and not by a few activist judges.
A yes vote will protect Arizona from having marriage radically changed to a union of any two people regardless of gender. It will affirm that both mothers and fathers play significant roles in the raising of children and that the legal union between a man and a woman deserves special status in producing the next generation of responsible citizens.
A yes vote will not prohibit same-sex couples or anyone else from forming relationships. It will, however, keep schools, media, organizations, religious denominations, and other societal institutions from being forced to validate, and promote same-sex marriage.
A yes vote will not invalidate anyones civil rights. Marriage is about bringing men and women together, not about civil rights.
A yes vote will not restrict private companies from voluntarily granting benefits to domestic partners, nor will it prevent domestic relationships from taking advantage of existing laws that enable these individuals to share health insurance or death benefits, designate hospital visitation rights, or grant medical durable power of attorney to anyone.
A yes vote will affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a strong family and that strong families are the foundation of great nations.
ARGUMENTS FOR PROPOSITION 107 Protect Marriage Arizonas Statement Protect Marriage Arizona has been formed as a grassroots response to attacks on marriage in state after state. We say, Let the people decide. We believe Arizona citizens should be given the opportunity to vote on our states marriage policy, and we are confident that Arizona will join 20 other states that have voted to reaffirm the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. A state constitutional amendment provides the strongest possible legal protection for marriage against redefinition by activist state court judges. We also hope to show our national leaders that states want the opportunity to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage. Marriage between a man and woman is the basic building block of society. As the Supreme Court put it, in a case upholding laws that prevented marriage from being redefined to include polygamy, marriage is the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization. Arizona promotes and benefits marriage because marriage between a man and a woman benefits Arizona. Children do best when they have the security of living with a married mother and father. With all the challenges to marriage in society today, the last thing Arizona needs is to redefine marriage in a way that guarantees some children will never have either a mom or a dad. Unfortunately, todays courts seem bent on destroying that foundation. Its time for the people to respond by voting yes on the Protect Marriage Amendment. The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment does exactly what it is entitled to do, that is, protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. NAME, the National Association of Marriage Enhancement, encourages Arizonans to vote Yes on this amendment to protect, for future generations, the long-standing definition of marriage as one man and one woman. The traditional definition of marriage must be protected. Some would say marriage is a right; it is not -- it is a privilege that carries responsibilities. Society confers legal benefits to marriage, because marriage benefits society. Historically, healthy marriages have been foundational building blocks to any successful society -- Arizona included. This amendment to Arizona's constitution will affirm marriages traditional definition, ensuring it for future generations by prohibiting its redefinition by activist judges and others. Research indicates many benefits for children who are raised by a mother and father, including: they are more likely to succeed academically, are physically healthier, emotionally healthier, demonstrate less
South Dakota: Constitutional Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. 2006 Ballot Question Pamphlet Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson Constitutional Amendment C Title: An Amendment to Article XXI of the South Dakota Constitution, relating to marriage. Attorney General Explanation South Dakota statutes currently limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. However, the State Constitution does not address marriage. Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.
A vote Yes will change the Constitution.
A vote No will leave the Constitution as it is.
This amendment provides that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. No other domestic union is valid and legal. The State and its political subdivisions are prohibited from creating or recognizing any right or claim respecting any other domestic union, whatever it may be called, or from giving effect to any such right or benefit recognized in any other state or jurisdiction.
However, this amendment also makes clear it does not impair rights or benefits extended by this State, or its political subdivisions not arising from other domestic unions, nor does the amendment prohibit private parties from entering into contracts or other legal instruments. View Complete Text Information Provided by: South Carolina State Elections Commission
2006 GENERAL ELECTION PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS H.J.R. 2 Legislative Council's Statements FOR the proposed amendment Same gender marriages are not currently allowed under Idaho statutes, and this amendment provides for the same prohibition at the state constitutional level to ensure that Idaho state courts do not allow or require the recognition of same gender marriages. This amendment would prevent Idaho state courts from recognizing same gender marriages that are legally allowed in other states or other countries. Because marriage is a public institution with special importance to society, the state of Idaho has a legitimate interest in establishing the marriage policy for its citizens. This amendment does not prevent private industry from extending certain benefits to its employees nor does it limit a person's right to name medical and financial agents or to enter into contractual agreements. This amendment does not deny any existing rights under Idaho law, but Idaho's current marriage laws could be weakened in the future without this amendment. Statements AGAINST the proposed amendment
This amendment is not needed since Idaho Code already limits the right to marry to one man and one woman and does not recognize out-of-state marriages that are in conflict with Idaho public policy. This amendment uses the term "domestic legal union," which is not defined and will likely result in costly and lengthy litigation. Because this amendment is broadly drafted, it could be construed to prohibit domestic partners of private-sector employees who receive health and other benefits from access to Idaho courts to enforce such benefits.
This amendment could in the future deny same gender couples in committed relationships the protections and benefits available to married couples, such as access to spousal Social Security benefits upon a partner's death, automatic "next of kin" emergency medical decisions and "family member" hospital visitation rights.
Just as the United States Constitution's Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal treatment under the law for all persons, Idaho's Constitution is designed to protect liberties and should not be amended to exclude certain people from legal protections.
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" 2Ti 4:3
They interpret it quite simply" Paul was wrong; they, living in a more progressive era, know better. I would ask the lady: do we know about homosexuality that we didn't know fifty , or a hundred years ago?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.