Digital Dharma

The Middle Path, One Day At A Time

priest’s stance against anti-gay-marriage proposition roils church

3 Comments

Father Geoffrey Farrow is a longtime Catholic priest who revealed recently that he is gay and opposed to Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year allowing same-sex marriage. As a result, Farrow has been stripped of his job as a parish priest in Fresno, including his salary and health benefits.

Fresno priest’s stance against anti-gay-marriage proposition roils church – Los Angeles Times

Another reason I’m no longer a Catholic.

Advertisements

Author: Bill

Stumbling down the Middle Path, one day at a time.

3 thoughts on “priest’s stance against anti-gay-marriage proposition roils church

  1. i think that gay marriage should be allowed in certain states but not in other states ‘“

    • I think marriage is no business of the states at all. It is a covenant between two people. Let the states handle the civil part of it, and let the various churches make their own decisions about whether or not to unite partners of the same gender. That way it becomes moot: civil partnerships for everyone. including male/female unions (not marriages), and then whatever the believers want to confer by way of blessing.

  2. If words still mean anything today then Taylor Marshall has an excellent point here on Credo at Culture11.
    http://culture11.com/blogs/credo/2008/10/20/gay-marriage-and-the-word-matrimony/

    Words change. Meanings change. Look at “conservative” as applied to Republican politics for an excellent example. Language evolves, as do social contracts, understanding, human relationships and the rest of the world. In fact, matrimony is one of the two sacraments entered into by the participants themselves (along with baptism). The priest is there only to solemnize the union, and is not a party to the sacrament itself. So why should the priest’s employer get a say?

    Dogma, on the other hand, rarely evolves. Dogmatists are willing to live in the past. The rest of us aren’t. We don’t live by 2,000 year old civil law, so why should we live by so-called “God’s Law” laid down back in the days of oral tradition, and only later converted to scripture by the same people who claim it to be God’s word.

    As to matrimony, if you want to play with words, it derives from matrimonium: “state of motherhood.” Carrying that to its logical conclusion, we could assume that fathers aren’t involved at all, or that Lesbian marriages are OK but heterosexual and gay marriage are not. Ridiculous, prima facie, but you have to be careful when you allude to the power of words. They’re slippery.

Comments or Questions

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s