Texas Church Halts All Weddings Until Clergy Can Officiate Same-Sex Marriages
From NBCNEWS :
The leadership of the First United Methodist Church of Austin (FUMC Austin) recently announced they will not perform any wedding ceremonies until the church's national leadership permits clergy to officiate same-sex marriages. The Book of Discipline, which governs the United Methodist Church, supports "laws in civil society that define marriage as a union of one man and one woman."
“Rather than practicing discrimination in our wedding policy, we are going to give up some of the privileges that our opposite-sex couples enjoy and say, ‘We will all receive the same ministry in terms of weddings,'” Taylor Fuerst, senior pastor at FUMC Austin, told local NBC affiliate KXAN.
Last year, FUMC Austin's Administrative Board appointed a committee to devise a plan to address the conflict between the Book of Discipline's statement on marriage and the congregation's "commitment to full inclusion of all people in the life and ministry of this church."
On Sept. 24, following an 11 a.m. religious service, a church-wide vote was held on a resolution that would "adopt a policy that treats weddings of opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally but does not violate the Book of Discipline." The resolution, which needed 75 percent approval to pass, was supported by 93 percent of the voting congregation.
As a result of the policy change, FUMC Austin clergy will not officiate any weddings, but they can offer a blessing, prayer or homily to couples. Weddings that were already scheduled before the Sept. 24 vote will take place as planned.
“As a church we are in covenant together, and we all seek to follow Jesus who set the example for loving sacrifice,” Pastor Fuerst said in a statement following the vote. “Our congregation voted overwhelmingly to stand not for issues or principles, but for people.”
Going forward, FUMC Austin said it is "committed to working with other UMC congregations in Texas and beyond to advocate for change in United Methodist Church policies that discriminate against LGBTQ persons."
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
Good for this church. it certainly seems much more tolerant and enlightened than their theistic counterparts.
Anybody else need further proof that the Church is bigoted and needs removed from society?
Not me. But church/religious bigotry is certainly nothing new.
It's not. But it still amazes me the number of people that don't see it.
Or worse, people that support or try to justify church bigotry.
oh dear.. that will not sit well with some of the religious.. this church is taking the stance on equal rights and not elevating certain groups above others - good thing
I guess those die-hard Methodists that want to get married in a church are going to have to go to First Baptist next door
Why doesn’t God just step in and straighten out this conflict? If one is to believe the hogwash in the Bible, there were times when God would communicate with his flock. That hasn’t happened for thousands of years. It’s time for God to speak up and tells us difinitively what he wants. The people who pretend to know are just morons pushing bigoted agendas.
I don't think any religion believes that God intervenes in daily events. If you believe that God did intervene, you would also have to believe that God was gratified by suffering, pain and war. The concept that an atheist can't seem to understand is that of faith - the belief in something that cannot be proven. For the secularist religion is to be rejected, all things flow from the government.
How do you explain the stories in the infallible Bible that involve direct communication between God and humans?
Do those stories indicate to you that God is determining future events? Whatever your conclusion, the Bible, like the Koran, is open to interpretation.
How convenient! Let me guess - your interpretation is that God hates gays, but is indifferent to a 50% divorce rate and Josh Duggar’s Ashley Madison account?
now that makes no sense whatsoever - i'm told repeatedly by many many religious people that the bible is the direct word of their god, so there wouldn't be anything open to interpretation since their god was crystal clear in it's communication since the bible is the definitive word of their god, correct ?
if you are stating the bible is open to interpretation - that would indicate that their god wasn't very clear and there is no definitive word of their god... that would open a big can of worms, wouldn't it ?
If you want my personal view (I have stated it already) - It is exactly what Obama's was at one point. One of empathy - If you have gay friends or acquaintances, you sympathize with their wanting of fulfillment that many of us desire. On that basis, I have no problems with same sex marriages. Having a discussion that way encourages mutual respect for all views through a gradual process rather than the radical transformation of society & powerful implications which the Supreme Court created.
It made no sense to me either.
In their interpretation. Is the interpretation universal?
Do all Muslims interpret the Koran as the Islamic terrorists do?
if you are stating the bible is open to interpretation - that would indicate that their god wasn't very clear and there is no definitive word of their god... that would open a big can of worms, wouldn't it ?
I cant think of any religious text that is as clear and straightforward as our Constitution and you may have noticed even that is being interpreted in various ways by various judges
it seems that everyone interprets it according to their own viewpoints and desires - are you stating that there may be no god since everyone just interprets his "definitive" word tailored to their own viewpoints/desires etc ?
i don't know - i've never asked Islamic terrorists for their interpretation of the Koran, just as i've never asked Christian terrorists for their interpretation of the Bible. Do you know if they do ?
why would anyone need to interpret anything if its the "definitive" word of their god ? its like stating we all interpret 2+2=4 differently.
our Constitution isn't a religious text - why do you think it is ?
I think you finally got it
are you stating that there may be no god since everyone just interprets his "definitive" word tailored to their own viewpoints/desires etc ?
That seems to be your position.
i don't know - i've never asked Islamic terrorists for their interpretation of the Koran
Their interpretation is obvious, it needs no interviews
just as i've never asked Christian terrorists for their interpretation of the Bible.
Who would they be? Please, no progressive metaphors
why would anyone need to interpret anything if its the "definitive" word of their god ?
Four writers of the same story dosen't sound very definitive. You are trying to make a case to the wrong person. I can make your case much better, except I don't care what people believe via religion. My only concern is with destructive ideologies
our Constitution isn't a religious text - why do you think it is ?
I never came close to saying it was. You were looking for something "definitive", thus I used it as an example of something that was. Sorry, you couldn't understand that.
if they interpret it - then its not really the "definitive" word of their god, correct ? can you interpret 2+2=4 differently ?
not my position at all - i'm trying to understand the position of the religious who state one minute that the bible is the "definitive" word of their god but the very next minute state that its all about their own personal interpretation - doesn't seem very definitive and you seem to be unable to explain it.
what is their interpretation exactly ? i'm not Islamic nor a terrorist so i don't know - but apparently you think you know it 100%, so i'm curious as to what it is.
you think there are no Christian terrorists ?
what is my "case" exactly ? i like you assume you can make my "case" for me when i'm only asking questions.
i found something definitive - 2+2=4 - that wasn't an issue. my issue is that you are stating the bible is left up to interpretation but i'm told otherwise so i'm looking for the truth.
It is to them
not my position at all - i'm trying to understand the position of the religious who state one minute that the bible is the "definitive" word of their god but the very next minute state that its all about their own personal interpretation
I stated that the Bible is open to interpretation - I never went beyond that. If you are choosing to use me as "the religious one" in this debate, you've made a big mistake.
what is their interpretation exactly ?
Jihadi, or jihadist, refers to a person who believes that an Islamic state governing the entire community of Muslims must be created, and that this necessity justifies violent conflict with those who stand in its way. Every terrorist act confirms this interpretation to even the most casual observer, with the apparent the exception of you
you think there are no Christian terrorists ?
Could'nt name one example? Even Obama dug back to the medieval period for as an example.
what is my "case" exactly ?
IMO, that religion is an easily disprovable fantasy
my issue is that you are stating the bible is left up to interpretation but i'm told otherwise so i'm looking for the truth.
Maybe so, but you weren't told otherwise by me - I only said it was open to interpretation
i'm only asking questions.
How am I doing?
interesting...
nope, just asking questions to see if you possibly knew any answers, i appreciate your responses so far
that doesn't really answer what their interpretation of the Koran is - but i appreciate the effort
sure:
from:
if you'd like more - i'd suggest you google it
nah, just asking questions, god (of any religion) hasn't been proven to exist NOR not exist
you are doing great - thank you for answering, i appreciate the responses
Ok Phoenyx, so for future reference, I can use Wikipedia as a link?
How am I doing?
You're over the top and I covered that in post 3.1.2.2
odd, you can't look up the references or research it yourself - even after giving you examples to start off with ? very interesting....
um... ok then...
I'll take that as a yes
Have a good one
You don't see any names in this paragraph ??:
and after you didn't find any names - you couldn't look it up yourself to verify it ? You didn't see where it stated they believed their God wanted them to carry out violent attacks ?
How interesting..... your only comment was about the source being Wikipedia instead of actually confronting the information... I know Wikipedia is editable, that's why I would think people would do research to verify the information.... hmmm...
Have a great one
I think he likes to shoot the messenger rather than confronting the fact that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the US are committed by right-wing Christian extremists like Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh and Robert Dear.
Whaaa?? Honestly Vicster, I thought that most religions DID believe that their god can and does intervene in daily events from time to time. I'm glad you don't believe that, but I'm not so sure that you speak for the majority of god believers.
I neither speak for them nor am I still one of them
"Rather than practicing discrimination in our wedding policy, we are going to give up some of the privileges that our opposite-sex couples enjoy and say, "
Sounds like the "Gun" debate. "ALL" will suffer because of a "Few".
I'd find a new church.
Awww ... are you suffering? I’m sorry to hear that.
Thanks !
One that endorses the privilege of heterosupremacy rather than equality.
I hear the SBC is looking for new members
Were you drooling when you posted that nonsense ?
So this congregation is on strike until the main body of Methodists agrees to adopt a practice that sanctifies a sin? Damn they’re messed up. I suppose the main body could expel the church for heresy. On the other hand, maybe the congregation is too heretical to be allowed to marry anybody anyway so their protest is actually a blessing in disguise because they have voluntarily taken themselves out of a sacrament without forcing the intercession of the main body. Maybe they could expand the protest by refusing to reproduce (except for same-sex couples who can’t reproduce anyway) and the congregation can just die out. Lol.
LOL. How exactly do you think reform happens in these nutty cults? From what I understand the movement in the UMC to drop its homophobic doctrine has the support of over 1,000 ministers and a majority of UMC members. The same thing happened decades ago when the Southern Methodists merged with the UMC and dropped their ban on mixed-race marriage. Ditto for the Southern Baptists even though they founded their cult specifically to support racism, slavery and white supremacy.
So, you rightwingers aren't really for freedom of religion (except yours) after all. Color me not one bit surprised and thanks for finally making clear what's been obvious for so long.
Most conservatives are for freedom of religion. This particular church has the right to work out its policies and other churches have a right to hold traditional views. Churches reforming or breaking off into new denominations is nothing new.
Except when it comes to Muslims and other non-Christians.
Nope. Any mosque or temple is free to marry anyone they want to or not. They can preach whatever they want too as long as it isn't encouraging violence.
Sorry but it's a fact that there are many Christian extremists and Christian hate groups like the AFA and FRC which oppose religious freedom for Muslims, Wiccans and other religious minorities. It's probably not a coincidence that those hate groups are anti-LGBT too.
Extremists don't define a whole religion or political philosophy.
Of course not. That's why the extremists tend to be evangelicals rather than normal Christians.
I always found it odd that people in a religion have a 'god' that hates all the same people they hate. Seems really convenient.
Yep, comes in handy.
God doesn't hate anyone nor is it acceptable for Christians to hate anyone.
It is a phony accusation by anti-Christian to label as hate, Christians openly acknowledging that they are submissive to God's standards of acceptable and unacceptable actions and attitudes.
Anti-Christians don't consider it hate when they agree with Christians that murder, rape, and pedophilia are morally wrong.
According to the bible, god is quite hateful. And evil.
"Anti-Christian?" That sounds hateful.
In other words "I don't hate gays, it's my imaginary friend who hates gays."
And here I thought that you "Christians" claimed to be in favor of personal responsibility.
What is the penalty for rape in the Bible? Paying the father and marrying the victim. That old Yahweh really deals harshly with rapists.
And what did Yeshua ever say about rape?
Rape in the Bible by chapter and verse at the link below.
Rape is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Yet few people know that the Bible often condones and even approves of rape. How anyone can get their moral guidance from a book that allows rape escapes me. Perhaps they have been lied to about the Bible and carefully detoured around all the nasty stuff in the Bible.
So grab your Bibles and follow along as I show you all the nasty rapes that your priests and preachers don’t want to tell you about. Note that in many places in the Bible there are references to “taking a wife”. Don’t be fooled into thinking that these were voluntary marriages. This first quote clearly shows that murder and force were used to “take” these wives.
If I were gay and attending a church that would not perform gay weddings, I would have to go to a different church that would perform gay weddings. I would not expect the church to change for me. It would be my decision whether I wanted to change for the church.
The same would apply to bakeries. If I wanted a cake baked and decorated with something indicating it was for a gay wedding and the baker would not do it for me, I would not expect the baker to change for me, nor could he expect me to change for him. I would simply go to a baker who would bake and decorate the cake to my specifications.
In my opinion change comes in the passage of time. Sometimes the changes are for the better and sometimes they're not. Generally, the oldest generation is less likely to accept change for the most part. That's why change is inevitable, they're the first to go.
The only thing the older generation can do is slow down change and keep the young and ignorant from running away with it. No one generation can expect to live all the changes there will be. Change can be good or bad and resistance to change can also be both of these as well, but whatever the future holds, one thing for sure it holds change.
Churches are private clubs and free to discriminate in any manner they want to, like the whites-only country club which Lush Dimbulb attends.
Bakeries are usually public accommodations and don't have the same freedom to discriminate. So if you're a bigoted baker at least have the common decency to clearly post a sign stating which minorities you'll refuse to serve. And if you want to do that without running afoul of the law then you should run your bakery as a private members-only club. You can even call it "Hate cakes for Jesus."
Shrekk Lives!!
Hurrah..
I am of the opinion that the religious do NOT have a right to assert some special reasoning function when it comes to the purpose of whatever oppression or desire to restrict the rights of an individual their religion has historically sanctioned as being sinful or defective.
Religious thinking should be subject to the same tests of rationality as any other. Why it's given a pass is beyond me.
I agree, and SCOTUS has known this since at least 1878. You can't run a government if law enforcement is up to the whims of the law breaker.
BTW, skrekk was Marge43 in my most recent NV incarnation as a test of gender bias with the mods.
OK now that you reveal it, it makes perfect sense...so what was the result of your subterfuge?
As Marge43 I never was suspended or banned for my comments despite keeping the exact same style. It didn't surprise me one bit.
IIRC, what got the skrekk alias banned was linking to the more vile bigoted comments in "Chuck in Olathe's" history whenever he claimed not to be a bigot (he had ridiculed Edie Windsor when she won her case against DOMA). Chuck whined very loudly every time I did that......apparently it was quite unfair of me to do that. I did it over the space of a month or two and at the end missed seeing a warning from a mod, otherwise I would have complied with the warning.
I didn't like the moderation over there at all. I was constantly getting called out for things that were minuscule compared to the rampant and constant trolling from others. But I'm preaching to the choir. I wondered where you went and am just glad to see you are still around fighting the good fight. You were always one of my favorite thinkers.
Ditto. You're one of the few folks whose comments I always read carefully rather than "screen grab."
How many thousands of comments are we going to have about gay wedding cakes ?
Seriously, if you went by Newstalkers you would think that is the only thing going on in the world. Gay wedding cakes, gay marriage , hypocritical Christians. Sheesh. Literally thousands of comments about this one topic.
Well, technically this is the thread about whether some Christian churches are less bigoted and more ethical than their parent cults but the conversation does always seem to devolve to cakes. I say "let them eat cake!"
There have been literally been thousands of comments on this forum recently about gay marriage issues. This is a fairly small forum and I think this topic is well over discussed. My opinion. We have people here who appear to be seriously obsessed about this one issue and how it intersects with religious belief.
I find it preferable to arguing about why Hillary lost the 2008 nomination and the 2016 election.
Yeah....me, too
The two have always been linked and decoupling them in any historical context is absurd.
There was a time prior to reliable birth control that women were forced to be virginal before marriage or risk the wrath and judgment of a puritanical society that would do everything short of making her wear a scarlet letter and forcibly take her child away from her and give it to someone else.
Thankfully, those days are gone. Men and women are free to have consensual sex with whomever they choose with or without marriage.
Marriage is a legal contract that involves government license to enter. If the marriage is dissolved, then it also requires government permission and documentation. In both scenarios, the permission of a religion is not required or obeyed. Government has the only authority to legally recognize the marriage contract or its dissolution.
Point out specifically where is says one must be married to have sex, or that sex must be involved to make a marriage legal and valid! I doubt whether the government cares if a couple has had or plans to have sex when issuing a marriage license. I certainly don't see where sexual relations is listed as a requirement for marriage on a license application.
We were discussing a historical context, which is clearly stated in my quote. In case you don’t know, for hundreds of years in western civilization, a woman was expected to be a virgin until marriage. A white dress for the wedding was a symbol virginity.
Maybe you were. I'm talking in general.
That may have been social expectations. But it was still not a requirement either way, especially in current society. So my statement stands!
But I wasn’t so don’t expect me to prove points that I was making.
Good for you. You proved something not in dispute.
I didn't ask you to.
Then I'm glad you agree with my original assertion.
Fine by me. There are thousands of other places to get married instead.