Well, good for Episcopalians. Looks like your church is getting smaller though.
It is getting smaller, and for just this reason – support of gay rights. Conservative Episcopalians are not okay with gay people being accorded equal status in the church, and they exercise the right to vote with their feet – to leave, in other words. It is a problem confronting not just the United States but the worldwide Anglican community, as explained here and here.
The fact that the church is facing schism (i.e., a split that will effectively destroy the church as it exists now) over this subject is precisely why it is wrong to dismiss the U.S. Episcopal church as a smaller church with little influence outside itself. Believe me, other major Protestant denominations are watching carefully how the Episcopal situation plays out, as they too wrestle with the insoluble conflict of those who belief homosexuality is fundamentally sinful and wrong and outside the communion of God, and those who believe all children of God are entitled to full participation in church, regardless of sexuality. On a world stage, it is the latter belief that is in the distinct minority, and it takes no small measure of courage to divorce yourself from your co-religionists in order to hold it.
It’s not my church. But it is a large denomination, and I respect them. No doubt there is conflict within the denomination over these kinds of issues, which there are in many denominations lately. Clearly, though, there is a strong inclusive movement within many large denominations, and the implication that Christians are not as socially liberal as some other religions is simply false. Some Christians are, some aren’t, and the various denominations and movements within these denominations reflect these differing opinions.
This is wonderful news because it shows that even the more conservative and mainstream sects can change and evolve. It also proves to me that while Judaism has that streak of blind, inhuman doctrinal conservatism that occurs in all religions, (the kind that demands that raped women complete their pregnancy or that gays be publicly flogged and executed as in Muslim countries), the Jewish passion for justice, mercy and humanity can actually win out! One pretty much expects Reform Judaism to be in the forefront of new trends, but when the centrist branch of Judaism does so, it is a sign that things are changing.
So here is another stocking stuffer for you, Levdrakon. This does not seem to have been much covered in US media, but on Thursday, December 7, Canada’s Parliament OVERWHELMINGLY defeated a motion on same-sex marriage put forward by the Conservative (minority) government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
The motion asked whether the present government should revise the marriage law passed in June 2005 to restore the traditional definition restricting marriage to a man and a woman. It also tried to sweeten the pill by saying that Civil Unions would be possible in Canada, and, most absurdly, that existing same-sex marriages would be respected (effectively creating different classes of citizens with different rights).
In spite of lobbying by the Catholic Church and various other elements of the religious right, the motion was defeated 175-123.
Polls showed that 58% of Canadians were against re-opening the same-sex marriage debate, against only 36% who did want it re-opened. As usual, the province of Québec was the most liberal, with the vast majority of Quebecers in favour of SSM.
So happy Hunnukah to our Jewish Brothers and Sisters, and thanks! I am not Jewish, but when my partner and I got married last March, our Jewish in-laws sent us their congratulations, and my Jewish nephew acted as one of our witnesses.
I am assuming your comment is sarcastic, Dr. Cube, and that it implies that the typical Joe Lunch Bucket in a typical labour union is a homophobic neanderthal.
I don’t know how labour unions are in the US, but in Canada and every other democracy, unions have been in the forefront of those who advocated gay rights. As early as the 1970s, unions were negotiating clauses with employers to protect gay and lesbian workers from firings and discrimination, in some cases decades before legislators got around to adding sexual orientation to their human rights codes.
Maybe the Sheet Metal Workers are a bunch of homophobic morons, or maybe not. But I think you owe the labour movement in general a big apology.
Valteron: Two quick points on your posts #24 and #25:
- It was my impression, which I’ll ask CanaDopers to confirm or correct, that Harper honored his promise to the social-conservative faction of his supporters, to ask the question of whether the gay-marriage laws should be brought back on the table. The motion that was defeated, as I understand it, was not “Should we repeal the gay-marriage laws?” but “Should this House bring back for discussion the gay-marriage laws passed in a previous Parliament?” Not quite a nitpick, it’s the difference between (a) “We gotta get rid of that abominable law” and (b) “Sounds like there’s enough dissent about this to warrant looking at it again.” The first is the act of a bigot (or an unprincipled politician pandering to bigots); the second, that of an honest man who seriously believes all elements of the body politic deserve to be heard. I don’t like Harper at all, and would never vote for him if I were a Canadian, but I can see the sense of honoring a constituent request to find out if there’s enough dissent to warrant taking a second look at a law – even when it’s a law I firmly support and think its opponents are dingwads.
Second, there’s a stereotype of the average American blue-collar worker as socially conservative, a supporter of “family values” and watching football over a beer at the bar with his buddies after his shift is over. DrCube was not so much insulting him as playing off that stereotype and the wordplay between “union” (common clipping of “labor union” in the US) and (civil) “union” (as “A rose by another name” for gay marriage). In short, I read his post as a lighthearted bit of wordplay based loosely on a stereotype, not as a serious dig at the labor movement.
(belated) Congrats, <b>Valteron</b>!
This is coming at a wonderful time for me. One of my biggest struggles with my conversion to Judaism was the fact that I was most drawn to the Conservative branch, but could not be sure that I would find a place where my queerness wasn’t taboo. I still can’t be sure, but this is a step in the right direction.
I can’t even describe how I feel. I had been hoping for a sign that I was on the right track. I know that none of this was decided for or because of me; what I mean is, it is a blessing to see that my spiritual home is becoming a more welcoming place, just as I am preparing to step through the door.
I think you are being a bit too easy on Harper. He is well known for pandering to the religious right and to bigotry in general. First of all, here is the exact wording of the motion:
“That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.”
So it was definitely a motion that favoured repeal of the gay marriage provisions passed in 2005, even if it did offer gay people the right to sit at the back of the bus.
Secondly, there was nothing wrong with the original 2005 debate in Parliament that passed the gay-marriage amendments, except in the mind of Stephen Harper and his right-wing fundamentalist buddies. Some of Harper’s objections were that the original bill was heavily supported by the Bloc Québécois MPs, who as you may know, are in favour of Quebec independence. He was roundly condemned by all parties for this irrelevant allegation that the votes of some Members of Parliament are less ‘valid’ than others because of their opinions. Harper also objected to the fact that the original vote was not 100% free to the extent that the Prime Minister at the time, Paul Martin, required his Ministers to vote for this government bill.
As an American (I am assuming you are) you may not be familiar with this concept, since Republicans and Democrats regularly cross party lines, but in a Parliamentary system, there is a principle of Cabinet Solidarity. If you want to vote against a bill by your party and you are a Cabinet Minister, you have to resign before you do it. One Liberal Minister opposed to SSM did so.
On the other hand, ordiary MPs in the Liberal party were free to vote as they wished and 32 of them voted against the origibal SSM bill introduced by their own party.
Also, you have to look at the legal context. The SSM bill of 2005 was introduced after the appeal courts in almost every province had already ruled that restricting marriage to straights was unjust. Thousands of valid SSMs had already been performed by the time the 2005 bill was passed.
While the question has never been tested in the Supreme Court of Canda, lawyers and constitutional experts are about unanimous in telling Stephen Harper that the Supeme Court would likely rule the same way. There is almost universal agreement that a law allowing existing SSMs to remain and forbidding further ones would be kicked out so far by the Supreme Court that it would go into orbit.
Yet, Harper chose to go ahead with his motion to pander to bigotry and his right-wing fundie buddies.
Finally, are my rights going to be put on the chopping block every time the Conservatives are in power and are feeling their oats?
How about the following motion to be introduced to Congress:
“That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional right of white citizens in Birmingham, Alabama to have preferential seating atthe front of public busses without affecting the right of African-Americans to ride in the remaining seats at the back and to get to their destination as quickly as white citizens.”
Wonderful news, a step in the right direction.
I read goy rabbis and unions.
How about: “Dyslexic atheists deny the existnce of Dog.”
Valteron, thanks for the clarifications. I have been aware of many of the differences between American and Canadian politics virtually all my life, but I’m acutely aware of how much more there is to know – and you fought my ignorance to a crushing defeat on this one! 
Valteron, thanks for the clarifications. I have been aware of many of the differences between American and Canadian politics virtually all my life, but I’m acutely aware of how much more there is to know – and you fought my ignorance to a crushing defeat on this one!
I read Dr. Cube’s post as a joke on semantics. He was posting as if he read the title as “Conservative Jews approve gay rabbis, and they also approve of unions.”, not applying the gay modifier to both nouns.
Huh, and here I thought it was a Simpsons reference. “We work hard, and we play hard!”
You come on over to our Synagogue, then! We are affiliated with the consevative movement, but we jokingly refer to ourselves as the “Rainbow Synagogue”, not just on gay/lesbian issues, but other socially liberal points of view (interfaith, for example).
About three or four years ago our Rabbi stood at the pulpit on the High Holidays announcing that we should accept gay marriage. Most of the congregants didn’t even blink an eye.
“Support for gay unions” is just crying for a witticism involving Men At Work, but I got nothin’ 
Gay rabbis and marriages have been okay for the Reformim for years. I can’t say off the top of my head when gay rabbis were officially kosher, so to speak, but the Reform Movement officially okayed in…2000, I think, the first major religious group in the US to bless same sex unions.
BTW, for people unfamiliar with the Jewish movements, the Conservative movement is not really particularly conservative. It was founded to provide a middle ground between the Orthodox and Reform Movements during a period when the Reformim were doing all kinds of nutty things, from which they have pretty much stepped back from. (The Reform Movement from that time is known as Classical Reform, to distinguish it from today’s movement.) In practice, there’s enough variation between individual synagogues that it’s* generally * impossible to distinguish a Reform from a Conservative service. (Which cannot be said about the Orthodox Movement, because their synagogues segregate congregants by sex.)
On a personal note, I consider myself a Reform Jew, and their acceptance of gay marriage is one of the main reasons why. I think this is great for the Conservatives and I’d certainly be more likely to join a Conservative shul in the future. Bravo to them.
btw, kung fu lola, I am so happy for you! Your post honestly gave me shivers. We are moving in the right direction.
They’ve been down with that for decades – Bugs Bunny is hardly closeted! 
I am glad I m not the only one who noticed that Bugs is gay. His habit of kissing Elmer Fudd on the lips…his propensity for drag (not that gay men are generally into drag, but)… . . .and the fact that “Bugs” is a play on the word buggery.
You think Sponge Bob and his friend Patrick are screamers? 
You think the Teletubbies are the only recruiting weapon in the Gay Agenda tm ? Now the truth can be told!
Back in the days when we had Bugs Bunny recruiting for us, we did not give out X boxes and Play Stations to young people we ensnared. We gave out Davy Crockett hats.
In fact, now that the Gay Agenda is so close to final victory (absorbing 100% of children into the Gay World) we can reveal what are strategies have been all along.
Take the three stooges in the 1950s. Their shorts were shown on television (does that sound gay, huh?) and made them popular with a whole new generation who had never seen them in theatres. And what were the stooges? Three guys who were not married, slept in the same bed and were into S&M.
Take the Davy Crockett Craze of the 1950s. Fes Parker (“fesse” is French for buttock, did you know?) and Buddy Ebsen (the “buddy” of “fesse” would be a bum buddy, of course :eek: ) riding around in the wilderness. Sound gay to you?
You poor straight people never stood a chance. You never knew what hit you until your sons started showing up in wedding dresses and your daughters in tuxedos.
Now it is too late. Total victory is ours!
I realize I am not much of a comedy writer, but the trul funny part of this will come when my text gets copied and quoted as if it were serious in some right-wing fundamentalist web site. Just watch.