As The Anglican Church Turns

When I think of liberal Christian theology, the Anglican (Episcopalian) Church is the first to pop into my mind. Whether it be gay priests, or gay marriage, they're at the forefront of being trendy rather than boldly magnifying our Lord.

Now two Anglican priests have married. Huzzah, huzzah.

Two male priests exchanged vows and rings in a ceremony that was conducted using one of the church's most traditional wedding rites – a decision seen as blasphemous by conservatives.

The ceremony broke Church of England guidelines and was carried out last month in defiance of the Bishop of London, in whose diocese it took place. News of the "wedding" emerged days before a crucial summit of the Anglican Church's conservative bishops and archbishops, who are threatening to split the worldwide Church over the issue of homosexual clergy.

Why is it that those who oppose turning their church into "singles night at the gay bar" are labeled "conservatives", which, in Liberal-speak means "those holding back progress"? How about maybe they simply wish to live within Biblical guidelines?

Now, mind you, I'm of the opinion, as a practicing libertarian, that when it comes to marriage, people can do whatever they like, and the government can call marriage anything it likes. It doesn't make it "marriage" in the eyes of God...but it's a nice social contract. After all, the only definition of marriage that really matters is the one from Genesis: one man, one woman, one lifetime.

Neither am I particularly offended by homosexuality nor homosexuals (the non-strident ones, anyway). I see homosexuality as a sin no more offensive to God than adultery, fornication, serial lying, stealing, hate, or pornography. As Jesus said, break one part of the Law and you've broken it all. And I have my own sins to deal with; I haven't the time nor the energy to sit around and judge others for theirs.

Vox Day sums up the libertarian view of government involvement in marriage quite nicely.

Being a libertarian, I see no reason why the government should be involved in any way with the private social contracts written between individuals. Marriage is no more subject to legal definition than friendship; what passes for government-defined "marriage" is no more marriage than a fish is a frog. A marriage license is simply a binding legal contract between three parties that happens to share a name with the ancient institution. The state governments didn't even control the licensing until 1853, so either no one was legally married in America before then or there is a complete distinction between marriage and the tripartite legal institution that was redefined [May 15th] in California.

But Vulture, this isn't an issue dealing with government involvement in marriage, so why even bring that up? I bring it up to show you where I'm coming from, so that when I speak out against these showboating Anglican priests, you'll have a context within which to understand my views, and also so that I can't simply be labeled and ignored by asshat liberals.

This is typical of the agenda of strident gay militancy. They're not content with gay people being left alone. They're not content with gay people being tolerated, or even treated as "normal" (whatever THAT is). No, they've got to be in your face 24/7, rubbing your nose in their stridency.

This "marriage" is both a publicity stunt and a way to poke the "conservative" Anglicans in the eye. These "progressives" WANT to trigger a crisis within the Church in order to assure that THEIR AGENDA is the CHURCH'S agenda. They don't care if the "conservative" Anglicans break away and form a new church; they'd be peachy-keen all kinda happy with that. All that matters to them is that they get what they want.

So to Mr.-and-Mr. Orombi-Williams I say this: Nice stunt. But does it magnify Jesus? I mean, isn't THAT what you are supposed to be doing as ministers? Hmmm?