Thursday, April 19, 2012

Do Unto Others

Such differences in how people "follow the Lord"! The member of St. Mary of the Hills who conveyed this resolution to me, said, "This is not the kind of knee-jerk stuff you see from other communities of faith, where the in-favor position is based on “well, the Bible says it’s wrong, and God’s law demands...” removing the need to consider the victims of this amendment as actual human beings." Amen, bro.

The vestry of St. Mary of the Hills passed the following resolution at their April 17th meeting after thorough discussion over the past two meetings.

A Resolution against the proposed Amendment to the State Constitution

We, the Vestry of St. Mary of the Hills Episcopal Church, are called by our Baptismal Covenant to seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving our neighbors as ourselves, and we believe all people to be children of God.

The proposed Constitutional Amendment to be voted on May 8th, 2012, if passed, will enshrine discrimination and exclusion into our state constitution. Discrimination in any form directly contradicts what we believe as a community of faith.

To keep silent at this moment in our state's history is to endorse implicitly the likely harm this unnecessary and divisive amendment will cause.

And so, we as the Vestry of St. Mary of the Hills Episcopal Church stand in opposition to the passage of this or any other such amendment to the North Carolina state constitution.

15 comments:

Liberal POV said...

The people I personally know at Saint Mary's of the Hills are all wonderful people. I cannot grasp the how the clergy supporting the discrimination in Marriage Act amendment get themselves pass the Golden Rule to the support bigotry and oppose personal freedom, religious freedom, liberty and human rights.
Mr Soucek should be very ashamed of himself as he should know you don't vote on other people's civil rights or freedom. Bigotry is historically politically popular so Mr Soucek and the GOP choose to appeal to the most negitive of humanity as a political tool.

Anonymous said...

Priest, children cover-up not a good record for the church, according to you JW.

JD said...

Liberal POV, With due respect there are some Republican Christians who do oppose amendment one and also who by no means agree with some of their legislators. We might be kind of hard to find but we are out there. We also believe in working with (a novel idea) one another to make this world a better place (i.e. crossing party lines). We also do not believe the attack approach is the best, either. Talking it out works the best. Thanks for your comments.

Liberal POV said...

JD

"With due respect there are some Republican Christians who do oppose amendment one and also who by no means agree with some of their legislators. "

I think this is great news and I'm happy to hear you speak up. I hope more moderate Christians Republicans will make their voices heard. Many in my family are Republican Christians, I know to also be wonderful people but the Republican leadership is trying to drown such moderate voices.The term is RINO to shut up voices of reason. On the local level you have the extremist Republican blog, local AM radio caring right wing hate mongering Rush Limbaugh and similar clones, extremist Christian radio equally hate mongering and on a national level you have Fox fear mongering with half or no truth. Local fundamentalist ministers do their part to keep us from working for our common interest and the common good of our community and our country. Yes, I'm pushing back and more Americans need to push back against the Limbaugh mentality of the Republican Party and not just Democrats. Call it the attack approach, but I've yet to meet a rabid Limbaugh listener you could talk it out with. These people are extremist and get more extreme with each passing year. I hope you can show me I'm wrong on this because we do need to have serious solutions to our political problems that can only come from finding common ground.

Opinionated said...

JD - I absolutely agree. This Amendment may have been proposed in a misguided and cynical move by Republican legislators, notably Dan Soucek, but the work against this amendment is definitely non-partisan. The vestry of St. Mary's (note to Anonymous - I believe you're referring to the problem with priests in the Catholic, not the Episcopal, church) has Democrats, Republicans, and Unaffiliateds on it....I believe they saw this as an issue of Social Justice, not politics.

I'd love a return to the days when people remembered that "talking it out works the best."

brotherdoc said...

JD, surely you are correct, there are Republicans who do not share the views of Mr. Soucek and others in the legislature. But this Amendment would never have been proposed at all had the GOP not won majorities in both houses in 2010, and had the party leadership not chosen to make a stand on this matter, enforcing I believe virtual total party unanimity behind putting this on the ballot. I don't recall any of our local reps going around seeking input, either from party rallies or from the public at large, on whether this amendment was good for NC. In other words, it was the Republican party alone which chose to make an issue of changing the constitution so as to permanently treat civil unions as less than traditional heterosexual marriage. It obviously thinks it will benefit overall from this stance. And perhaps your party loyalty overrides your support for equal human rights. But I hope you will speak out and work within your own party to change their priorities in future.

Anonymous said...

Brotherdoc, as lifelong Democrat, I take issue with your statements about Republicans being the only people to support the amendment. Many of my Democratic friends and I plan on voting for it.

Anonymous said...

Why do you all make a big deal of some Republicans who oppose this amendment while, at the same time, ignoring the fact that almost half of the Democrats favor it?

I don't see this as a partisan issue, but you all seem to want to use it to attack Republicans.

Anonagain said...

I do see it as a partisan issue, because all over the country these types of amendments have been proposed by Republican legislatures. I can't think of a single state legislature controlled by Democrats that has proposed these amendments. Yes, there are always a few Democrats who sign on as sponsors or whatever, but you have to admit that the majority of people out there who are pushing these amendments are Republicans. They love this divisive and hateful shit.

Anonymous said...

Is almost half a few? I would think it to be a significant number.

Anonagain said...

Show me where almost half of the Democrats in a state legislature have voted in favor of one of these "Marriage" amendments.

Anonymous said...

Pay attention, Anonagain. We were talking of polls, not legislative members. Focus.

Anonagain said...

I *was* paying attention. In my previous post, I was talking about state legislators, not voters. Average voters don't sponsor bills in legislatures. And yes, I am aware that there are Democrats that support Amendment 1 just as there are Republicans that oppose it. The point is, there are a hell of a lot more Republicans in this country that are trying to oppress gay people than there are Democrats who do.

Anonymous said...

Voters pass constitutional amendments, not legislator.

Another Anon said...

Regarding Amendment 1, in this state the legislators had to vote to put it on the ballot, and it requires a Yes vote from 60% of the legislators. If the Democrats in the house had stuck together like those in the Senate, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Always happens like this, doesn't it? We know how the Republicans are going to act; it's always a few turncoat Dems who end up screwing it up.