LA Times had a story, headlined "Same-sex weddings can't be,
Presbyterians decide." By the declaration that "same-sex weddings can't
be," they cleared Rev. Jane Adams Spahr, who had been charged with
misconduct for conducting weddings of same-sex couples in 2004 and 2005.
Get this logic: (quote from the article:)
"The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages . .
.. ," the high court said. "These were ceremonies between women, not
between a man and a woman."
The commission said the lower court had "found Spahr guilty of doing
that which by definition cannot be done."
(/quote)
The mind boggles. Spahr and her attorney were "troubled" by the ruling,
because the implication of the ruling was that the court was trying to
restrict marriage only to heterosexual couples.
Haven't they heard that old song, "Love Is A Many-Gendered Thing?"
|
