On Thu, May 1, 2008, 8:33pm, nospam.hopkins.nospam.ben@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ben=A0Hopkins) wrote:
> LA Times had a story, headlined "Same-***
> weddings can't be, Presbyterians decide." By
> the declaration that "same-*** weddings can't > be," they cleared Rev.
Jane Adams Spahr,
> who had been charged with misconduct for
> conducting weddings of same-*** 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
> hetero***ual couples.
>
> Haven't they heard that old song, "Love Is A
> Many-Gendered Thing?"
I guess that in the PCUSA, if one of their ministers tried to wed a man
and his dog, they couldn't be censured for misconduct (let alone
deposed?) because a marriage between a man and his dog "can't be."
This is what Gordon Clark would call "the noetic effects of sin." Or in
other words, when you depart from God's Word in the Scriptures, your
brain begins to rot...
|
