The Practical Parson

 So the General Conference of the United Methodist Church decided this past week, that they would lift the church's ban on openly gay clergy, broaden the church's definition on marriage, and extend to deacons the right to baptize and consecrate the elements of Communion.  Quite the few days they had, no?   While the traditionalist world is loosing its collective mind over the 'gay clergy' matter, they overlook simple facts that make the situation worse than it truly seems.  There have always been gay clergy in every church, and there always will be; because it is not something that people simply, actively choose for themselves.  No, what is worse is what is done WITH who and what one may be in this life.  Rather than simply expressing "we are clergy and gay" and going back to worshiping the Lord in the traditions handed to them; the UMC has decided that it needs to change everything in order to make a pronounced statement about their acceptance of gay ...

  In a move that should come as little to no shock to many, the Arch-Heretic in white of Rome today announced that Roman Catholic priests would be permitted to bless same-sex couples- "provided they do not resemble marriages".   What the Lout has done is essentially what the United Methodist Bishops did, which caused the breaking up of the Methodist Union:  telling one group of people (heterosexual couples) that they must abide by the rules and regulations hereunto set forth in canon law and church doctrine; while telling another group of people (homosexual couples) that they don't have to follow those same rules, that they get a pass on it because "God loves them too".   The main issue at hand is not even whether same-sex couples/ marriage is morally right or wrong; but rather a man (or group of leaders) telling 2 groups of people to follow 2 diametrically opposed sets of rules, while claiming both are perfectly acceptable and equal.  NO.  If you...

 Today, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian graphic designer who creates wedding websites, that she is not obliged to extend her services to same-sex couples who are getting married.  Of course the instant outrage over "Gay rights denied!" has been noted, with people and the dissent from the liberal justices on the court saying this will "make gay people second class citizens".   But, will it?  When you talk about discrimination, everyone automatically goes "Oh, discrimination bad!", as well they should; but wherein lies the truth in cases such as this?   Was it really a gay couple who so sincerely wanted this designer's services and she was the only person who could do the job; or was it on the other hand, a group of people who wanted to 'prove a point' about supposed equality?   The fact of the matter is that while there are legitimate cases of discrimination which occur every single day; cases such as this one before the Sup...