Happy Father's Day

I know this will turn out to be just a tad early, but I thought I would be in a hurry to salute Father's Day. 

So, allow me to begin with a picture of my father. 

As one might surmise, this is a picture of my dad shortly after he was promoted to Battalion Chief.  He died about two years after that, I was seventeen at the time.  What I remember most vividly is when he would go out as a mutual aid department to the fires in the Santa Monica mountains.  He would be gone for a week or more sometimes.  (This was before people actually lived in this area.)  He was usually gone for a day or so but that was to be expected on shift work.  Our house had what we referred to as the "doghouse" which was nothing more than a partitioned section of the garage where our washer and dryer were.  At any rate, When he would get back after 10 or more days my mom would insist his clothes be removed in the "doghouse".  However, you cannot imagine what a warming smell burnt weeds and grass can create until your dad is gone for days.  That is how we knew he was home.  And I have always had that memory whenever I smell burnt grass. 

Happy Father's Day!

Don't Look Now!

Sometime help ccomes from some of the strangest places.  Ever think that bankruptcy would forge gay rights issues? Well look at this "Bankruptcy Court Blasts Defense of Marriage Act"   

In Los Angeles the  judge stated, "This case is about equality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, for two people who filed for protection" from creditors, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles said Monday.

The Defense of Marriage denied certain rights to same-sex couples wed in other states.  It allowed for the denial of claims for joint income tax filing,  Social Security survivor benefits and even joint bankruptcy filings.  Thaat is all over now.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."  Matthew 23:37

A Shout To the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy

The Episcopal Diocese of Quincy is now talking with the Executive Council about the destruction and the hurt and the pain of the "schism" that befell them in 2008. See The Lead for the complete story.  Quincy is one of those diocese that just like us, suffered a catastrophic disaster in 2008.  Those left behind were, I am sure disgusted, dejected and dehumanized by the group of Conelonialists that left for Greg Venables Southern Cone.  We in San Joaquin know the feeling and first wish to convey to our brothers and sisters in Quincy that we know how you feel, we have been there and we want you to hang in there because a new dawn is coming.  Right now, it may seem bleak, and we are not completely out of that very dark spot that could be called "hell on earth" but we know there is a Jesus Christ and we know that the Episcopal Church will not let you down.  They certainly did not in our instance.

Please keep in mind that there were only a few people on Calvary that dark and gloomy day way back when and numbers are not important.  It is your faith that must be strong and your faith that will set you free.  We know that here in San Joaquin and I am sure you must know that even in the midst of chaos and ruin.

To the Quincy Conelonialists, you cannot win and when you realize that please come home.

To our Executive Council, Father Mark and the whole group, you have been patient, generous and loving for us here in San Joaquin please extend that same grace and mercy to our brothers and sisters in Quincy. 

To our brothers and sisters in Quincy, let us know where and how we can help.  We are also small but mighty.  Put us to the test.

We Are Headed Into The Dark Ages!

Hey, Archbishop Peter Jensen is at it again.  By it, he is spreading his words of wisdom all over Sydney and the world.  This time (as usual) it is about same sex marriage.

The article has the embarrassing title of:

Should the Marriage Act allow two people of the same sex to be married?

This is just like asking the question, "Should African-Americans be married?".  Why does Peter Jensen think HE can give or take inalienable rights?  We are talking about nothing less, marriage as a basic human right.


Here is Peter's first "logical" argument:

Think what marriage is. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, from different families, publicly joined through an exchange of promises committing them to life-long exclusive fidelity. That marriage involves a man and woman is by design.

In that last line there is a leap of epic proportions that is not based on facts.

If you liked that leap here is an even better one:


 It is the unity of different sexes that alone creates marriage.

Again, Mr. Jensen assumes facts not in evidence. and here is his "kicker":

One of the essential public purposes of marriage is to ensure the necessary commitment to bring children into the world and to nurture them through the special things that a mother and father contribute to their upbringing.

Again, assumes facts not in evidence.  For example, any couple can adopt and provide for the child(ren) and it does not OF NECESSITY need to be a man and a woman.  and, it does not OF NECESSITY take a man and a woman to establish a complete and loving relationship. 

Mr. Jensen then uses the negative of one of the above lines to establish a further argument against same-sex marriage.  Same-sex unions, by definition, can never qualify as marriages 

What Mr. Jensen has done is establish his own, non-researched unsubstantiated definitions in order to write a bunch of nonsense.

Why all of this?  Well, buried deep in the lack of logic comes the real argument.

We now treat real marriage as one of the indispensable foundations of community. Ensuring public honour of same-sex relationships by calling them marriages is an abuse of marriage itself. It imposes, through social engineering, a newly minted concept of marriage on a community that understands it in quite another way.


What single word do conelonialists hate more than anything else?  Social whether it be social science, social engineering, social mores, social customs, they just hat the word in all its connotations but particularly in this context.

Then, in an attempt to scare the you know what out of all the little Conelonialists he (Jensen) comes up with this brief diatribe:

There will be other consequences that, even with our ‘live and let live’ philosophy, we will regret. If same-sex unions are declared to be marriages, there will follow a demand for equal treatment in sex education. The normalisation of homosexuality will be assumed. Children will be instructed that there are no moral or other grounds for preferring ‘heterosexual marriage’. This claim for a ‘right’ to be married could open the way for other forms, such as polygamous marriages or perhaps even marriage between immediate family members.

Here is where Mr. Jensen must get a great deal of his exercise.  He jumps to more conclusions in one paragraph than a panelist on Whats My Line.

Mr. Jensen then wraps this whole long time consuming nonsense with this:

 Our society reserves honour for marriage where lifelong vows are exchanged, between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. This is a painful subject but we must continue to uphold real marriage as an act of love for our neighbour and for future generations.

This is not a painful subject and why he thinks we should uphold real marriage (as if there are fake marriages??) as an act of love for our neighbor and for future generations??? How about granting the basic human right of marriage to all persons including LGBT members of our society.

In all of this, we, the members of the community that are heterosexual must stand shoulder to shoulder with all peoples in order to secure these basic human rights.  We cannot ask our LGBT brethren to do this by themselves.  We all need to speak out and we all need to speak out now. 

Same Sex Blessings

We are rapidly approaching a time when same sex blessings will become the norm for not only California but for all the Episcopal Church and most of the Anglican world (communion if you please).  For some reason we are struggling with just the right words and just the right ritual and just the right everything to be inclusive.  Does anyone know that by doing this we appear to be setting up separate but equal arrangements.   Does this lead the Episcopal Church to LGBT restrooms and LGBT drinking fountains and LGBT coffee hours?  I am hoping  not.

See, here is the thing.  We do not have separate rite for Baptism for LGBT members of our community.  We do not have a separate rite for communion for LGBT members, we do not even have a separate rite for ordination or for that matter consecration of bishops that are LGBT.

So, why are we doing this with same sex blessings.  Is this not obvious enough that we can simply use the existing blessing of a marriage found on page 423?  Certainly makes sense to me.  If the couple wants to alter the wording then let them go ahead and do so but the basics are all right there.  We do not need to isolate and separate our LGBT members for the purpose of blessing their union.  Can we just get with it, please.

Pretty Harsh For A Thursday!

Well, the Anglican Covenant thingy continues to live a life of its own.  How, I am not sure.  It makes little or no sense.  The covenant was born out of the desire by the Global South to punish the anyone in the "Anglican Communion" who transgresses.  The idea of transgresses is one in which I do not know how to define it but "I know it when I see it" -- just ask the Primates, they would judge who is or is not transgressing.  And pray tell, how is the actions of first the Global South and then the Archbishop of Canterbury different from say, Germany grabbing the Sudetenland in 1938?  The Chancellor simply wanted to relieve the privations suffered by the German people at the hands of the Czechs.  And this differs from the Global south wanting to relieve the privations of Anglicans in Nigeria and other places?  And, the rest of the world giving in to them figuring that all they really wanted was to "relieve the privations".  So let's all debate and discuss the Anglican Covenant in order to relieve the privations of certain Anglicans throughout the world?  Are we absolutely sure appeasement is the answer?  Or appeasement is even the question?  Do you all believe that?

Those who continue to debate this question, for real or for imagine, strike me as helping load the boxcars.  Surely no one knows what is at the end of the line, right?  No one knows exactly how this Covenant thingy will play out?  Could be good for all of us, right?  Just like it could be good for the LGBT folks of the world, right?  We know better, at least I think we do?!  Why help load the boxcars when we know exactly what is at the other end of the rail line, especially for the LGBT community.  How do we know this?  Because the folks that took the Sudetenland told us so.  Just ask Bobby Duncan or Mr. Orombi or Mr. Venables or old what's his face from Nigeria. 

If the content of this post is pretty harsh it is only because the Anglican Covenant was conceived and born out of hatred. Is being pushed to suppress women and LGBT and others under the guise of Communion (appeasement) and the net result is a form of death to those who do not conform to the guidelines devised and administered by a bunch of ruthless Primates who wish nothing more than as much power as they can possibly muster in this world (and how is that different from 1938).

Prince of the Church versus Prince of Peace

I have watched and read as several new bishops were consecrated.  The writings they use and the verbiage in their applications seems to be mimeographed (copied for you all too young to remember mimeograph machines) and circulated among those who lust for the office.  Frequently heard and copied are "I am not worthy but I am willing to heed the call.  The spirit moves within me to make this journey, and a host of other trite and trivial phrases that merely smacks of a fake sense of humility and godliness in order to gain power.

I got to thinking and this brief blog is the result.  For some reason, mostly medieval, many of these would be power grabbers are enamoured with the concept of the "Prince of the Church".  This medieval term that allows them to believe that somehow they have this great political power that allows them to roam around their "fiefdoms" unfettered and unmuzzled and with some false sense of royal blessing.  These folks do not seem to care as much for the idea of the shepherd as they do for the idea of the politician.  They want the power and seem to ignore the real work they are supposed to do, "feed my sheep." 

Let's look for just a moment at the Prince of Peace, yep that would be Jesus.  He simply went about his business of feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked and occasionally ridding the world of a demon.  The real "political" reference that sticks out in my mind is when Pilate asks him if he is king and Jesus replies that his kingdom is not of this world.

So, why the disconnect between the Prince of Peace and the Prince(s) of the Church?  Can we get back to the idea the bishops are shepherds and not princes?  The shepherds crook is a good reminder but it seems to not have any impact on bishops anymore.  They lust after the power that comes from the office and the ability to fly around the country, the world and play at being royalty.   Isn't it time for a change?