Anglican Samizdat

He does this because ‘Jesus never said a word about homosexuality’. Jesus didn’t say a word about incest, bestiality or necrophilia either; by Carter’s measure, that would make them ‘very fine’.

From here:

Former President Jimmy Carter has said gay people should be allowed to marry in civil ceremonies, as ‘Jesus never said a word about homosexuality’.

The latest book by Mr Carter, now 87, entitled NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter, encompasses his views on the Bible and on gay equality, among other issues. Discussing the book, he told the Huffington Post gay civil marriages were “very fine” in his view.

Mr Carter said: “Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things -– he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.

From here:

Saskatchewan’s highest court has ruled that marriage commissioners who are public servants cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples.

The decision by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejects two proposals from the provincial government that would allow some or all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform a service involving gay or lesbian partners if it offended their religious beliefs.

The government proposed that marriage commissioners who were employed before the law changed in 2004 could refuse to perform the services. It also proposed a second option where all marriage commissioners could refuse.

But the court noted that marriage commissioners are appointed by the government to perform non-religious ceremonies and are the only option for some same-sex couples seeking to tie the knot.

This decision has the unusual property of making sense and not making sense simultaneously.

It make sense because, from a secular perspective, once marriage has been redefined – and it has been – to mean just about anything you want it to mean, you cannot deny it to those who would have been outside its purview before redefinition. We shall see how long it takes for incestuous and polyamorous marriages to be accepted by the courts.

It makes no sense in the context of religion – which, after all, was the inventor of marriage – since all major religions define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Western Anglicanism excepted, of course, but, then, it is no longer a major religion.

It appears as if the makers of this video went out of their way to confirm in the minds of opponents of homosexual marriage, that they really are correct in their assessment that it sullies marriage, destroys families, threatens social cohesion and exposes children to abuse.

For advertising classes of the future, I can see it being preserved in digital aspic and occasionally paraded as a archetype of how not to influence people.