Human society is a complex reality, but certain constants have framed that reality for human beings.  One of those constants has been the institution of marriage.  The respected status of the heterosexual pairing, set apart for exclusive rights and respected for its functions for the society, is among the most important of those constants.  Even where deviations from this pattern occur, they are of interest merely for the fact that they are deviations from this norm.

The most senior California bishops of the Episcopal Church came out in favor of same-sex marriage in the state on Wednesday.  The bishops then called on voters to defeat Proposition 8 — the constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The greeting card features two male torsos in tuxedos. The message is clear — Hallmark is ready to join the celebration of same-sex marriage.

The fact that The Los Angeles Times favors same-sex marriage is not a new revelation. To the contrary, the paper has positioned itself in support of same-sex marriage for some time. Furthermore, no informed reader will be surprised to find that the paper’s editorial position is quite liberal. Given our cherished commitment to the freedom of the press, the paper has every right to position itself this way. Intelligent readers are responsible to be aware of this fact, and take this editorial posture into account when considering the paper’s coverage of controversial issues — like same-sex marriage and “Proposition 8.”

According to The Los Angeles Times, scores of United Methodist pastors in Southern California are planning to defy church law by performing same-sex marriages. The paper provides rather extensive detail about these plans, acknowledging that performing same-sex marriages could lead to disciplinary action against the pastors.
In addition, a large group of retired United Methodist ministers in the region has volunteered to perform the marriages on behalf of pastors who might be defrocked or disciplined if they performed the marriages themselves.
The paper’s report includes some fascinating statements from pastors who plan to defy the discipline and doctrine of their church — and the clear teachings of the Bible.
For example:
“I’m tired of being part of a church that lacks integrity,” said the Rev. Janet Gollery McKeithen of Santa Monica’s Church in Ocean Park, who plans to conduct weddings for two gay couples in August and September. “I love my church, and I don’t want to leave it. But I can’t be part of a church that is willing to portray a God that is so hateful. I would rather be forced out.”
And:
The Rev. Sharon Rhodes-Wickett of Claremont United Methodist Church joined a retired deacon from her congregation to co-officiate at the July 5 wedding of two longtime members, Howard Yeager and Bill Charlton. The wedding was held off site — at a Claremont complex for retired clergy and missionaries — to avoid violating the rule against such ceremonies in churches. Rhodes-Wickett, who led the Lord’s Prayer and gave a homily, said she hoped to avoid discipline by stopping short of actually pronouncing the couple married. That action was performed by the retired deacon, who also signed the marriage license. Rhodes-Wickett said she did not want Yeager and Charlton to leave her church to exchange vows. “This is my flock,” she said, adding that the men have been together 40 years, 22 of them as members of her Claremont congregation. “It’s a matter of integrity and a matter of what it is to be a pastoral ministry.”
There is a very curious and revealing feature to these comments. Both of these pastors oppose and defy the Book of Discipline — the authoritative teachings and policies of the United Methodist Church — and they claim to do so in the name of “integrity.”
Pastor Janet Gollery McKeithen said her church “lacks integrity” because it identifies homosexuality as a sin and prohibits pastors from performing same-sex unions. Pastor Sharon Rhodes-Wickett said that her act of defiance is “a matter of integrity.”
Integrity is crucial to the Christian ministry, and it is a word that is integral to the matter at hand. What makes the use of the word by these two pastors so disappointing — and revealing — is that the word is used to mask and justify an act that lacks all integrity.
These two women are defying the very policies they are bound and committed to uphold. They sought and accepted ordination in their church knowing that these policies and doctrines were in place. They are defying their church, their doctrine, and the Bible.  They pledged to uphold these doctrines, but now they defy them.
Integrity would not lead these pastors to defy their church and violate their ordination vows, but to uphold them. If they cannot uphold these doctrines and policies, let them resign in conscience.
Sydney Biddle Barrows, the infamous “Mayflower Madam” convicted of running an elite prostitution service in the 1980s, once remarked, “I ran the wrong kind of business, but I did it with integrity.”
Misused in this way and employed as moral artifice, “integrity” is claimed where no real integrity can exist.  There is no “integrity” in running a prostitution ring, and there is no integrity in defying ordination vows.

Meeting in San Jose, California, the Presbyterian Church USA, the liberal branch of American Presbyterianism, moved to approve homosexual clergy on June 27, 2008 — a date that may well mark a final blow against biblical orthodoxy in that denomination.

The news coverage and media analysis that followed the arrival Monday of same-sex marriage in California was absolutely predictable. There was the inevitable flood of profiles and personal stories, along with celebratory reportage.

Reducing a question to scale can sometimes be a helpful intellectual step toward understanding. Just how wide is the divide between liberal and conservative Christianity? Just look at the current issue of TIME magazine.

When the California Supreme Court struck down that state’s definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman it announced a great social and moral revolution. Unless reversed by means of a constitutional amendment, this decision effectively redefined marriage and set a precedent that will reverberate across the nation.