HE Who Is Without Sin

May Take Away the First Constitutional Right.

I confess- I don't get it. I am getting fed up. It's maddening.
Even for those who think gayness is an aberation or intrinsically disordered (which means not some state someone is born with out of their control- and that is not conclusively proven by anyone but theologians who declare it so) I say- and so-
you are not intrinsically a bit disordered? Having an intrinsic disorder does not warrant deprivation of a constitutional right. We don't calibrate sins and base constitutional rights on degree of sin (unless the behavior is criminal.)
We don't do it for any other disorders. We don't say- all those who have adulterous fantasies (intrinsically disordered) or those who ever committed adultery can never join the military or ever get married again. Equal employment rights are enshrined in our Equal Protection constitutional guarantees as is the penumbral Right to Marriage.
We don't say- you gamble too much- therefore you cannot join the military or get married.
You watch x rated movies obsessively- no job for you. No marriage for you. You eat too many cheetos (well actually for the military....) We don't say, mean selfish people cannot join the military or get married (they may not stay married long, but they have a right to get married.) Think of any sin you know- reckless drivers- they may not get married. People who refuse to put the toothpaste top back on the toothpaste- no marriage for you. What else is disordered-
anyone who at any time in their life stuck their finger in a socket? (maybe too stupid to find someone to marry but they are still allowed.)

Marriage is much more than just sexual connection- it is emotional empathetic commitment and connection. It is a profound bonding. It is shared financial responsibilities- shared child rearing responsibilities often, etc. Anyone who has been married for any length of time will tell you that the sex is just a part of it --and in 'sickness' and in health means that if the sex goes the marriage doesn't. Sometimes older guys with diabetic neuropathy need viagra- if they don't' take it, they don't get divorced. And what of people who find true love in their 60s?
So why do we do an evaluation about 'military readiness?' - Because in the area of discrimination law, we do not permit unequal treatment of persons based on a particular classification if it is a 'protected' classification (race, gender, age, and in some states including DC, sexual orientation) - unless there is a specific job requirement that makes it necessary to so discriminate. For example- if there is a job at a loading dock- and it requires that someone be above six foot tall and able to lift 50 pounds repetitively over one's head to land boxes on a high
platform, this might be a basis to statistically have far fewer females at the job if the only ones that applied were under 5'5". That statistically might look like gender discrimination, but it would not support a claim for it likely because there was a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the job bias.
That is why they look at factors of 'military readiness.'-- Is there something specifically about the need for readiness that is compromised by gayness. Some people say no, some say yes. Depends on who you ask. Under the law it is a totally legitimate question.

And so why do we persecute gays who want to get into committed relationships based upon our perception of the gravity of their sins? A civil marriage is not a religious endorsement of the practice of gay sex. It is an endorsement of our constitution.
The church is free to call consecrated heterosexual marriage covenental consecrated marriage or anything else it wants to signify that Jesus or the church is in the middle of the relationship in a way they give a stamp of approval of. No one has ever forced a religious body to endorse a gay marriage.

So what do you care? Should we now start finding all the mean things you said and did to justify positions you should never be allowed to hold and inventory all your family members to see what sins they have that should preclude their ever marrying?

The point about GRACE is that we ALL need it, because we ALL are sinners fallen short of God's holiness. We all are in desperate need of a savior because we ALL ARE INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED a bit. Your bit may or may not be a bigger bit than a gay person. Your sins of different color and stripe may far outweigh the sin of gayness in God's balance. It is only sheer hubris that has you pointing fingers at someone else's 'disorder' to deprive them of anything. Anything as serious as a job- or a marriage. I think it is a bit 'disordered' to not have the natural talent to know how to balance family life with a wife and clerical duties-like all the protestant world has figured out. A Bit Disordered I say. Which constitutional rights should celibate clergy then not get for being too selfish?

I know gay people who are far more loving, committed, monogamous emotionally than some clergy. And I know gay people raising children- where they have all the familial stresses of educating, providing for, feeding, clothing and caring for the health and well -being of their own children. I find it obscenely appalling that childless clergy would deprive them of any constitutional guarantee. I am not alone. Let it go. .It's ridiculous. I am starting to get sick.