The Jane Spahr decision has certainly stirred up the natives. To quickly recap, Rev. Spahr married a same sex couple and was charged by the PJC. The GAPJC acquitted her with the reasoning that she couldn't be “found guilty of doing that which, by definition, cannot be done.” That is marriage is by definition between a man and a woman and so what Rev. Spahr had done was not marriage and she couldn't be charged with performing a marriage.
Of course, a lot of people are just happy or mad but the most interesting comments are the ones that play with the logic. For instance, if gays can't be married by definition, can they be ordained by definition? That is our constitution says that practicing gays can't be ordained. So if a church ordains a practicing homosexual would we then say that by definition the elder is not ordained and the church cannot be charged?
Of course the church has ordained practicing gays-sometimes deliberately, sometimes without knowing it. So the church is off the hook but what is the effect of saying that the ordination isn't valid?
It gives the bloggers something to do.
0 comments on Spahr logic repost
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
