Ecclesiastical Proclamation, Equal Rights under Natural, Primal and Religious Law Options

[BrMartin]

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)

Universal Life Church Monastery
Ecclesiastical Proclamation of Canon Law

All humans have an inalienable right and duty to practice their own peaceful religious traditions. However, religion should not contradict the reality of creation.

"Why does God give us instincts and then set all the rules in opposition?" asks John Milton of Kevin Lomax in the movie, The Devil’s Advocate. This question poses a dilemma for many believers. We are told that what separates humans from all other forms of life on earth is that we are endowed with free will. Given the choice to yield to our instincts, or consciously deny our primal instructions, the laws set forth in whichever holy book we might follow often prescribes a model of behavior that demands sacrifice.

The theory of evolution is now academically accepted as the most believable explanation for the variety of life on earth. For argument's sake, we shall accept the Vatican's position that if evolution occurred; it may very well have been under the impetus and guidance of “divine intelligence.” Thus we assume that animals, endowed with neither free will nor conscience, evolved in accordance with creation’s design.

How then can we explain the existence of homosexuality observed and documented in over 500 species of animals? Christian dogma holds that the function of sexuality is procreation and any aberration is perverse and unnatural. Such is the placing of gods over humanity, the placing of junk science over reality, and the placing of belief over knowledge. Zoologists have observed, in a wide variety of species from dolphins to orangutans, a consistent frequency of homosexual behavior. Take for example New York’s Central Park Zoo's male penguin couple that raised their young together, making headlines around the world. If animals behave instinctively in response to stimuli and not out of a socially constructed code of conduct, would it not stand to reason that we, their evolutionary cousins, might possess a similar biological imprint? We may not be willing to abandon ancient traditions and practices, but we can adapt them to our new understanding of the universe.

It is difficult to reconcile this evidence through deductive reason and rational thought with the condemnation of homosexual behavior found in antiquated and archaic Scriptures. In our search for truth we must not shy away from intellectual honesty and scientific evidence that causes us to question hitherto unquestioned belief. Would a loving God create something, and then condemn it? None of us can ignore the primal instruction of Creation. Moreover, why did Jesus avoid any utterance on the subject? Nor can we ignore the apparent biblical homosexual relationships of Ruth and Naomi or David & Jonathan.

Clearly, we have wavered from the path of legitimate search, transition and discovery. We as a people differ on the story of our origins, but these divisions, worsened by our quarrelsome, arrogant nature, now imperil our future and the future of earth. All religions must adapt to unfolding knowledge about the universe we live in, without rejecting deep spiritual connections to human history and the natural real world that we are a part of today.

Today the Board of Directors issues this Ecclesiastical Proclamation;

“All persons with love for one another have a religious and constitutional right under the 1st Amendment of the United States, to the Sacrament of Marriage. Such is invoked under natural, primal, and religious law. Given this understanding, we hold that it is a denial of religious rights by the United States government to restrain our ministers from their constitutional right to perform the ritual of the Sacrament of Marriage to consenting adults, regardless of sexual design.”

Our campaign on the “Road to Jericho” will include instituting legal action against all entities of government within the United States who traverse the First Amendment by refusing the rights of Holy Sacrament as offered to heterosexual couples when denied to homosexual couples.

Adopted and Approved:

Thursday, April 12, 2007
Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse
Board of Directors

[RevPhoenix]

I didn't realize the ULC had "canon" law, and even if they did, that a simple Monestary could create it. I would think it would come from "mother church."

[Number Seven]

I don't think the First Amendment has anything to do with the Sacraments as put forward by any church. On the contrary, the first amendment guarantees that any church can decide what is holy and what is not without interference from the government. Therefore, churches are completely free to allow heterosexual marriage, and not homosexual, no matter how silly I think they are for doing so.

What the government cannot reasonably forbid is a civil union that offers the same rights and protections as a legal union between heterosexual people. If the ULC wishes to recognize these unions within the church, the government has no business there. But if (for example) the Catholic church will only "sanctify" heterosexual marriage, the government has no business telling them they can't. As long as the government provides equal opportunity for civil unions, church rules belong to the churches.

I think it's good that the ULC will stand up for the rights of homosexuals. It's high time someone did. But suggesting that the "Sacrament of Marriage" is a right given by the U.S. Constitution is mixing apples and oranges. All people have a right to a legal union. A union that is accepted by a given church is NOT a Constitutional right.

[RevPhoenix]

I must disagree with you Number Seven. Civil marriage is a right. Marriage by any other name isn't equal. Now a church marriage, yes, that's up to the church to decide if they want to perform it or not.

[truthseeker]

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)

Universal Life Church Monastery,
Ecclesiastical Proclamation of Canon Law

All humans have an inalienable right and duty to practice their own peaceful religious traditions. However, religion should not contradict the reality of creation.
"Why does God give us instincts and then set all the rules in opposition?" asks John Milton of Kevin Lomax in the movie The Devil’s Advocate. This question poses a dilemma for many believers. We are told that what separates humans from all other forms of life on earth is that we are endowed with free will. Given the choice to yield to our instincts, or consciously deny our primal instructions, the laws set forth in whichever holy book we might follow often prescribes a model of behavior that demands sacrifice.

The theory of evolution is now academically accepted as the most believable explanation for the variety of life on earth. For argument's sake, we shall accept the Vatican's position that if evolution occurred, it may very well have been under the impetus and guidance of “divine intelligence.” Thus we assume that animals, endowed with neither free will nor conscience, evolved in accordance with creation’s design.

How then can we explain the existence of homosexuality observed and documented in over 500 species of animals? Christian dogma holds that the function of sexuality is procreation and any aberration is perverse and unnatural. Such is the placing of gods over humanity, the placing of junk science over reality, and the placing of belief over knowledge. Zoologists have observed, in a wide variety of species from dolphins to orangutans, a consistent frequency of homosexual behavior. Take for example New York’s Central Park Zoo's male penguin couple that raised their young together, making headlines around the world. If animals behave instinctively in response to stimuli and not out of a socially constructed code of conduct, would it not stand to reason that we, their evolutionary cousins, might possess a similar biological imprint? We may not be willing to abandon ancient traditions and practices, but we can adapt them to our new understanding of the universe.

It is difficult to reconcile this evidence through deductive reason and rational thought with the condemnation of homosexual behavior found in antiquated and archaic Scriptures. In our search for truth we must not shy away from intellectual honesty and scientific evidence that causes us to question hitherto unquestioned belief. Would a loving God create something, and then condemn it? None of us can ignore the primal instruction of Creation. Moreover, why did Jesus avoid any utterance on the subject? Nor can we ignore the apparent biblical gay relationships of Ruth and Naomi or David & Jonathan.

Clearly, we have wavered from the path of legitimate search, transition, and discovery. We as a people differ on the story of our origins, but these divisions, worsened by our quarrelsome, arrogant nature, now imperil our future and the future of earth. All religions must adapt to unfolding knowledge about the universe we live in, without rejecting deep spiritual connections to human history and the natural real world that we are a part of today.

Today the Board of Directors issues this Ecclesiastical Proclamation;
All persons with love for one another have a religious and constitutional right under the 1st Amendment of the United States, to the Sacrament of Marriage. Such is invoked under natural, primal, and religious law. Given this understanding, we hold that it is a denial of religious rights by the United States government to restrain our ministers from their constitutional right to perform the ritual of the Sacrament of Marriage to consenting adults, regadless of sexual design.

Our campaign on the “Road to Jericho” will include instituting legal action against all entities of government within the United States who traverse the First Amendment by refusing the rights of Holy Sacrament as offered to heterosexual couples when denied to homosexual couples.

Adopted and Approved:

Thursday, April 12, 2007
Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse
Board of Directors

I dissent

[Reverend Baby Ja...]

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)

Universal Life Church Monastery,
Ecclesiastical Proclamation of Canon Law

All humans have an inalienable right and duty to practice their own peaceful religious traditions. However, religion should not contradict the reality of creation.
"Why does God give us instincts and then set all the rules in opposition?" asks John Milton of Kevin Lomax in the movie The Devil’s Advocate. This question poses a dilemma for many believers. We are told that what separates humans from all other forms of life on earth is that we are endowed with free will. Given the choice to yield to our instincts, or consciously deny our primal instructions, the laws set forth in whichever holy book we might follow often prescribes a model of behavior that demands sacrifice.

The theory of evolution is now academically accepted as the most believable explanation for the variety of life on earth. For argument's sake, we shall accept the Vatican's position that if evolution occurred, it may very well have been under the impetus and guidance of “divine intelligence.” Thus we assume that animals, endowed with neither free will nor conscience, evolved in accordance with creation’s design.

How then can we explain the existence of homosexuality observed and documented in over 500 species of animals? Christian dogma holds that the function of sexuality is procreation and any aberration is perverse and unnatural. Such is the placing of gods over humanity, the placing of junk science over reality, and the placing of belief over knowledge. Zoologists have observed, in a wide variety of species from dolphins to orangutans, a consistent frequency of homosexual behavior. Take for example New York’s Central Park Zoo's male penguin couple that raised their young together, making headlines around the world. If animals behave instinctively in response to stimuli and not out of a socially constructed code of conduct, would it not stand to reason that we, their evolutionary cousins, might possess a similar biological imprint? We may not be willing to abandon ancient traditions and practices, but we can adapt them to our new understanding of the universe.

It is difficult to reconcile this evidence through deductive reason and rational thought with the condemnation of homosexual behavior found in antiquated and archaic Scriptures. In our search for truth we must not shy away from intellectual honesty and scientific evidence that causes us to question hitherto unquestioned belief. Would a loving God create something, and then condemn it? None of us can ignore the primal instruction of Creation. Moreover, why did Jesus avoid any utterance on the subject? Nor can we ignore the apparent biblical gay relationships of Ruth and Naomi or David & Jonathan.

Clearly, we have wavered from the path of legitimate search, transition, and discovery. We as a people differ on the story of our origins, but these divisions, worsened by our quarrelsome, arrogant nature, now imperil our future and the future of earth. All religions must adapt to unfolding knowledge about the universe we live in, without rejecting deep spiritual connections to human history and the natural real world that we are a part of today.

Today the Board of Directors issues this Ecclesiastical Proclamation;
All persons with love for one another have a religious and constitutional right under the 1st Amendment of the United States, to the Sacrament of Marriage. Such is invoked under natural, primal, and religious law. Given this understanding, we hold that it is a denial of religious rights by the United States government to restrain our ministers from their constitutional right to perform the ritual of the Sacrament of Marriage to consenting adults, regadless of sexual design.

Our campaign on the “Road to Jericho” will include instituting legal action against all entities of government within the United States who traverse the First Amendment by refusing the rights of Holy Sacrament as offered to heterosexual couples when denied to homosexual couples.

Adopted and Approved:

Thursday, April 12, 2007
Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse
Board of Directors

I dissent

Just curious how many times are you going to post this?

[Number Seven]

RevPhoenix: A civil union should be guaranteed to a couple, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, the way I see it. I think it's wrong that homosexuals can't have this. However, the Constitution doesn't mention ANYONE having a right to a "marriage," except sort of vaguely under the "pursuit of happiness" statement. Civil unions are equal...marriages are the provenence of churches. That's why you have to apply for a license to marry, but then you go to a church to officiate the actual "marriage." It is unfortunate that they are called marriage licenses, when they are actually "civil union" licenses. It is just that "marriage" and "civil union" have become synonymous because until recently, only heterosexuals were allowed to have either. Now that I think about it, if a homosexual couple could find a church, such as the ULC, that would "marry" them, they would technically be married, although they would not have the "civil union" aspect of it. So I think that what homosexual couples are after is really a recognized civil union. If they can find a church that will perform a ceremony, then they will be "married."

[truthseeker]

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)


Adopted and Approved:

Thursday, April 12, 2007
Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse
Board of Directors

I dissent

Just curious how many times are you going to post this?

Not sure who you are refering to here, but you need to mature a bit I think.

[RevPhoenix]

RevPhoenix: A civil union should be guaranteed to a couple, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, the way I see it. I think it's wrong that homosexuals can't have this. However, the Constitution doesn't mention ANYONE having a right to a "marriage," except sort of vaguely under the "pursuit of happiness" statement. Civil unions are equal...marriages are the provenence of churches. That's why you have to apply for a license to marry, but then you go to a church to officiate the actual "marriage." It is unfortunate that they are called marriage licenses, when they are actually "civil union" licenses. It is just that "marriage" and "civil union" have become synonymous because until recently, only heterosexuals were allowed to have either. Now that I think about it, if a homosexual couple could find a church, such as the ULC, that would "marry" them, they would technically be married, although they would not have the "civil union" aspect of it. So I think that what homosexual couples are after is really a recognized civil union. If they can find a church that will perform a ceremony, then they will be "married."

There are many places in Europe where to be married you have your civil ceremony and religious ceremony seperately. Here in Canada, the Supreme Court told the government that civil unions aren't equal to marriage, I believe that also happened in Massachusetts. So to me, your argument doesn't hold water. Civil unions are separate and not equal. Now if they did what they do in Europe and separate civil and religious marriage, then it might be ok. Call the civil, legal part a "civil union" and the church part a "marriage" and no one will argue. The problem stands with government recognition of marriage.

[Number Seven]

Call the civil, legal part a "civil union" and the church part a "marriage" and no one will argue.

That's the best solution, I think. No one should *have* to have a church ceremony to have a legal union, no matter what their orientation. Plenty of heterosexual couples choose to be married by a justice of the peace or a judge, and the same option should be available to homosexuals. If gay couples want a religious ceremony in addition to signing the papers for a civil union, there is always the ULC To me, it doesn't matter whether the papers are signed in the presence of a secular or religious authority, as long as there is no limit (between adults, of course) on who is allowed to sign. Some might argue that this would allow legal unions between more than one person. As long as everyone consents and signs, that suits me. I would hate to be incapacitated and have multiple husbands arguing over my care, but there you go. Different strokes.

So I advocate civil unions for everyone. If the papers are signed and witnessed in a church or out, or as part of a ceremony or not, that part shouldn't matter to the state.

[Sister Kya]

Call the civil, legal part a "civil union" and the church part a "marriage" and no one will argue.

That's the best solution, I think. No one should *have* to have a church ceremony to have a legal union, no matter what their orientation.

I quite agree. Of course, those who can legally contract to "marry" haven't needed the church's approval for a long time now, they merely need the State's.

So, don't we really have two issues here?

1. The right of any human to enter into a domestic contract with any other consenting human. (Don't get me started on ageism...)

2. The right of religious bodies to provide or deny their blessings to any domestic contract based on their religion.

It seems to me that this whole issue is, at the core, an argument for the separation of church and state. Having the ULC demand the right to sanctify homosexual (or polyamorous) unions from the State seems a bit odd to me. We already have the right to perform ceremonies for homosexual couples.

What we ought to be protesting is the State using religious arguments to prevent those ceremonies from being legally binding.

Just my $0.02

[RevFultz]

I must disagree with you Number Seven. Civil marriage is a right. Marriage by any other name isn't equal. Now a church marriage, yes, that's up to the church to decide if they want to perform it or not.

i agree 100% with you but my persnal belif is marrage i between an man and a woman well God bless you

[Chris]

I have a few questions about this:

What is the "Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse" and how is it different from the Universal Life Church Monastery?

How is the Universal Life Church Monastery different from the Universal Life Church?

Who are the members of the Board of Directors of the Monastery Storehouse?

Has this "ecclesiastical proclamation" been approved by the Universal Life Church headquarters in Modesto? Or is this perhaps an indication that "The Monastery" has split from the Universal Life Church and has embarked on its own in a new direction?

Confused.

Sincerely,
Chris

[Nature Boy]

UL might have gone too far, this time.

Freedom of religion and beliefs also means freedom NOT to believe. UL allows athiests, Devil Worshippers, Wiccan, pagans, and pretty much anyone to say they are ordained, and I have little trouble with this, because anyone with half a brain can sort out all the rubbish from the real ministers who are out trying to work in the world, ie;, spread the Word of God, and carry out His wishes as much as possible.

But I will not be told that I have to perform, recognize, or endorse homosexual unions and behavior, for 2 reasons.

1. It goes against the Bible, and my own personal and religious beliefs.

2. It is illegal in my State, and I could go to jail for performing a same-sex marriage. Homosexual activities are illegal in this State, and if I were to perform a 'marriage' under these circumstances, I would be guilty of "Aiding and Abetting" an illegal act, and would be prosecuted (it's already been done a few times here).

If need be, I will renounce my Ordination through UL Monastary, and seek another means of continuing my work.

Sincerely,

Rev. Dr. Joel C. Brothers
Chatsworth, Ga.

[Padre]

UL might have gone too far, this time.

Freedom of religion and beliefs also means freedom NOT to believe. UL allows athiests, Devil Worshippers, Wiccan, pagans, and pretty much anyone to say they are ordained, and I have little trouble with this, because anyone with half a brain can sort out all the rubbish from the real ministers who are out trying to work in the world, ie;, spread the Word of God, and carry out His wishes as much as possible.

But I will not be told that I have to perform, recognize, or endorse homosexual unions and behavior, for 2 reasons.

1. It goes against the Bible, and my own personal and religious beliefs.

2. It is illegal in my State, and I could go to jail for performing a same-sex marriage. Homosexual activities are illegal in this State, and if I were to perform a 'marriage' under these circumstances, I would be guilty of "Aiding and Abetting" an illegal act, and would be prosecuted (it's already been done a few times here).

If need be, I will renounce my Ordination through UL Monastary, and seek another means of continuing my work.

Sincerely,

Rev. Dr. Joel C. Brothers
Chatsworth, Ga.

Greetings to you my brother,

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the Monastery's ecclesiastical proclamation. The intent is to make it possible for our Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters to have legally valid wedding ceremonies, and for our brothers and sisters in the ULC to officiate. It does not say that all ministers of the ULC MUST officiate at a ceremony, or hold beliefs, that goes against their personal belief system.

The ULC does not require its ministers to hold any belief, or perform any action, ecclesiastical or otherwise, that goes against our personal belief systems. The only tenant we are held to follow is to "do that which is right." And it is up to each one of us to decide what that is. If your understanding of Christianity would make it impossible for you to with integrity to perform a gay marriage, even if it was legal in your state, you would be under no obligation, moral or legal, to do so.

In Christ's service,
Padre

[Nature Boy]

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I was really concerned that it had put me between a rock and a hard place. Even if I condoned gay behavior, those types of marriages are against the law here, and I would very quicly wind up in jail if I were required to perform them. And, I would probably be lynched by the local population as well, or at least tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Thanks again,

Rev. Dr Joel C. Brothers DD, DSH
Chatsworth, Ga.

[RevMikeInMI]

Love is of God, in any form. It is inconceivable that God would allow sexuality to bend away from procreation, and then threaten those that act on their sexual instincts with eternal damnation. It is an abomination in and of itself to say that God would give the gift of human sexuality, the most enjoyable aspect of physical life, and then tell His children that acting on it was sinful. Thank you, Holy Mother Church, for this proclamation. AMEN. Rev. Michael Meakin, ULC.

[RR Trent Webster]

brothers and sisters in faith,
forgive me for comming so late to the party, buth I felt that this issue was importent enough to warrent a response from me, we all, all of us contain a spark of the devine within us, when we are
present with the opportunity to committ our selfs to another human being to love and cherish for the
rest of our lives, we as clergy, shoulde be the last people to stand in the way of the devine will. we choose our ties, our underware, our socks, but the person we are to spend our lives with is preordained, and who are we to against the will of the devine by setting laws and limits on who that person can be?
I dont have to believe in your choices, or even agree with them, but as a representitive of the devine essence I do have to respect them. Even though this is my first post to the board, I received my ordination several years ago, it is up to us to respect all belief systems, this is our calling, this is our duty. and yes, I am a gay man, and also a wiccan by personal practice, for those of you in terested, my complete title is the right reverend high priest, I am a wiccan high priest, after 14 years, on the path, having earned the title through education and practice, right reverand, i took based on the number of christan, hindi,jewish, islamic faiths i studied, prior to finding the love of the lord and lady of devine truth who welcomed me with arms wide open, and hearts full of love and compassion. It is my heart felt wish that you all find the same conten tment that I have found and find the ability to accept all children of the creator based on that love.

yours in truth light and love,.

rr trent

[To`na Wanagi]

Dear Friend,
Yes, that is your perogative to believe or not. Be careful, however, of closing your mind to other perspectives. Because of the "other perspectives" of Jesus, He was murdered. When you fail to rightly divide the Word of Truth then you have claimed the market on truth, and only God has that. I suggest that you read the 10th chapter of the Gospel of John where Jesus tells His accusers there are others, who are not of His fold, but they hear His voice and follow Him. Remember, there was also a time in history when you could be hanged for helping an escaped slave or even intermarrying a Native American. Do you still aspire to that thought or have you evolved beyond that mentality of our predecessors? Chief Seattle once said, "Do not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins." But God said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." So, live and let live..........Peace to all who suffer in mind, body,or spirit........Jamie or To`na Wanagi (Many Spirits)

[To`na Wanagi]

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)

Universal Life Church Monastery,
Ecclesiastical Proclamation of Canon Law

All humans have an inalienable right and duty to practice their own peaceful religious traditions. However, religion should not contradict the reality of creation.
Clearly, we have wavered from the path of legitimate search, transition, and discovery. We as a people differ on the story of our origins, but these divisions, worsened by our quarrelsome, arrogant nature, now imperil our future and the future of earth. All religions must adapt to unfolding knowledge about the universe we live in, without rejecting deep spiritual connections to human history and the natural real world that we are a part of today.

Today the Board of Directors issues this Ecclesiastical Proclamation;
All persons with love for one another have a religious and constitutional right under the 1st Amendment of the United States, to the Sacrament of Marriage. Such is invoked under natural, primal, and religious law. Given this understanding, we hold that it is a denial of religious rights by the United States government to restrain our ministers from their constitutional right to perform the ritual of the Sacrament of Marriage to consenting adults, regadless of sexual design.

Our campaign on the “Road to Jericho” will include instituting legal action against all entities of government within the United States who traverse the First Amendment by refusing the rights of Holy Sacrament as offered to heterosexual couples when denied to homosexual couples.

Adopted and Approved:

Thursday, April 12, 2007
Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse
Board of Directors

Can you tell us, what is the current status regarding this proclamation? Has it been instituted and does it still stand in permanence since there are dissenting voices? Has there been any recent actions taken to repeal the proclamation of the Board of Directors?....To`na Wanagi