On July 25, 2010, seven lesbian-, gay- or transgender-identified men and women were welcomed into the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America in a “rite of reconciliation” and a “rite of reception.” The group, known as the Sierra Pacific Synod Seven, or SPS7 had been ordained or worked under the ministry of a group known as “Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries,” a group outside the ELCA, because of their identification as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered (LGBT).

But a year ago, the ELCA voted “to open the ministry of the church to gay and lesbian pastors and other professional workers living in committed relationships.” It was this shift in church policy that opened the door for the SPS7 – and other LGBT-identified men and women – to be received into the ELCA. A clear departure from orthodox, biblical Christianity.

A number of recent articles commented on the anniversary of this event, noting the impact of this unorthodox decision on the ELCA:

• Some churches voted to exit the denomination;
• Some churches withheld their denominational tithes;
• Other Lutheran groups, such as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod wrote about the decision;
• And new Lutheran groups began forming, such as the North American Lutheran Church.

I recognize that not all Lutherans are part of – or in agreement with – this movement toward a revisionist, homosexualist, feminist, faith. Nor are all members of the ELCA happy with this decision. And the movement away from orthodox Christianity has happened in other denominations, too.

The recognition of LGBT-identified men and women is, in many ways, only a symptom of a much deeper issue. Typically when groups begin embracing and welcoming homosexuality, they have already left far behind the biblical view of God and Scripture. The rite of reception illustrates this clearly, as it included:

• Singing to God as “her;”
• Praying to “Sophia, Wisdom and Mother of us all;”
• Revising The Lord’s Prayer to read “Our Mother who is within us;”
• And confessing the sin of disciplining those who violate biblical sexual boundaries.

In response, I’ve begun writing about some of the implications of this, about the link between changing our view of God and changing our view of sex. I am grieved to see parts of the church embrace false doctrines. I hope and pray that a modern-day Martin Luther will rise up and call these parts of the church back to the faith.

It’s pretty much well-known by now that California Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have stated that they don’t intend to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker’s Prop 8 decision, potentially preventing any appeal.

A lawsuit seeking to force the Governor and the Attorney General to defend the constitutional amendment was quickly dismissed without explanation this week by a California appellate court.

Now, Republican lawmakers in the state Assembly are pushing the issue. Twenty-seven members of the Assembly sent a letter to Schwarzenegger urging him to fulfill his constitutional duties to the people of California. Here’s a taste:

The importance of this court case to millions of Californians and indeed to countless other Americans cannot be overstated. What we do wish to impress upon you, however, is the importance to our entire system of governance — legislative, judicial and the reserve right of the people to amend the Constitution of California via the initiative process — that the rule of law prevail. Both plaintiffs and defendants in this case must be afforded full and unfettered access to the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States.

No one’s individual opinion or belief, no matter how sincere or heartfelt, should be allowed to substitute for the rule of law or the processes by which we govern our state and nation.

Article V, Section 13 of the California Constitution clearly states that “!t shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced.” In the current federal court case respecting Proposition 8, the Attorney General has conspicuously and intentionally failed to defend — let alone enforce — the supreme law of our state as provided for in Art. I, Sec. 7.5 of the Constitution. He has instead substituted his own personal beliefs and political preferences for the rule of law, and as such failed to uphold his oath of office.

Let’s hope the letter to the Governor has a positive effect.

It’s possible the California appellate court dismissed the court case against Schwarzenegger because of a state version of what’s called a “political question” in federal constitutional law. Since that dismissal is being appealed, we may hear from the California Supreme Court on an expedited basis before the state’s opportunity to appeal the Prop 8 decision ends on September 11.

A Texas appellate court has overturned a trial court’s divorce decree granted to two gay men married in Massachusetts now residing in the Lone Star state. There are two lessons to be gleaned from this decision: 1) Not all trial judges can accurately read and interpret the plain language of a marriage amendment (Why does the name Judge Vaughn Walker come to mind?!); and 2) The Texas appellate court interprets the federal Constitution and court cases concerning marriage quite differently than Walker, which is a reassuring breath of fresh air.

To explain the Texas appellate opinion a little further:

1. In order to get a divorce in Texas, the state has to officially “recognize” your marriage before it can dissolve it. That makes sense to everyone but the trial judge in this case. The Texas marriage amendment couldn’t be plainer: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

2. Texas doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by refusing to “recognize” and then grant a divorce to these two men. The appellate court addressed the same marriage and constitutional questions that Vaughn Walker did in the Prop 8 case but came out 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

Suspect class – Walker opined, without directly holding, in the Prop 8 case that homosexuals easily met the test of a “suspect class” (like race) which would have required a tougher judicial test (“strict scrutiny”) that Prop 8 would not have passed. Texas, on the other hand, listed the numerous state and federal cases that have already decided this issue and held that homosexuality is not a suspect class. What Walker ignored or dismissed by way of binding judicial precedent, Texas still respects and follows.

Fundamental right – Walker held that marriage “to the person of your choice” is a fundamental constitutional right, thus triggering the tougher “strict scrutiny” test which he found Prop 8 didn’t meet. Texas examined the nation’s history and every U.S. Supreme Court case on marriage and found that, gee whiz, the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman, not this “person of your choice” re-definition. No fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

Rational basis test – In the Prop 8 case, Walker held that there was no conceivable basis why marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. And he held a show trial complete with social science “experts” willing to opine that there’s not even any debate over that any more. Texas, again respecting the decisions of numerous other courts around the country, held that there’s no debate that it is rational for a legislature to single out opposite-sex couples for the benefits of marital status.

Thank you, Texas, for reminding us that there are still many judges and courts who can interpret and apply the law correctly.

UPDATE: My friend and colleague Bill Duncan of the Marriage Family Law Foundation has an excellent synopsis of the decision over at The Corner.