Province VIII of the Episcopal Church meets (includes California)

From the Province VIII website [boldface mine]:

Province VIII representatives, who gathered Sept. 10-11 for their regular business meeting near San Francisco, also prepared for next July's General Convention by sharing the stories of their lives.

About 75 bishops, clergy and laity elected officers, approved a $560,000 triennial budget and celebrated the establishment of new ministries. They were also the first provincial leaders to participate in the public narrative project, expected to frame a mission conversation at the national governing convention in Anaheim, California.

The Rev. John "Jack" Eastwood, re-elected for a second term as provincial president, encouraged attendees also to "go back to their dioceses and tell the story of the province … of sharing a Pentecost vision of unity by doing together in faith what we cannot do alone."

Since the last triennium, provincial leaders have reduced administrative expenses significantly, while increasing program costs nearly two-fold to about $100,000, Eastwood told the gathering. . .

The Rev. Gregory Straub, Secretary of Convention and Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies, joined the gathering for a General Convention orientation session and public narrative training workshop.

Public narrative is a leadership art that can be used by members of the Episcopal Church to articulate individual and collective stories as well as the call to action emerging from those stories and communities, according to Anderson. It connects with the convention theme, "ubuntu … I am because you are" which recognizes interdependence with one another.

"Today we are the place where the pebble is thrown into the pond. Today we begin a journey to General Convention; we will learn a technique for having that conversation," Anderson told the gathering.

She described public narrative as a "tool to build bridges to relationships, relationships to each other" which grew out of a General Convention 2006 resolution (D043). The training will be offered to all provincial synods prior to July 8, when the 76th General Convention convenes.

Well-known musician Fran McKendree offered music and the gathering warmly greeted participants from the continuing Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, all of whom were "first-time" deputies to General Convention, according to the Rev. Mark Hall, diocesan canon to the ordinary.

"We represent about 1,500 people and 19 parishes and missions," he said, amid applause and a standing ovation. . .

Elected to the provincial court of review were: Bishop Barry Beisner of Northern California; the Rev. Ernest Cockrell (El Camino Real); and the Rev. Canon Kent McNair (Northern California) and the Rev. John Scannell (Oregon). Laity elected to the board of review were: Michael Dotten (Oregon); Donald Mullins (Olympia) and Miles Snyder (Northern California).

The dioceses included in Province VIII are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Eastern Oregon, El Camino Real (California), Hawaii, Idaho, Los Angeles, Navajoland Area Mission, Nevada, Northern California, Olympia, Oregon, San Diego, San Joaquin, Spokane, Taiwan and Utah.

Read it all.

Statement on Proposition 8 by Episcopal bishops in California

Yes, +Lamb signed it, and for those of us in San Diego, +Mathes did, too, unfortunately.

Proposition 8, on the ballot in November, would amend the California Constitution to clarify that marriage is only between one man and one woman. This would reverse the California Supreme Court decision of earlier this year that recognized same-sex marriage. A short history of the definition of marriage in California:

In 1977 the California legislature explicitly defined marriage as a legal tie between a man and a women. The pertinent text is: "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." (Family Code Sec. 300.) This status quo position was strengthened in March 2000 when voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative statute which states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (Family Code Sec. 308.5.) The vote for the initiative was 61.4% to 38.6%.

Yes, Prop. 22 passed 61% to 39%, yet our overlords know better than we do, so the California Supreme Court earlier this year recognized the "right" of those in same-sex relationships to marry.

And this leads us to this recent statement by the bishops of the Episcopal Church in California (always ready to impress us with their theology and reassure us that they are not being political - okay, sarcasm off) [boldface mine and I've added some editorial comments]:

As Episcopal Bishops of California, we are moved [ed.-by whom? The Holy Spirit? didn't think so] to urge voters to vote "No" on Proposition Eight. Jesus calls us to love rather than hate, to give rather than to receive, to live into hope rather than fear. On Tuesday, November 8th, voters in California will be given the opportunity to vote for or against Proposition Eight, which would amend the state's constitution to reserve marriage as only between a man and a woman. Since the California Supreme Court's ruling in May that civil marriage should be provided to all of the state's citizens whether the genders of the couple are different or the same, faithful gays and lesbians have entered into marriage as the principle way in which they show their love, devotion and life-long commitment to each other. Furthermore, marriage provides these couples the same legal rights and protections that heterosexual couples take for granted.

Proposition Eight would reverse the court's decision and withdraw a right given. Proponents of Proposition Eight have suggested that this amendment to the Constitution would protect marriage. We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage. [ed.-What say you, +Beisner?] Rather, the Christian values of monogamy, commitment, love, mutual respect and witness of monogamy are enhanced for all by providing this right to gay and straight alike [ed.-and what is so magic about the number 2? Can't three people have these same values?]. Society is strengthened when two people who love each other choose to enter into marriage, engaged in a lifetime of disciplined relationship building that serves as a witness to the importance of love and commitment.

As bishops, we are not of one mind regarding how our Church's clergy should participate with the State in same-sex marriage. Some of us believe it is appropriate to permit our clergy to officiate at such marriages and pronounce blessings over the union; others of us believe that we should await consent of our General Convention before permitting such actions. Nevertheless, we are adamant that justice demands that same-sex civil marriage continue in our state and advocate voting "No" on Proposition Eight. [ed.-and we have now put the Episcopal Church in California outside of all other Christian faiths - but, hey, we still call ourselves part of the "catholic" church, so it must be true!]

General Convention 2006 in Columbus passed Resolution A095 that said, "Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the Episcopal Church's historical support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God and entitled to full civil rights; and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the 71st General Convention's action calling upon municipal council, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protection[s] such as: bereavement and family leave policies; health benefits; pension benefits; real-estate transfer tax benefits; and commitments to mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention oppose any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions."

We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation [ed.-or number or consanguinity or age, etc., etc.], is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights. We believe that this continued access promotes Jesus' ethic of love, giving, and hope.

The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Bishop of California
The Rt. Rev. Barry L. Beisner, Bishop of Northern California
The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles
The Rt. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves, Bishop of El Camino Real
The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, Provisional Bishop of San Joaquin
The Rt. Rev. James R. Mathes, Bishop of San Diego

Many believe that Proposition 8 will pass, and same-sex marriage will no longer be legal in California. I am not so sanguine.

Unless and until those in favor of Prop 8 present secular reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, of which there are plenty (here for a start), many voters will feel that they are being "judgmental" or "mean" or "unfair" or "too religious" to, at this point, take away something. Once the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, it enabled those for it to now present Prop. 8 as something removing rights, which a lot of people automatically vote against.

I think there's a lot of work on education and legal ramifications that needs to be done here, or California voters will reject Prop. 8 and same-sex marriage will remain legal - and as California goes, so goes the nation.

Episcopal bishops join effort to defeat true marriage in California **Link update**

From LifeSiteNews.com [boldface mine]:

The Episcopal Church in California is taking up arms against Proposition 8, an amendment that would change the California constitution to preserve the integrity of marriage as being between one man and one woman. In the process the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion is clashing with a huge interfaith coalition, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus and Sikhs, which is simultaneously launching a campaign to promote the proposition.

Voters will have an opportunity on the 2008 California General Election ballot in November to support Proposition 8, which will reinforce the wishes of 61% of California voters who supported true marriage in 2000. The California State Supreme Court overturned the popular vote earlier this year by legalizing same-sex "marriage," outraging Californians who complained that a handful of activist judges managed to hijack the democratic process.

But the bishops of the Episcopal Church in California have joined the ranks of those working against Proposition 8. All six bishops in the state will officially protest the traditional marriage amendment, according to the Sacramento Bee. The Right Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Episcopal Bishop of California, will hold a press conference at San Francisco's Grace Cathedral on Wednesday to represent the church's position, "calling for compassion, love and equal protections" for homosexual couples.

Last month Rev. Andrus, commenting upon the international Lambeth Conference of Anglican leaders, had praised the many gay and lesbian activists present for "coming to a place where...there were significant negative places of negative energy aimed at them."

Rev. Andrus will be joined by the Right Rev. Steven Charleston, Assisting Bishop of California, the Right Rev. Barry Beisner, Episcopal Bishop of Northern California, as well as other California Episcopal bishops, clerics and laypeople. Rev. Charleston, when asked whether he would yield to a call from the leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion to return to traditional marriage values, said that he "would accept schism" rather than abandon the homosexual agenda.

In contrast, a large number of faith communities in California have publicly united in avid support of Proposition 8, and are warning voters that the continued dominance of homosexual "rights" in California law will inevitably lead to the marginalization of religious rights. The Orthodox Union (O.U.), one of the largest Orthodox Jewish organizations in the United States, points out that what appears to be freedom for homosexuals in fact means that religious people will ultimately incur the penalty of law for voicing any public opposition to the homosexualist agenda. "Religious institutions and people face charges of bigotry and could be denied government funding and more if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land," said the O.U. in a statement. (See http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/)

Although the California Supreme Court has assured religious objectors that same-sex "marriages" would not "impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization," many recall historical precedent that prove that the courts tend to define "religious freedom" very narrowly when such freedom has been viewed as a possible offense against recognized civil rights. (See L.A. Times article "Will Gay Rights Trample Religious Freedom?" www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/) Accordingly, members of religious communities across California have banded together to support Proposition 8 in an interfaith political advertising campaign on a scale unsurpassed in California's history. . .

Read it all. One note - I have been unable to find the article cited above in the Sacramento Bee - it doesn't come up in Google and a search at the Bee website doesn't bring it up either, so I'm not sure what's going on there. If anyone can find the original article, please post the link in the comments.
H/t to Stand Firm.

UPDATE: Thanks to Kevin, here's the Sacramento Bee link.

California Supreme Court ruling on doctors

From FoxNews [boldface mine]:

SAN FRANCISCO — California's highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

The ruling was unanimous and a succinct 18 pages, a contrast to the state Supreme Court's 4-3 schism in May legalizing gay marriage.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections and Benitez has since given birth to three children.

Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.

The law was originally designed to prevent hotels, restaurants and other public services from refusing to serve patrons because of their race. The Legislature has since expanded it to cover characteristics such as age and sexual orientation. . .

Read it all (and remember, same sex "marriage" is now legal in California, so if clergy refuse to perform a religious ceremony for two persons of the same sex, will they be sued? I'm sure there's a test case being prepped right now).

And I really dislike the Fox headline "California Top Court: Doctors Cannot Withhold Care From Gays" because it implies all medical treatment is being denied because of one's sexual behavior, but no one is denying any necessary or life-saving treatment here. The doctors did not withhold "care" - they did not want to perform optional, non-life saving treatment and referred the patient to a doctor who would do the procedure - quite a difference!

Parents have the right to home school, California state court says

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A state appeals court reversed itself today and ruled that parents in California have the right to home school their children even if they lack a teaching credential.

The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles had ruled Feb. 28 that the state's compulsory education law requires parents to send their children to a full-time public or private school or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home. The ruling caused an uproar among home-schooling advocates and could have made truants out of an estimated 166,000 children in California who are taught at home by their parents.

After hearing from an array of objectors that included state education officials and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the court agreed to reconsider the case and issued a new ruling today that reached the opposite conclusion: State law allows home schooling, although children can be required to attend school if they're being abused or neglected at home.

Although the compulsory-education law hasn't changed since 1929, some alter laws "demonstrate an apparent acceptance by the Legislature that home-schooling is taking place in California, with home schools allowed as private schools," Justice H. Walter Croskey, author of the earlier ruling, wrote in today's 3-0 decision.

"Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California home school their children by declaring their homes to be private schools," Croskey said. He said one of those laws, a 1998 measure exempting parents from fingerprinting requirements imposed on private school employees, indicated "a legislative approval of home-schooling."

Because the 1929 law itself did not explicitly allow or prohibit home schooling, Croskey said, the court should interpret it consistently with the Legislature's current understanding, along with the views of state government and education officials.

He said such an interpretation also allows the court to avoid deciding "difficult constitutional questions" about parents' rights to exempt their children from compulsory-schooling laws. The previous ruling found that no such right exists. . .

Read it all.

Finally back home. . .

Well, we've been on vacation for the past week. Of course, it had to be the most interesting week of Lambeth, but I've decided it was actually a good thing that I was on the road and not tied to my computer. We finally (after 14 years in California) made the trip up Highway 1 from San Luis Obispo to Monterey - a beautiful drive through Cambria, Hearst Castle, Big Sur, etc. The weather was great - Monterey was actually cold, which I understand is not what the rest of the country is experiencing. We hiked, went to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, took a whale watching boat ride and saw some humpback whales.

But, I was able to check the web on my cell phone from time to time - just to get the Internet headlines - it was too hard to read any actual postings, so I'm playing catch-up the rest of this week.

Some initial impressions so far include the underlying racism or arrogance (I still haven't decided which it is) of some of the revisionist bishops from The Episcopal Church in talking about and responding to bishops from other parts of the world. But I'll have more on that later. Right now we're still unpacking, washing clothes, going to the grocery store, etc., etc.

No, I didn't feel a thing. . .

For those interested in the earthquake earlier this morning, I did not feel or see a thing, my son (who was downstairs) saw a table move slightly, and my husband at work south of us felt a tremor and the top floor of his building swayed a little.

Other than that, not much.

San Francisco: Episcopal Church under fire for parolee priest

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

James Tramel went from convicted murderer to priest while in prison, a transformation that the Episcopal Church used to successfully lobby for his parole and celebrate him before politicians and the press.

But the church is now grappling with the sexual abuse of a parishioner under his care. Tramel has been suspended for sexual misconduct, temporarily stripped of his priestly authority and left searching for a new job.

The San Francisco-based Episcopal Diocese of California now faces questions of whether, in its haste to proclaim Tramel's story, it redeemed and promoted him too quickly.

Convicted of second-degree murder in a 1985 slaying, Tramel went to seminary and was ordained a priest while incarcerated in a state prison in Solano County. After he was paroled early in 2006, at the urging of the Episcopal bishop of California, Tramel was quickly placed at the helm of the historic Trinity Episcopal Church in San Francisco.

It's there that the victim said Tramel, who is married and has a young child, took advantage of her during counseling sessions. . .

The victim said the diocese and its current bishop, the Rt. Rev. Marc Andrus, failed to supervise him adequately.

"I feel like the reason they rushed him was because he was such a compelling story," said the woman.

Andrus declined to comment. . .

When Tramel was placed at Trinity, Andrus approved the decision. Yet Lossing said Andrus had no power in the situation involving Tramel.

"Obviously, Andrus is nothing but the representative, the titular head of the diocese," Lossing said. "He doesn't have any individual legal investment here.". . .

While in prison, Tramel earned a business degree and a master's degree in theology from the Church Divinity of the Pacific in Berkeley, the Episcopal seminary. He was ordained by then-Bishop William Swing in 2005. He became a member of Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Berkeley and as a clergyman gave sermons via telephone there every few months.

Swing used his 2005 Easter sermon to call Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a "90-pound moral weakling" for refusing to parole Tramel earlier. And when Tramel was released, Swing referred to Tramel's transformation as proof of the resurrecting power of Jesus Christ.

Tramel's parole in March 2006 was bitterly fought by Edward Stephenson, 79, the father of the murder victim. He's not surprised that Tramel is accused of taking advantage of a vulnerable parishioner after being paroled.

"He's a manipulator," Stephenson said.

"The church wanted to show that he was a real good guy," Stephenson said. "You've got a lot of people behind him with a lot of power."

Read it all.

DioBytes: eNews from the Diocese of California

Just by chance I happened upon the Diocese of California's DioBytes web page for June 24. It is described as "a newsletter for clergy, lay leaders, and members of the Diocese of California. We welcome submissions that have a connection to the ministry of the diocese and/or the approval of a diocesan department or commission. Inclusion of submissions is at the discretion of the editors."

Interesting that on this page for June 24, 4 out of the first 7 items dealt with areas of interest for Oasis California, including an invitation to join Bishop Andrus in San Francisco's Pride Celebration this weekend, as well as to participate in the Lambeth "Listening" process through their Letters to Lambeth program.

But the most interesting to me was this:

Youth Confirmation Program

Confirm not Conform, the innovative confirmation program developed by St. John's Oakland, is available for your congregation! Already used by St. John's, Ross; Epiphany, San Carlos; and over 30 parishes nationwide, CnC is a 16-session curriculum that encourages youth to claim and articulate their faith while taking action to change the world and promote the Millennium Development Goals. . .

What can I say? No longer a church, but an arm of the United Nations.

SanDiegoAnglicans has info on the California Marriage Protection Act

Check out SanDiegoAnglicans.com for links to sites on the California Marriage Protection Act and how to register your opinion on the recent court decision with Gov. Schwarzenegger.

From Bishop Bruno of Los Angeles to the clergy and laity in his diocese

From Susan Russell's blog [boldface mine]:

Dear Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Los Angeles,

I trust by now you have had the opportunity to read my statement in response to the recent California Supreme Court decision.

Some clergy and lay leaders have contacted my office requesting information or clarification of how this decision affects what we can do, or will do, as well as what our policy on this issue will be. As publicized in the press, the State of California expects the decision to become effective 30 days after its issuance. In addition I remain on sabbatical and am scheduled to resume my regular work schedule the week of June 3.

There are canonical, prayer book, and pastoral questions which are raised and must be addressed. I have been in contact with the bishops of the Dioceses of California and San Diego and we will be working together with other bishops of California to meet and discuss how we proceed. I will keep you informed and will act with all possible dispatch while attending to the canonical and pastoral issues the decision affect.

I remind you that pastoral acts are personal decisions between clergy and members of your congregation. In the meantime please remain patient and prayerful. Thank you.

Yours in Christ,
J. Jon Bruno, Bishop
Diocese of Los Angeles

H/t to Stand Firm.

California: Just a rumor, but. . .

I hate to link to The Huffington Post, so I won't, you can go there yourself if you want to see this - it's Ryan J. Davis' column under Politics dealing with the current case before the California Supreme Court on marriage:

. . . "After oral arguments in the case, it appears very likely that the majority of judges on California's highest court will rule against the current meaning of marriage, opening up God's ordained institution to same-sex couples," [the Family Research Council] said in a March fundraising email.

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright. . .

Suit Set to Expose Planned Parenthood's "extensive, organized fraud"

From LifeSiteNews [boldface mine]:

Former Planned Parenthood executive reports that PP's illegal practices cost taxpayers more than $180 million

LOS ANGELES, CA, March 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A fired executive of Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against the nine California affiliates of the group for over-billing the government more than $180 million, it was revealed Saturday.

P. Victor Gonzalez, former vice president of finance and administration of Planned Parenthood's Los Angeles affiliate, filed his 2005 suit under the False Claims Act. Gonzalez claims that he was fired after voicing concerns about "illegal accounting, billing and donations practices."

Gonzalez alleges that the over-billing began in the late 1990s and deals with state and federal health care program reimbursements to PP for contraceptives.

Gonzalez's attorney, Jack Schuler, alleges that PP bought contraceptives at a discounted rate given to charitable organizations, "then billed the state Medi-Cal program for 12 or more times their purchase price."

Schuler accuses the CA PPs of "extensive, organized fraud."

"A previously buried and ignored California Department of Health Services 2004 Audit, which found more than $5 million in egregious over-billing in two years by the San Diego/Riverside Planned Parenthood affiliate, is an extraordinary indictment against Planned Parenthood," stated Schuler. . .

In a separate wrongful termination suit scheduled to begin on April 7, Gonzalez alleges that the PP LA affiliate advanced money to the Sacramento affiliate "to cover expenses for lobbying and advocacy." Gonzalez reported taking pictures of anti-Bush and pro-Barbara Boxer signs in PP headquarters that violate the IRS Code forbidding support on the part of charitable organizations for specific political issues or candidates.

Gonzalez also alleges credit card abuse in the LA PP. "Instead of using the card for legitimate non-profit purposes, employees were using donor money and other PPLA money for Victoria's Secret and private video purchases. Other instances of credit card abuse occurred as well."

California PP spokeswoman, Ana Sandoval, declined comment until her organization could assess the suit.

In the summer of 2007, LifeSiteNews reported on PP's increased profit and taxpayer funding. According to PP's official 2005-2006 annual report, the organization announced a $55.8 million profit for the year, bringing total PP profits over the years to over $700 million.

PP gains money from three main sources: clinic fees, donations from groups and individuals, and taxpayer funds from the government. The 2005-2006 financial report indicated a decline in both clinic fee profit and donations.

The report also revealed that PP received $305.3 million in taxpayer funds, 14 percent more than in the previous year. Taxpayer funding accounted for 34 percent of PP's income. . .

Your tax dollars at work. Read it all.

Anti-war judge rejects foster teen's bid to join military

Only in California (at least, I hope so).

Normally, I stick to Anglican news, but this combined with the California court ruling saying parents do not have a constitutional right to teach their children really shows what can happen when government tries to control too much.

From the Los Angeles Daily News:

SIMI VALLEY - Shawn Sage long dreamed of joining the military, and watching "Full Metal Jacket" last year really sold him on becoming a Marine.

But last fall, a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner dashed the foster teen's hopes of early enlistment for Marine sniper duty, plus a potential $10,000 signing bonus.

In denying the Royal High School student delayed entry into the Marine Corps, Children's Court Commissioner Marilyn Mackel reportedly told Sage and a recruiter that she didn't approve of the Iraq war, didn't trust recruiters and didn't support the military.

"The judge said she didn't support the Iraq war for any reason why we're over there," said Marine recruiter Sgt. Guillermo Medrano of the Simi Valley USMC recruiting office.

"She just said all recruiters were the same - that they `all tap dance and tell me what I want to hear.' She said she didn't want him to fight in it."

Sage, 17, said he begged for Mackel's permission.

"Foster children shouldn't be denied (an) ability to enlist in the service just because they're foster kids," he said. "Foster kids shouldn't have to go to court to gain approval to serve one's country."

Mackel, a juvenile dependency commissioner at the Children's Court in Monterey Park, declined through a clerk to speak about any court case or comments she may have made in court. . .

After Sage submitted a winning entry to the lawmaker's Write a Bill Challenge, Assemblyman Cameron Smyth introduced legislation last month that would allow foster teens to enlist in the service without express permission from a judge.

Instead, AB2238 would allow foster children 17 or older to sign up with the consent of a foster parent or social worker.

"Here is one impressive young man who somehow made it through the challenge of the foster system, had a clear sense of a career path and was denied that opportunity by a judge basically because of her personal bias," said Smyth, R-Santa Clarita, who will honor Sage today at a Royal High assembly.

"I find that to be a horrific abuse of her power."

It was Oct. 12 when Medrano, in crisp dress blues, appeared with Sage before the commissioner to petition for his early enlistment.

The USMC Delayed Entry Program, like those in other services, allows high school seniors to enlist in the service up to a year before starting boot camp.

Recruiters encourage students to hone their study skills, learn to eat right and become fit enough to don a uniform.

By "DEPing in," students can enlist at 17, get their high school diploma, then lock in a military job such as Force Recon - or scout snipers. They also qualify for a signing bonus.

"We just gave out the last one for recon today to another kid for $10,000," USMC Master Sgt. Edgar Carpenter of the Marine Recruiting Office in Simi Valley said Wednesday. . .

Only Mackel - and it appears a court bailiff as well - objected to the program, despite pleas from Sage and Medrano.

"I tried. I said, `Please.' I begged. He tried, he said, `Please' and begged," Sage said. "But she refused."

Mackel said she denied delayed enlistment to an eager Navy recruit as well, Medrano said. . .

"It just felt like, wow. I even told Shawn, I said, `Dude, it feels like we've been burned at the stake at the Salem witch trial.' She just had some kind of animosity toward military personnel." . . .

Sage, who lives in Simi Valley but is originally from Florida, was abandoned by both parents when he was 2 and now lives in a foster home with his brother.

He had wanted to join the military ever since he'd met a service rep at school at age 7 - first the Air Force, then the Navy, finally the Marines.

His foster parents, as well as his social worker, supported his decision to enlist early. Despite being denied, he still shows up for USMC physical training. . . .

Read it all.

Resistance is futile: Presiding Bishop sets stipulations for church property sales

When did the national office in New York absorb the dioceses in the United States? What happened to the idea that a national office was to support the dioceses, not dictate to them? When did the bishops sign over their bishoprics and become sycophants to the office of the presiding bishop?

I am stunned that anyone is listening to the Presiding Bishop as she commands who can do what with their property, I don't care which side of the ongoing debate you're on.

From the Living Church:

The Episcopal Church will make sure that any property it sells is not intended for use by parishes that plan to affiliate with other Anglican provinces, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said Sept. 30 on a visit to Grace Cathedral in San Francisco.

Asked if she were satisfied with the agreement by the Diocese of the Rio Grande to sell St. Clement Pro-Cathedral in El Paso, Texas, to the congregation, Bishop Schori said she had recommended two stipulations.

“I’ve told them that my two concerns are that the congregation not set up as another part of the Anglican Communion and that there is some reasonable assurance that it’s a fair sale,” she said.

I thought this was a done deal - is she proposing overturning a legal contract? On what basis? And what is her legal standing in this anyway?

Bishop Jefferts Schori spoke to reporters before appearing on Grace Cathedral’s Forum, a weekly program, broadcast on the Internet. Bishop Jefferts Schori appeared on the program with the Bishop of California, the Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus. She also preached at the 11 a.m. service.

The issue of control over property is becoming an increasing concern as parishes disaffected by The Episcopal Church's stance on homosexuality and other matters affiliate with more conservative bishops in other provinces.

Yea, don't worry about the people, just the property.

Bishop Jefferts Schori’s concerns evidently have not been written into the sale agreement. Bishop Jefferts Schori said she has made herself clear to Bishop Jeffrey Steenson and the diocese, but that it’s “too soon to get a response.” She said she has also made it clear that The Episcopal Church would scrutinize any sale of church property with the same concerns in mind.

So remind me again how 815 took over each and every diocese?

"If a building is sold to a congregation, The Episcopal Church as a whole is not so concerned if it’s going to be a community church,” she said, although there must be assurances that stewardship was addressed and that the building was sold at fair market value. “But if a congregation purports to set up as another part of the Anglican Communion, we are concerned about that.”

So we all have non-compete clauses now? Nothing like getting the "Great Commission" to become the "Great Non-competition."

Bishop Jefferts Schori attended the Rio Grande clergy conference Sept. 26, shortly after Bishop Steenson announced that he would resign and become a Roman Catholic. On Sept. 16, the parish of the Pro-Cathedral Church of St. Clement voted overwhelmingly to leave The Episcopal Church. Earlier the parish negotiated an agreement to buy the church property from the diocese for $2 million.

Can we say, at the very least, "First Amendment issues" - perhaps "free exercise of religion" and "freedom of assembly" (I won't even get into "freedom of speech"). Either that, or it's a replay of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. To all the bishops, I say "play the man!"

Read it all.

San Francisco's Grace Cathedral welcomes Presiding Bishop

From EpiscopalLife Online, a story on today's visit to Grace Cathedral in San Francisco by Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori:

. . . Moderating the forum, Grace Cathedral Dean Alan Jones asked the bishops why media reports varied so significantly in their coverage of the bishops' meeting. The New York Times coverage, for example, has been critiqued as heavily skewed toward views and voices of dissident clergy, while the Associated Press was said to have captured more fully the compromise measure of "restraint."

The range of coverage "reflects the House" itself, Jefferts Schori said, pointing to the "variety of opinions reflected" in both the membership and its September 25 statement.

Asked by Jones to bring "a sense of proportion" to the current conflict, the Presiding Bishop cited reports that of the Episcopal Church's more than 7,600 congregations, some 45-60 of those have experienced votes by a majority of parishioners to affiliate with an overseas Anglican diocese. "That is well under 1 percent" of total congregations, and many of those continue in name and mission as Episcopal congregations within their dioceses, Jefferts Schori said. [I wonder how this corresponds with the new ECUSA stats that are now out?]

Jones further reported that active diocesan bishops of some five of the Episcopal Church's 110 total dioceses participated in a September 25-28 "Common Cause Partnership" meeting in Pittsburgh seeking a realigned structure for Anglicanism in North America.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, meanwhile, has affirmed previously that he will not recognize in North America Anglican Provinces other than the U.S.-based Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Mexico.

Primates and other groups within a number of the Anglican Communion's 38 member Provinces are in solidarity with the positions of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, Jefferts Schori added. [Huh?] She further cited international learning that is occurring around the Episcopal Church's baptismal covenant to "respect the dignity" of all people. [Baptism to me is now being treated as a magic spell - a little water dunking, a few liturgical words, and one can do whatever one wants with no consequences, because one has been baptized.] A similar covenant is not in place in the vast majority of Anglican Provinces, the Presiding Bishop said.

Laity should be more widely involved in international conversations about the shape and direction of Anglicanism, said Andrus, bishop of the California diocese since 2006 and previously bishop suffragan of the Diocese of Alabama.

For the morning's liturgy, Andrus joined Jones and the procession in meeting the Presiding Bishop at the cathedral's great doors, replicas of Ghiberti's Renaissance masterpieces adorning the cathedral baptistery in Florence, Italy. After three knocks outside the San Francisco cathedral, the Presiding Bishop entered through its doors, and was later welcomed with a standing ovation.

The Presiding Bishop also blessed a new stone labyrinth [of course she did!] recently completed inside the cathedral nave. . ..

Read it all.