Alex

I believe there is a much stronger case against Prop. 8 on legal terms than religious practices/freedom.

That still means that the SDA Conferences don't have a horse in this race.

My views on homosexual practices are well known on this site.

The issue is not legalizing sin but recognizing property rights etc.

I cringe at the use of the term marriage but then I live in Georgia and came out of another century. Tom

I'm for equal rights before the law. However, in my mind, the argument that one's identity is not socially constructed but biologically determined is still unsettled.

I may be reading my sources selectively and differently, so I'd appreciate a critique of the following previous posts on this site:

'(f) No human evidence exists to date for a role of the neonatal androgen surge in the development of gender-related behavior. (g) While the evidence for prenatal androgens as the primary determinant of gender-related behavior is very strong, gender identity does not seem to be directly affected. Overall, the conclusions raise the question how the status of the androgenization of the brain at birth can be used for a prognosis of gender-identity outcome and guide gender assignment decisions. In the absence of reliable techniques of brain imaging of the newborn for this purpose, many have argued for using masculinization of the genitals as an indicator of brain masculinization. However, this approach encounters a variety of significant problems, applies at best only to selected syndromes, has only very modest predictive power for gender-related behavior, and is very problematic in the prediction of gender identity.'

- Biopsychosocial Determinants of Gender
Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 2006
Biopsychosocial Determinants of Gender, Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, Columbia University

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_43/ai_n16107852

"With the rise of the notion of ‘homosexuality’ in the modern era, a person is placed into a specific category even if one does not act upon those inclinations. What is the common, natural sexuality expressed across these three very different cultures? The social constructionist answer is that there is no ‘natural’ sexuality; all sexual understandings are constructed within and mediated by cultural understandings.

"The examples can be pushed much further by incorporating anthropological data outside of the Western tradition (Halperin, 1990; Greenberg, 1988). Yet even within the narrower context offered here, the differences between them are striking. The assumption in ancient Greece is that men (less is known about women) can respond erotically to either sex, and the vast majority of men who engaged in same-sex relationships were also married (or would later become married). Yet the contemporary understanding of homosexuality divides the sexual domain in two, heterosexual and homosexual, and most heterosexuals cannot respond erotically to their own sex."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

"All the biological theories--evolutionary, genetic, hormonal, and neuroanatomical--are based on the assumption, although it is rarely stated, that there are two underlying true forms, heterosexuals and homosexuals. Despite Kinsey's pioneering conceptualization of a continuum between heterosexuality and homosexuality, the theories rest on an assumption of discontinuity, i.e., that homosexuality and heterosexuality are two distinct and separate categories. In addition, these theories rest on an assumption of the constancy over time of the two categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality. None of the theories include the possibility that the incidence or nature of homosexuality may have changed over the centuries. Ironically, the evolutionary theories should follow the lead of Darwin and incorporate changes in patterns of adaptation and selection for homosexuality over many generations. As experts noted, however, sociobiology typically rests on an outmoded version of evolutionary theory that modern biologists consider naive (Gould, 1987). Thus, the very capacity for change over time (and with environmental conditions) that is so important in evolutionary theory has generally been ignored by modern sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists."

- Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality - The Use of Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality
Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 1998 by John D. DeLamater, Janet Shibley Hyde
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746720

There are a lot of issues that could be debated (and have been debated here) about homosexuality. However, there is a very clear religious liberty argument to be made for voting "no."

Prop 8 tries to amend our state constitution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman using a religious viewpoint (it’s informed by God’s creation of marriage in the Garden of Eden). This amendment would clearly put the State of California in a position of arbiter of religious belief, and Adventists have traditionally been very strong advocates of a clear separation between church and state. Even though most Adventists would agree that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, using the state’s constitution to coerce a religious and moral viewpoint is contrary to what Adventists have traditionally stood for.

Even though I am personally a supporter of same-sex marriage, I know that many of the people who are against Prop 8 are not also supporters. The website makes it clear that voting "no" on Prop 8 does not mean endorsing same-sex marriage; rather, it is standing up for very classic Adventist values. As the FAQs page on the http://adventistsagainstprop8.org website states:

"The issue before us today is whether we ask the State of California to enforce the law of God, as understood by the Adventist Church, when it comes to marriage. If we are not willing to let the state enforce the Sabbath commandment, we cannot allow the state to enforce biblical marriage, as understood by the Seventh-day Adventist Church."

Given this choice, I can envision many Adventists who hold a wide range of views on homosexuality voting "no" on Prop 8.

"the argument that one's identity is not socially constructed but biologically determined is still unsettled."

Is a person's race not biologically determined?

While there are always specifics yet to be determined on most any concept (when can the final word to be certain?), some of the same arguments were made for the vast differences between races here in the U.S. The Orientals were deemed to be less than a full human; the blacks were for more than a hundred years considered to be 3/5th the value of Caucasians; and during WW II, the Japanese U.S. citizens were still imprisoned as not deserving of their rights.

Before dehumanization begins, there is a concerted effort to demean and denigrate any specific group that people wish to deny human rights. This is what occurred with the imprisonment and torturing of U.S. citizens beginning with this administration, and denying them habeas corpus.

When will we realize that under our U.S. Constitution, all citizens have been granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If an individual's happiness is best realized by being joined, legally in marriage to someone of his choice, whether others dislike that choice should not have standing in the courts to deny that desire. Remember, it was less than 50 years ago that marriage between blacks and Caucasians was finally declared legal. Can anyone say that such a marriage should not be legalized? By the same reasoning, can anyone say that any individual's right should be abridged by the denial of marriage because the choice is not approved by others? Should the licensing of marriage be similar to a driver's license where the applicant must pass tests? Who would devise the test? As some have suggested that marriage was intended for procreation, would certification of fertility be required?

Religious liberty means that no religion should impose its beliefs on another person, and everyone should have the right to worship as their conscience dictates. Seventh-day Adventists have long been advocates of religious liberty, in large part because our eschatological theology leads us to believe that our own religious freedoms will be threatened someday. We also believe that freedom of choice is a gift from God. It is inherent in His character that He does not coerce anyone into following Him; He draws us by love. Satan is the one who uses any means he can to force us to follow his way.

Adventist support of religious liberty has led us to champion some seemingly strange positions, such as opposition to prayer in public schools and even the right of Native Americans to use peyote in their religious rituals.

Although our church may officially understand God’s will to be opposed to gay marriage, do we have the right to try to legislate our beliefs as binding for others? In many cases, these are Christian people, both heterosexual and homosexual, who believe that God can bless committed same-sex monogamous relationships. Whether or not we share their belief, if we vote to deny them this right are we not imposing our belief on them? Do we have the right to tell all gay and lesbian people, Adventist or not, that they must remain celibate all their lives? Do we want to take the responsibility of pushing them toward promiscuity if they are not able to be a lifetime celibate, because we refuse to allow them to live together as committed couples?

Rights of conscience are God’s precious gift to all. We who truly believe in religious liberty are privileged to support the free exercise of those rights by everyone, even when we do not agree with their beliefs for whatever reason. Whenever we make exceptions to this rule, we lose our own credibility and moral power.

Its really sad that in order to get property rights and the like they put forward the solution of marraige.
Marraige has a completely different composition and connotation.

I'm sure that many of the NO on 8 people would vote yes to something that can be achieved without polluting an institution that has its own history, value systems and sacredness.

Its kind of like the dad who forced 2 bothers to invest in a cow. One day Brother 1 askes brother 2, wheres my cow? Brother 2 responds, well its not only your cow so I sold my half to the butcher and unfortunately, your half died.

If the Dad had been smarter he would have had them invest in 2 sheep. One could do as he liked with his own without sacrificing his brothers.

Keep in mind that marriage is as much about making a permanent, public commitment to another human being as it is about securing any property rights.

But the issue here is that the State of California has already granted a right, a constitutional right. By supporting proposition 8, Adventists risk revoking a constitutional right based on our specifically religious convictions. That is a very un-Adventist thing to do!

"Marriage has a completely different composition and connotation.

I'm sure that many of the NO on 8 people would vote yes to something that can be achieved without polluting an institution that has its own history, value systems and sacredness."

The history of marriage is not so pure nor sacred as is often assumed.

Reading the Bible for most of its history, polygamy was the common form of marriage. Nor has marriage always been an institution designed or established by the church. What evidence from the Bible reveals that marriage was other than arranged by the parents or simply the man "taking" a woman for his wife? There should be care in worshiping at the altar of the status quo without understanding the changes throughout history.

The arrangements and design of marriage have changed throughout recorded history, and there is nothing sacrosanct about marriage than cannot be adapted to society, as it has in the past. Each state has the power to license marriages, and in Massachusetts and California they have chosen the license same-sex marriages. For those who wish to continue heterosexual marriages for themselves, either now or future, this will have no impact whatsoever on them. It neither forces one to marry, nor remain single, only that we give others the privilege that all enjoy and not limit or discriminate when licensing marriages.

Elaine

Absolutely, historically marriage has been neither pure nor sacred. Neither is any human being. But that was not God's intention. He did establish the church as His institution on earth to help people individually and collectively to develop an ethic and ethos after the Sermon on the Mount, which Jesus Christ so completely fulfilled.

Anatomically, intentionally God designed one man and one woman to join in holy matrimony to love, honor, and cherish unto death they do part. He also commanded that they be fruitful and multiple. The divine intent leaves no room for deviate experimentation or relationships. The Church should have its say, but the democratic process must prevail upon assessment of the best evidence. Therefore, the church has a right to expression and the people have the right to a vote.

May the outcome be natural (as in the divine intent) not unnatural (a consequence of a fallen nature). Tom

An interesting discussion, to be sure, but if I may pull it back on point, what we're talking about is granting a right (rite) that the California Supreme Court deemed constitutional. Now folks want to overrule the Supreme Court and in place of their legal decision, render a verdict based on a particular religious ideology.

What we can probably agree on, conversation about God's intent and human physiology aside, is that it is a tremendous moral failure to create coercive legislation based on our particular understanding of God's ideal.

For that reason, and to uphold the Adventist church's legacy of advocating Religious tolerance, we should vote down this attempt at legislating religious belief.

Jared

Moral failure is a pretty strong judgmental phrase. The Church can't vote but it can express its opinion on both public and private issues. The listener can and will make up their own minds on how to vote. If the issue were vote as we (the Church) say or be disfellowshiped, I would agree with me. I was presenting the case for institutional expression and individual choice. I don't think I was adovcating moral failure in any dimension. I am sorry you so understood. I think it is a serious misjudgment to state a position that a church cannot express its moral opinion and even to urge behavior consistent with that moral opinion. When in California I voted my mind as I now do in Georgia. I attempt to consider all arguments and position papers on each side of each issue. My vote has been ignored as often or more so than it has been accepted. Yet I cherish the right and priviledge to vote. I suggest you vote early and often, Chicago like!. Tom

P.S. Jared

Is it your position that the United States was guilty of moral failure when it insisted that Utah give up the doctrine of multiple wives before it became a state. Or that it give up its doctrine on Blacks in order to conform to Civil Rights Laws?

Finally if you believe a Church is guilty of moral failure
why do you retain membership? Is not "working from inside" subversive and thus a moral failure? Tom

Jared,

Laws against polygamy do fly in the face on religious liberty, there are off-shoot Mormon groups who practice polygamy and their constitutional rights under the establishment clause are being violated. Most Attorney General's realize that and polygamists are not being prosecuted - the charges usually have to do with welfare fraud or statutory rape.

At least the laws about polygamy do not discriminate though. Prop 8 violates the establishment clause and it is discrimination. I hope all California Adventists will stand up against bigotry and defeat Prop 8.

I don't understand your point about the civil rights laws. How does giving someone the right to vote or use public transportation violate anyone's religious rights?

Jared, your attempt to make this about religious belief is flawed.
There are many people who are athiest or have no strongly held religious belief that do favor prop 8.
One does not nessisarily need to be religious to hold that one is a precious union and the other deviant and/or debased.

"What we can probably agree on, conversation about God's intent and human physiology aside, is that it is a tremendous moral failure to create coercive legislation based on our particular understanding of God's ideal."

Again your religious slant does not play out logically since on the one hand you choose to see it as only legal and on the other you would paint those who hold up the biblical model as a moral failure.

If you wish to hold us up to moral standards how can you put "Gods intent and human physiology aside"?

As many on this site have noted, there is no moral failure without religion. You cannot suggest Adventists vote against prop 8 on moral grounds and at the same time expect them to pay no attention to what the bible says on the morality concerning it.

"But the issue here is that the State of California has already granted a right, a constitutional right. By supporting proposition 8, Adventists risk revoking a constitutional right based on our specifically religious convictions. That is a very un-Adventist thing to do!"

You act as if homosexual marraige was a time honored tradition of long standing. Its not. Your agruement here is inflamitory and sensational, claiming Adventists would be trampling on constitutional right(s).
And finially and most simply, I would point our your last strained attempt at making it look like its only Adventists who object. You say, based on OUR (emphasis mine) specifically religious convictions.
Adventists are not the only christian faith that holds that marraige is between 1 man and 1 woman.
Frankly to suggest and/or infer otherwise is quite disturbing.

When I was in high school my dream was to be a constitutional lawyer, fighting for the Bill of Rights, working for either the ACLU, NAACP, or General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists. I was inspired by the principled stand of many Adventists rushing in to support a variety of parties whose Constitutional rights were being abridged, even (and especially) when they strongly disagreed with the beliefs and practices of these parties.

In more recent years I have been disappointed that the traditional, principled Adventist championing of the liberties established in the US Constitution has been increasingly compromised by opportunistically winking at, or even joining in, trampling of the basic rights of people some Adventists don't like.

I happen to be a supporter (and long time practitioner) of marriage - and as far as I am concerned the more that participate in this institution, the better. Those who oppose extending marriage to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate their primary commitment to the first amendment. I am deeply encouraged to see a number of people in my community who are opposed to gay marriage making a principled stand against Prop 8, and I will be praying that even more find the courage and strength to take a similar stand.

Excellent points Michael, but the entire issue is being
contested or "fought" on the bais of libel by labal. A very poor bais of decision-making. If marraige is definded as a civil union and not a religious rite or vow, then of course, the California Supreme Court is correct. Then the question arises does the Church have to recognize civil unions? Is church membership a family affair? Quite an emotional mess--way up there with does the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ? You know people died over that!

My question is will Oregon and Idaho be next since so many Californians are moving there.

I think the financial crisis is a much bigger and more urgent issue don't you? Tom

Tom,

To clarify, I meant, and I still mean that it is a moral failure on the part of the church whenever we stand together with those who would advocate for coercive religious legislation binding on everyone. Which, by the way, is what Proposition 8 does. It mandates a religious viewpoint.

Michael,

we've done the religious vs. secular song and dance quite a bit now, haven't we. And here we stand in the same places we started. That doesn't surprise me, does it you?

If you'd like to show me some atheists who feel that homosexuality is debased (a religious term, by the way), I'd be happy to meet them.

Stan,

You are right that polygamy, as practiced by Fundamentalist Mormons, can be considered illegal on grounds of its dishonesty (welfare fraud) or abuse of children, who must legally be protected. Making polygamy illegal because of religious reasons was most definitely not in accord with our belief in religious freedom. Like the religious prejudice today against homosexuals, there was religious prejudice against polygamists at the time polygamy was criminalized. There is still religious prejudice against polygamy today, even though it was practiced in biblical times. Not that I believe we should practice polygamy, but I think the prohibition of polygamy for those who believe it is biblical is wrong - unless... this practice causes harm to others.

I really appreciate your contribution to this conversation, Aubyn, especially this:

"Those who oppose extending marriage to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate their primary commitment to the first amendment."

I just visited the "Adventists Against Prop Website" and it seems that it conflates to issues:

The site states:

"We urge Seventh-day Adventists in the State of California to vote “no” on Proposition 8, a ballot initiative titled “Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry,” on November 4. We also urge the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council to rescind its support for this Proposition."

I wholeheartedly agree with the second request. The church should not support this Proposition on religious grounds and doing so is a clear breach of "the separation of church and state" doctrine that is so dear to many Adventists.

However, I'm not so sure the first part. It actually raises some important questions for me. Can an Adventist object to legalizing gay marriage on non-religious grounds, i.e. natural law (or is that "religious" reasoning, too)? Can an Adventist object to gay marriage on religious grounds, and prefers to live a certain kind of society?

Can a person that agrees with the second part of the "Adventists against Prop 8" but is unsure about the second, endorse it?

Is a person's race not biologically determined?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson 24 September 2008 at 8:23

"... humans themselves choose (consciously or unconsciously) which physical characteristics constitute a racial group. Consequently, racial groups are presently thought to be social constructions, or a category created not by biological nature but by human invention."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

Elaine

As with gender identity and role, so with race. They are socially conditioned. Biology plays a minor part in their definitions.

"As with gender identity and role, so with race. They are socially conditioned. Biology plays a minor part in their definitions."

I would disagree. No one can choose his race, whether it is Chinese, Australian aboriginal, or African-American. Those are predetermined at conception.

Society's attitude toward race is an entirely different matter. And attitude adjustment is a condition that can always be adapted or changed.

"Can a leopard change his spots?" No, and no more than a leopard can become a lion, so no Chinese can become an African-American.

Our attitudes should be changed, and just as here in the U.S. with the attitude toward slavery, civil rights, and many other individual rights, it is not a sudden, but a gradual, evolving process. This is what tolerance and freedom and liberty are all about.

A prominent article in the Fresno Bee this morning highlighted the various churches that were vigorously calling for votes for Prop. 8.
Sadly, along with Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons, the Seventh-day Adventists were in that group.

Where will SDAs be when they cry for liberty from their fellow citizens when they have promoted intolerance and discrimination?

Zane,

You're raising a question that many have raised here about some sort of secular argument for opposing same-gender marriage. The only one that holds water is that same-gender marriage does not promote the preservation of the human species because same-gender couples cannot procreate. I have never heard any proponents of the amendment go there.

The reason people are not using that argument is that even in the absence of same-gender marriage, civil unions are still legal and acceptable.

Where people get hung up is on the idea that marriage is "supposed to be" a sacred God-ordained institution, thus the necessity of religious arguments.

If you'd like to show me some atheists who feel that homosexuality is debased (a religious term, by the way), I'd be happy to meet them.

Posted by: Jared Wright | 24 September 2008 at 5:01

I'll speak to them about it.
They may be able to use other non religious synonyms with this list.

Main Entry: debase
Synonyms: abase, adulterate, alloy, bastardize, belittle, cheapen, contaminate, corrupt, debauch, defame, defile, degenerate, deglamorize, degrade, demean, denigrate, deprave, deteriorate, discredit, disgrace, dishonor, harm, heathenize, humble, humiliate, impair, lower, minimize, paganize, pervert, pollute, reduce, revile, shame, sink, spoil, stigmatize, stoop, sully, vilify, vitiate, vulgarize
Synonym Collection v1.1
Copyright © 2008 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC.

Since I'm for religious freedom and equal rights, though I don't buy the argument that gender identity is biologically determined, let me offer an opinion I read while waiting for my wife to finish her choir rehearsal at the Presbyterian church.

The ban on gay marriage, wrote Charles Colson, may have consequences for the exercise of our religious freedom. For example: May a congregation refuse to allow use of their facility as a venue for a gay marriage on religious grounds? If lifting the ban on same sex marriage were accepted as legally binding and not unConstitutional, may a priest, minister or imam preach against same sex relationship on religious grounds without inviting prosecution or legal action? By the IRS, at the very least.

Elaine

Not speaking about Obama's "race for the White House", and no offense intended, how was his race determined? Biologically?

Joselito,
You said, "As with gender identity and role, so with race. They are socially conditioned. Biology plays a minor part in their definitions."

Talking about gender, role, orientation... The American Psychological Association recognizes that there is not absolute, binding concensus on all the contributing factors, but goes on to note that in the vast majority of cases, homosexuality is not a choice. If it is not something that the majority of homosexuals voluntarily decide, the alternative is___________?

See here.

It's interesting to note that if one were to do an online search for the keywords "homosexuality" and "causes", the top 25 or more hits are from conservative Christian orgnaizations or individuals with religious agendas each peddling its own take on what causes homosexuality. None of them, as far as I can tell, identifies as homosexual.

Isn't that interesting? The most frequently read web resources on the causes of homosexuality presented by religious folks with religious slants, not letting homosexual individuals speak on their own behalf, but rather presuming to speak to the causes of homosexuality for homosexuals.

I'd be curious to know, Joselito, of the homosexual individuals you have personally spoken with about the causes of homosexuality, what percentage of them share your assessment that it is not biological, genetic, or innate.

Jared

This may be off topic. What percentage of people do you know and have spoken to, who have suffered discrimination because of their "race" (I'm of mixed Asian ethnicity, born and raised in the Philippines as an alien, presently residing in California), understand the root causes of racism and racialization in this country?

About my sources above (3, including 2 of several I found thru PubMed), which ones were authored by conservative Christians?

Hi Jared,

I've heard that argument before in a different form. It goes something like this.

1. The consistent, regular "production" (sorry for lack of a better word) children for the workforce, military, etc is in the best interest of a nation fiscally, materially, etc.
2. The civil government should do all it can to support the best interest of the nation.
3. The government can do this by conferring recognition, tax-benefits, etc. on social units that can do this.

Therefore, hetero-sexual marriages should receive support from the government. (and while non-hetero sexual unions should not be legislated against, there is no reason for them to receive the same treatment.)

To be clear, this is not my argument, or conclusion that I necessarily support, just that it seems to be a non-religious way of reasoning about things.

As I have read all of the posts on this topic, it seems that there is much more heat than light.

First of all, it is important to note what Prop 8 does and does not say. All it does is define what marriage is - a special relationship between a man and a woman. It does not effect the ability of same-sex partners to get insurance, have hospital visits, conjugal visits, receive death benefits, or any of the other "rights" that some who oppose this bill claim will be threatened if it passes. It does not denigrate same sex relationships or attempt to judge the correctness of their actions.

To accept the classical definition of marriage (for almost 2000 years in Western Culture and at least 3500 in Judeo-Christian culture)as between a man and a woman does not denigrate any other relationship. It just acknowledges a long standing definition. Just because you say that a Ford or a Volkswagen is a Ford or a Volkswagen doesn't mean that you are criticizing Chevys, want to do away with them, ban them from the road, keep them from getting licenses, etc. It just acknowledges that they are unique from one another in a way that easily allows an individual to recognize the difference. Trying to broaden this issue into anything else, (which is worthy of serious consideration in another setting) is a smoke screen to obscure what is really happening and to confuse people as to what this bill really says.

What concerns me are the issues behind the issues. Opponents of Prop 8 openly admit that their purpose is to force anyone who does not accept same-sex marriage into a corner where they are forced to choose between accepting the Gay agenda or lose their 501-C3 status. It is interesting that many of the official proponents of Prop 8 have gone out of their way to narrowly define the bill in a way that protects the rights of those with whom they have serious issues. It is sad to see that gracious spirit not reciprocated by those whose agenda transcends the narrow confines of this bill.

It is also disturbing to see a segment of society that builds its whole agenda on tolerance being so intolerant of those who do not agree with their plans and purpose and making every attempt to force that agenda on others. Any pretense of respect and grace that the Gay community has claimed to have for those views might differ from their own is being negated by the vicious and distorted response from those who oppose Prop 8.

I support Proposition 8 even as I support the right of gay couples to have another designation for their relationship and to enjoy all of the "rights" accorded heterosexual married couples. I urge you to do the same.

Here's a growing list of Adventists who have signed on.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/sdanoonprop8/signatures.html

Zane (and then later, more to Dan),

What the idea of "production" misses is everything that happens after conception. Thousands of LGBT couples actually raise children, many of whom wouldn't receive as good a life in group homes, with foster parents, who otherwise caught in our exploding child protective services system. To then turn around and say (as some others have here): "unlike with inter-racial marriage, history suddenly dictates how we legally define your love," essentially functions to create a form of relationship segregation.

Part of this is due to generational discomfort.

Frankly, since I spent much of my time around undergrads and grad. students, coming into this conversation seems like a different dimension. A lot of the anti-same-sex marriage arguments here seem to be formed in the abstract. On the other hands, beyond a token friend, co-worker or neighbor, many younger folks have a lot of LGBT friends and other interactions and have seen them love and cry, kiss and break up. I've been to a couple of same-sex weddings this summer and being able to call it marriage and have it recognized by the state as equal to others is an indescribably dignifying experience for them. Let's beware the tendency to legalize separate but equal forms of human community - we're not vehicle brands; we're all God's creation.

"To accept the classical definition of marriage (for almost 2000 years in Western Culture and at least 3500 in Judeo-Christian culture)as between a man and a woman"

You might want to change your last word to "women" as for the biblical form of marriage for its earliest history as recorded in their own writings, that the preferred form of marrige was between a man and "Many Women." This was an attempt (presumably) to obey the first command to "be fruitful and multiply." There was never a command against polygamy nor condemnation. So, to suggest that their form of marriage as being operational today is not quite true.

Tom, you asked:

"Not speaking about Obama's "race for the White House", and no offense intended, how was his race determined? Biologically?"

It was determined at his conception, and according to him, by his Caucasian mother and his African (Kenyan) father. The attitude about it is quite evident. How else would you describe human conception other than biological?
Societal?

I have many ethnic roots, largely English and Scots-Irish and am learning more about them while reading Jim Webb's book "Born Fighting." Everyone should be proud of her roots, and I'm sure that you are. But you can no more change the ethnicity of your parents than the leopard changing his spots. The only difference is in the attitude of society to "mixed races," and we should all realize that we are all "mongrels" and by the mix, we have improved the human strain. Just as in many animal species, too close inbreeding brings on many physiological problems, the human family is enriched by cross-breeding.

Currently, I'm enjoying listening to The Teaching Company's lectures on the history of the Supreme Court and the case of Loving vs. Virginia (a white man married to a "colored" woman) when Virginia incarcerated the couple until they fled the state, and eventually the Supremes ruled against Virginia. There are also many precedent cases regarding religious liberty and freedoms. But, as you know, there are many powers that the Federal does not cover and have been left to the states: This one in California is for the state to decide and the polls, so far, show that the "No" votes are predominating as people become more enlightened and realize that it is no threat to them or to their respective churches. Nothing in the proposal infringes on one's individual rights of liberty and conscience, not does it affect the church nor force it to marry or recognize gay couples if they do not wish to do so. Charles Colson has his own rightist views and, having been imprisoned, he should certainly tolerate others' views, it would seem.

Zane,
I agree with you 100%.

I first read the following:

The following individuals have signed our petition address to the Church State Council:
Proposition 8, which would amend the California State Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman breaches the spirit of religious liberty, separation of church and state, and non-establishment of religion that Adventists have long cherished. By supporting this Proposition to define marriage from a religious perspective the Church State Council is in danger of imposing their particular religious, theological convictions upon the general public. Adventists in the United States have historically defended the concerns of minority groups (even when they have disagreed with them on specific positions and practices) and have strongly objected to the use of religious arguments and means for establishing even what they consider to be public good.

Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the North American Religious Liberty Association and the Church State Council to rescind their support for Proposition 8.

http://adventistsagainstprop8.org/sign-our-petition/

I then read this summary-

Proposition 8, which would amend the California State Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman breaches the spirit of religious liberty, separation of church and state, and non-establishment of religion that Adventists have long cherished. By supporting this Proposition to define marriage from a religious perspective the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council is in danger of imposing their particular religious, theological convictions upon the general public. Adventists in the United States have historically defended the concerns of minority groups (even when they have disagreed with them on specific positions and practices) and have strongly objected to the use of religious arguments and means for establishing even what they consider to be public good.

Therefore, we urge the Church State Council to rescind its support for Proposition 8 and encourage Adventists in California to vote “NO” on Proposition 8.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/sdanoonprop8/

I'm proud to sign this petition and, frankly, I don't see this issue as being a defense or repudiation of gay marriage. I would appreciate some clarity as there are some differences between the two signatory statements. I was very convinced by these paragraphs:

Adventists in the United States have historically defended the concerns of minority groups (even when they have disagreed with them on specific positions and practices) and have strongly objected to the use of religious arguments and means for establishing even what they consider to be public good (such the establishment of “blue laws” to fight widespread alcohol consumption on Sundays or the institution of prayer time in public schools). Adventists, as a people of faith and prophecy who have given special attention to apocalyptic events outlined in Revelation 13 and 14, have always advocated the safeguarding of rights of individuals and groups — even when we have disagreed with them — and the non-intrusion of overtly religious language and rationale in the formation or alteration of public policy.

We believe that Proposition 8 can lead California — and the rest of the nation because of the significance of the state — down a highly troublesome and dangerous road toward religious definitions and arguments becoming a key part in shaping public policy, especially in matters that deal with private practices and rights of individuals.

While individual Adventists will hold a diversity of views on same-sex marriage and the role of religion in public life, all Adventists ought to consider carefully the serious religious liberty and church-state implications that Proposition 8 presents.

Hi Alex,

Yes, I agree with you that "production" is an extremely poor choice of words. I was just trying to articulate the legitimate "reasons" the civil government might have for supporting/giving incentives for marriage.

Is marriage something the government should be doing? Perhaps that's the problem. It shouldn't be doing marriages for any one at all. Everyone (hetero or non) who wanted should be granted a civil union and marriage is something you did in a church or some other religious community. Then the discussion changes and becomes about the the theological reasons this should be granted/performed or not by the church.

My comment was about the non-religious reasons an Adventist or the government might have for supporting Prop 8. My claim was that the "Adventist Against Prop 8" conflates two issues.

And yes, I'm all for humanizing the discussion. Personally, one of the most powerful films I saw this summer is "The Bible Tells Me So."

Once again, to be absolutely clear, I'm not for Prop 8, or against it...I'm trying to get clear on the issue that is at the heart of what the website I've been hearing so much is about.

Elaine

You have me mixed up with someone else. I have not mentioned Obama on eany web site at any time. I haven't made up my mind on the presidential race except--we have to choose between two second tier candidates. I lean toward Obama at the moment. His second in command has too big a mouth for my liking.

But I don't know what Obama has to do with this thread in the first place. I haven't located the person who brought Obama into the conversation but it wasn't me. Tom

P,S, Elaine

If you check back you will find it was Coo who brought in the name of Obama not Tom. Tom

Hey Johnny,

Looks like we posted simultaneously.

Yep, precisely. Thank you for making this clear. There is a world of difference between the closing these two statements:

"Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the North American Religious Liberty Association and the Church State Council to rescind their support for Proposition 8."

"Therefore, we urge the Church State Council to rescind its support for Proposition 8 and encourage Adventists in California to vote “NO” on Proposition 8."

The "and encourage Adventists in California to vote "NO" clause gets the church as an institution involved the other way. That's why I have reservations about signing the petition.

I'm assuming this was not intentional, but it need to be clarified.

For many people support of gay marriage is a or the basis for their opposition to prop. 8.
For many people support of religious liberty is a or the basis for their opposition to prop. 8.

I believe that discussing this bill as being concerned with the former distracts from the latter as we attempt to promote opposition to this bill as an authentically Adventist position.

Thank you.

If the intent of the creators of this petition is what Johnny claims, the title of the petition/site should be changed to something like:

"Adventist Against the Church Support of Prop 8"

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of arguing what many seem to be painting as an ultra-conservative position - something I have rarely if ever have been accused of being in my life.

I would like to address something Michael wrote earlier:

"But the issue here is that the State of California has already granted a right, a constitutional right. By supporting proposition 8, Adventists risk revoking a constitutional right based on our specifically religious convictions. That is a very un-Adventist thing to do!"

A broad based representation of constitutional attorneys has studied the specific issue of whether supporting an initiative places us in jeopardy of losing our constitutional rights.

First of all the courts have long established a separation between a church supporting a ballot initiative and supporting a particular candidate. There is no danger of us losing our constitutional rights by supporting this issue - any more than supporting a bill like Megans Law would place us in harms way.

Second, this is not a specifically religious initiative any more than anti-smoking legislation is religious. Because we take a position on something does not make it a religious issue; neither does the law preclude us as individuals or an organization from taking positions on non-religious issues.

Using scare tactics to frighten people into supporting a particular position does not smack of the kind of reasoned thinking one traditionally has come to expect from the readers of Spectrum.

I think that it is also only fair and reasonable to be honest about many of the tactics employed in this debate - especially the scare tactics and wholesale misrepresentation. (Again, let me reiterate that I support gay couples having the full and complete protection of the law.) It doesn't take too much digging on pro-gay websites to see that opposition to this bill is part of a deliberate, premeditated attempt by the gay community to force our society to accept their agenda. While equal protection under the law is enshrined in our constitution, an agenda that demands that everyone accept a particular philosophical point of view is not. It is not the great tolerance of the opposers of this bill that I find fault with, it is their complete lack of tolerance for those who do not see things in their narrowly defined way and their dedication to creating a society where there is no tolerance for any opinion but their own - either by legislative fiat, misrepresentation or ridicule.

I for one am glad that my church has finally decided to get off of the fence and to become involved in important social issues. We failed to do so during the civil rights movement of the 60s to our shame. We have been mealy-mouthed and vacuous when it comes to the lives of unborn children. (Before you rise up in too much indignation - even though I am very pro-life - I am also pro-choice.) We should have taken a strong stand on the vote for women if we did not.

While the argument that marriage between a man and a woman should have been "women" made for good debate and was clever, it missed the point entirely. Most of the time for most of recorded history, the definition was not a plurality of either wives or husbands - even though there was occasional exceptions. It was a relationship between one man and one woman. It is that view that deserves our support. Leaving our particular religious convictions out of the picture for a moment, it is a good bill that I will support as an American interested in social justice and as a Christian.

Tom,

My apologies for confusing Joselito's comments with yours. It is safer to simply quote someone for me, than giving attribution wrongly. Sorry.

"While equal protection under the law is enshrined in our constitution, an agenda that demands that everyone accept a particular philosophical point of view is not."

Had that opinion prevailed in Brown vs. Board of Education, or the many other civil rights' struggles and eventual rulings, we would still have segregated drinking fountains, rest rooms, hospitals, schools, housing, and discrimination in employment.

The demand WAS made that everyone "accept the parpticular philosophical view" that no longer was the former ruling: "Separate but equal" the law of the land. This was very galling to many in the South who were most unhappy, and even unwilling to abide by this ruling; however it became the law of the land and it had to be obeyed.

Please tell me why Prop. 8 is somehow different than those rulings in forcing a philosophical view on which all may not agree. Our constitution is the only and last arbiter for determing the minority's rights. Thankfully, we have, or may all have its benefits when needed. Each of us could very well be in a minority group, as the SDA church has fought for those who are, in the past.

Zane,
By 'authentically adventist' I mean to say that I find it difficult for anyone to argue that our denomination's activity in support of this bill is in harmony with our past advocacy and historical position. I do believe that the website is more clear than unclear on this. The title they've chosen is fine.

Opposing this bill does mean that one believes that our marriages within the church is distinct from any marriage-like institution the state may recognise. Frankly I think it will be great for our church when we view our marriage as distinct from anything the government recognises. I've always been uncomfortable with our ministers acting as agents for the government in our sanctuaries claiming the power of the state as they invoke God in blessing sacred/civil unions. In many countries persons need to have two ceremonies. I believe that distinction strengthens marriage for us- it is made clear that the church has different expectations than the state.

I believe that Seventh-day Adventists should feel confident that opposition to Prop. 8 is categorically different to any conversation on gay marriage within the church.

Maybe when we adjust to a world where our sanctuaries and ministers aren't enmeshed, when it comes to marriage, with the state we might be open to a conversation on those U.S. flags often present on stage-right in our sanctuaries- that really bothers me too!!

Thanks!

Don't worry Alex and Johnny

The Church was for Landon of Kansas against FDR. The Church's political sense is dulled by all the sulfur they smell coming out of Revelation. Furthermore, by the time of the election there won't be enough gas to get to the polls or enough money to buy any! We are much closer to blood in the streets than same sex weddings on the Court House steps. Tom

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of arguing what many seem to be painting as an ultra-conservative position - something I have rarely if ever have been accused of being in my life.

I would like to address something Michael wrote earlier:

"But the issue here is that the State of California has already granted a right, a constitutional right. By supporting proposition 8, Adventists risk revoking a constitutional right based on our specifically religious convictions. That is a very un-Adventist thing to do!"
Posted by: Dan M. Appel (not verified) | 25 September 2008 at 1:26

Dan,
I ruffle at the same things you do. That is why I was quoting Jared.

Here is where you can find the origional.

[Quote]
But the issue here is that the State of California has already granted a right, a constitutional right. By supporting proposition 8, Adventists risk revoking a constitutional right based on our specifically religious convictions. That is a very un-Adventist thing to do!

Posted by: Jared Wright | 24 September 2008 at 10:17

>>. . .the title of the petition/site should be changed to something like: "Adventist Against the Church Support of Prop 8"

That's a good point, Zane. Thanks.

Frankly, I agree that the State shouldn't be in the marriage business or Churches shouldn't be in the State's legal business.

But supporting Prop 8 or even standing on the sidelines is actually a tacit step away from working to help the state leave church/community ritual alone. After all, Prop 8 seeks to pass a State-based legal definition of marriage.

If folks are really serious about protecting marriage - I'd like to see a new definition and a new word. All these folks keep talking about the historical definition without realizing that until a few hundred years ago marriage was essentially a financial arrangement in most culture, including the West.

If you really want to talk about the historical definition, marriage was between a man and a man (father to father), or at best a man and a woman's parents.

Furthermore, lately, during the rise of the Boomers, marriage has really lost a lot of its shine. The church should come up with a new name. I don't know, something like sanctified couplehood.

I recently heard a professor (Dr. Remen) at the UCSF Med School talk about her course in which all the first year students are given the assignment to write their own Hippocratic oath. She shared a few that were profound and deeply personal. Something tells me that we probably need to define "marriage" on more lines than just who gets to marry whom. And it would be fascinating to see what we really think is essential in forming sanctified permanent relationships before God. . .

And churches can define sanctified couplehood anyway they want. That would be a fun Adult Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly. Going week-by-week through the Bible and mining - in community - all the texts on relationships. Forget the State. It would be fascinating to have Sabbath Schools around the world defining what marriage means in their local community context. And the SS Department could have a website and folks could submit their personal or class definitions and we could see how Adventists approach the issue in various contexts. . .not to mention seeing how various generations articulate Christian couplehood - that would be really interesting. And then at the GC session we could have a 10 foot screen with the definitions of "sanctified couplehood" scrolling across. . .unity in diversity - (just another crazy idea from those Spectrum people).

For those of a science bend, is there a DNA pattern for homosexuality? Is there a DNA pattern for alcoholism?
Is there a DNA pattern for pedophilia? Should we get a DNA sample prior to church membership or marriage? There most be a DNA pattern for cooking the books==so many do it. There is where science could really advance the work. Its got to be in the blood! Tom

>>> "If you really want to talk about the historical definition, marriage was between a man and a man (father to father), or at best a man and a woman's parents."

Nice line, Alex. =)

I've been thinking about the issue as well, in light of the comments, and I think that my differences with some people may be in my communitarian leanings when it comes to social/political thought.

I wholeheartedly think that the church, as an institution, should stay separated from the state. At the same time, I am not convinced that the highest priority of the state is the protection of individual rights (i.e. libertarianism). (I a democratic communitarian that wants to live in a community where church and state are separate.)

I do not think that the public space and the state are "value-free" zones/institutions. The language and ideal of neutrality is an illusion. I think the citizens, Christian and non, should be able to participate in public life and work to have local communities and governments reflect their values on issues like this. Hence, I think it was a wise move by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow states to figure out their own positions on this issue.

For example, some citizens may not feel comfortable with living in a society where homosexual marriage is openly practiced. Whether this is due to their own irrational homophobia or some reasoned out conclusion is a secondary issue. They have a right to have their voice heard, and to have the laws of their community reflect their values.

Similarly, and conversely, let's say I have no problem with gay marriage personally, or that I value the preferences of others on this issue to trump my own on this issue, or wish to live in a society where marriage is defined strictly as a relationship between members of the same gender. Fine. I have the same right.

Perhaps I want the church and state to be more closely aligned and I want my religious views/practices reflected in my day to day activities--prayers in schools, public events, mail delivered on Sunday instead of Saturday, etc. Fine. I have the option of moving to a community that shares similar values, or have my voice heard in public debate in the community I live.

So, I agree with you that we should have a open discussion about how to define marriage, and this is precisely what Prop 8 is about...and something the church should stay out of politically by telling people to vote "No" on it.

Doing this as a church, in a church, however, is an entirely different matter, because their is an authoritative text that most the community looks too for guidance and definition. (I disagree that this an issue "open" for vote by people.)

Most people, I would argue, find the definition of marriage from the Genesis story and the words of Jesus. This, of course, gets complicated by the practice of polygamy practiced by OT partriarchs and Jesus and Paul's words on celibacy as the human ideal. (If we take the latter two seriously, our church should allow/honor clergy and lay people who believe their calling is to be celibate.)

This raises the larger issue of the correct method of interpretation. Do we use the HC method and argue that Genesis, Jesus, and Paul are expressing the norms of their cultural context, or do go more literalist and interpret them as norms inspired by God.

Perhaps a blended approach works best. The Bible speaks authoritatively on issues of salvation (Christ, atonement, etc.) and other issues are adiaphora (matters of indifference). If so, is marriage one of those issues?

Okay, sorry for being long winded. Just thinking out loud...

>>> "If you really want to talk about the historical definition, marriage was between a man and a man (father to father), or at best a man and a woman's parents."

Nice line, Alex. =)

Posted by: Zane (not verified) | 26 September 2008 at 2:03

Perhaps there is a difficulty considering issues like this when courtship rituals or dating or whatever you might have called the opening arrangements are confused with marraige.

Marraige is much more than Alex discribes even historically. Perhaps one should actually be married and have kids before attempting to define it.
Its different and better than I would have believed before I was married and also adds new dimensions when the kids are born.

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CONGREGATIONS have endorsed California's Proposition 8? Some “authority” told the Associated Press that Adventists supported that proposition, along with Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists, and Orthodox Jews. No Adventist leader or church organization is empowered to speak for any SDA congregation or church member on this issue. I, personally, feel betrayed and disenfranchised.

Could that authority have been the Church State Council of the Pacific Union Conference?

http://churchstate.org

I for one am grateful that they point out the real religious liberty issues involved, and stand firm for real marriage, between a man and a woman, which is not only God's intent, but is the fundamental building block of human society.

It [Obama's race] was determined at his conception, and according to him, by his Caucasian mother and his African (Kenyan) father. The attitude about it is quite evident. How else would you describe human conception other than biological? Societal?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson | 25 September 2008 at 12:33

I apologize for this late response to Elaine due to my inability to access the site - was having technical problems.

Human conception is biological, I agree. Notions of race, however, is societal, not genetic. In short, human conception and race are two distinct issues and must not be conflated.

Here's from a study guide that accompanies a pbs documentary:

'In producing this series, we felt it was important to go back to first principles and ask, What is this thing called "race"? - a question so basic it is rarely raised. What we discovered is that most of our common assumptions about race – for instance, that the world’s people can be divided biologically along racial lines – are wrong.'

- Race – The Power of an Illusion

http://www.pbs.org/race/images/race-guide-lores.pdf

Further, from the same source:

"Ten Things You Should Know About Race

"1 Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical differences, but according to religion, status, class or even language. The English word "race" turns up for the first time in a 1508 poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

"2 Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

"3 Human subspecies don’t exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven’t been around long enough, nor have populations been isolated enough, to evolve into separate subspecies or races. On average, only one of every thousand
of the nucleotides that make up our DNA differ one human from another. We are one of the most genetically similar of all species...."

Daneen,

You stated the following on 24 September 2008 at 8:12:

“If we are not willing to let the state enforce the Sabbath commandment, we cannot allow the state to enforce biblical marriage.”

I believe that there is a fundamental difference between the issue of Sabbath observance and gay marriage. We need to remember what was the objective of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Let’s take a look at what it says:

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The pilgrims left England in search of religions freedom not freedom from religion. They wanted the freedom to practice their own religion, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent the establishment of a particular brand of Christianity as the official religion of the new nation.

As far as the day of worship is concerned, there is disagreement among Christians concerning this issue. Adventists, Jews, and some Baptists believe that the correct day of worship is Saturday; while the rest of Christianity believe that the most sacred day is Sunday, the day Jesus was resurrected. This means that there is no unanimity of belief about this topic.

In contrast, most Christians agree that the correct definition of marriage is the union of members of the opposite sex. The marriage institution was so defined by thousands of years, which means that Proposition 8 is not attempting to deprive gays and lesbian of any right they have enjoyed up to now, but rather to preserve the original meaning of marriage. Marriage has always belonged to heterosexuals.

The principle of freedom of association should protect heterosexual’s right to deny membership to anybody who does not qualify. Homosexuals should be free to form their own club based on their philosophy dealing with sex. This is why we have such a variety of religious denominations. Forcefully blending all Christian and non-Christian denominations into a single amorphous and heterogeneous group would violate the basic premise of democracy.

All this means that Adventists do have a right to support what Proposition 8 was designed to preserve. Unfortunately, it has been misrepresented as an effort to arbitrarily discriminate against homosexuals and deprive them of a right that has been theirs, when in fact it was created to preserve the historical rights of heterosexuals to what has always belonged to them in the first place.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Nic,

The California Supreme court rulled that the state constitution contains the right of all Californians to marry the person they choose, even if they are of the same sex or gender. This is a right that has been a part of the constitution for a very long time. So Prop 8 seeks to overturn a right that has existed for quite a long time, the California Family Code was discriminatory by not providing marriage rights to all. The right was already there in the text of the constitution.

Marriage is not a club that can arbitrarily leave pepole out. This was tried before, with anti-miscegination laws, it is unconstitutional. The right to marry is a fundemental right according the US Supreme court 1967 decision in Loving V Virginia. The US constitution is clear that you can't discriminate on marriage, its our laws that have yet to catch up.

Carlitas,

Regarding your comments dated on 01 October 2008 at 4:00:

Suppose a couple of decades from now another liberal, activist judge decides that poligamy, or sex between an adult and a child is a constitutional right, would you conclude that such a right has always existed in California? If said homosexual right did always exist, then how come homosexuals could not take advantage of it? Can't you see that liberal judges keep inventing constitutional rights our of thin air?

The right to homosexual marriage was a copycat version of the alleged contitutionality of baby killing in utero. In 1973, nine unelected justices of the court decided that killing the unborn was rooted in the right of privacy. Since when killing a human being is a private right?

Elaine,

Regarding your comment dated on 24 September 2008 at 8:23:

What do you do with men whose greatest happiness is to sexually abuse young boys? Is their constitutional right being violated when they are brought to justice? How about those pregnant women who claim that it is their right, not merely to hurt their own babies, but actually dismember their bodies while waiting to be born?

We prosecute sexual predators, but we defend baby killers, arguing that this represents their constitutional right? How can society prosecute mere sexual harm, while turning a blind eye to actual killing? Is sexual harm worse than actual dismemberment or poisoning?

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Dan,

Regarding your comments dated on 25 September 2008 at 11:28:

I would like to restate something you wrote which is worth repeating, I believe:

*********
"First of all, it is important to note what Prop 8 does and does not say. All it does is define what marriage is - a special relationship between a man and a woman. It does not affect the ability of same-sex partners to get insurance, have hospital visits, conjugal visits, receive death benefits, or any of the other "rights" that some who oppose this bill claim will be threatened if it passes. It does not denigrate same sex relationships or attempt to judge the correctness of their actions.

To accept the classical definition of marriage (for almost 2000 years in Western Culture and at least 3500 in Judeo-Christian culture)as between a man and a woman does not denigrate any other relationship. It just acknowledges a long standing definition. Just because you say that a Ford or a Volkswagen is a Ford or a Volkswagen doesn't mean that you are criticizing Chevys, want to do away with them, ban them from the road, keep them from getting licenses, etc. It just acknowledges that they are unique from one another in a way that easily allows an individual to recognize the difference.

It is also disturbing to see a segment of society that builds its whole agenda on tolerance being so intolerant of those who do not agree with their plans and purpose and making every attempt to force that agenda on others."

*********

Thanks for the courage and willingnes to paddle upstream, instead of being carried downstream by the strong current of popular opinion.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Nic, as for your insistence on calling the California Supreme Court liberal activists, I refer you to the following and invite you to take a little more time evaluating your claims before you make them.

The gratuitous comment concerning “activist judges” seems to be framed as an appeal to fear and paranoia. In fact, however, today’s justices on both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court can hardly be called “activist.”
Six of the seven justices of the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors...Most legal scholars would agree that they are moderate to conservative in their leanings and have a healthy respect for constitutional principles. The California Supreme Court has a high reputation throughout the land...
Ronald M. George, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who wrote the opinion for the majority in the marriage cases, is a judicial moderate who was never considered to be an activist judge. He has an outstanding scholarly background (Princeton and Stanford) and worked as a prosecutor immediately after graduating from law school. He was appointed a Superior Court judge at the early age of 32 by Republican Governor Ronald Reagan. Though young, he quickly gained a reputation as fair‐minded, insightful, hard working and tough on crime. He was widely praised for his handling of the difficult trial of the Hillside Strangler, Angelo Buono. He rose in the ranks of judges until he was appointed to the California Supreme Court by Republican Governor Pete Wilson.

Excerpted from Morris A. Thurston,
"A Commentary on the Document 'Six Consequences...if Proposition 8 Fails' ".

The Seventh-day Adventist church's support of Prop 8 is yet another example of the church losing sight of its core mission and beliefs. I believe this is one example of how the church has prostituted itself to the structures of man and the "state".

Since when did Adventists give authority over the state to declare what is marriage and what is not? I thought it was a sacred covenant between a man, woman, church, and their God. I would argue the state has no power over Biblical marriage in the first place and Adventists should not legitimize the state's power by voting "yes".

Does the church recognize the overnight drunken marriages that take place in Vegas drive throughs as equally Biblical just because the state sanctions them? I suppose so - given the fact you don't see Adventists pushing for legislation against these marriages even though they certainly would fit the "attack on marriage" definition quoted by Prop 8's supporters.

When the Seventh-day Adventist church takes sides on issues like this it greatly disappoints me.

The news tonight featured a local Catholic priest who told his parishoners from the pulpit that he was voting No on Prop. 8, and then in an interview with a reporter, declined to state whether he was gay or not, but that he fully supported No on the proposition. When he said that, at least half of the congregation stood and applauded. More should be in the newspaper tomorrow. He knows that he may be out of a job but he said his integrity demanded he take that risk, that not living by his integrity would send him to hell.

Some might say he was damned to hell for either position.

Elaine:

Wow, that does take some courage in Fresno, or anywhere else east of Interstate 5 in CA.

Once in a while people people refer to Prop 22 here. I think that in these 10 years people have had a chance to think about things, because the opinions have really changed, even among conservatives.

Whether one thinks the California Supreme Court judges were justified or not, the polls indicate society has changed in their views of homosexuals and homosexual marriage.

-- Tim

Jared,

Thanks for your response dated Wright | 03 October 2008 at 9:09.

I believe there is a misunderstanding. I was not talking about the California Supreme Court, but rather the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Said judges carved the abortion rights out of the right to privacy. There is no such thing as a private right to destroy human beings. The framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended for anybody to stretch privacy rights to include the killing of human beings.

The right to privacy can never be superimposed over the right to life. The authority to create new laws is an exclusive prerogative of the U.S. Congress and not the Supreme Court. This means that those nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court fully deserve the label of “activist” judges, because they did usurp an authority belonging to the U.S. Congress.

Of course, I believe that what I said about the Justices of the U.S. Cupreme Court applies to the California ruling legalizing homosexual marriage as well, since the framers of the California Constitution never intended to include same-sex marriage among the right protected by the Constitution. At the time of the adoption of the California Constitution marriage was understood to be an esclusive right of heterosexuals.

Matthew,

I read your comments dated 05 October 2008 at 5:46, and I also read the reasons the Adventist Church is encouraging its members to vote yes on Proposition 8. Read the following and make up your mind. I intend to vote for the measure!

Vote YES on Prop 8 & SIGN our Petition!
Below is a ProtectMarriage.com TV ad on Prop 8
Adventists In Defense of Marriage
"If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?" Ps. 11:3

A Brief History
On March 7, 2000 millions of Californians voted for and passed Proposition 22 which read:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

This proposition was endorsed by the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee.

But then on May 15, 2008 four San Francisco judges on the California Supreme Court ignored the will of the people and overturned their vote opening the gates for same sex marriages in California.

There is still hope
Over a million Californians have signed a petition to bring marriage to a vote of the people through a state constitutional amendment called Proposition 8 which reads (just as Proposition 22):

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

An amendment to the constitution is an historic event. It is the First Amendment of the US Constitution that protects our freedom of religion. A Yes vote on Proposition 8 will continue to protect religious liberty against gay activists redefining marriage in California. Twenty-seven other states have already done this with positive results.

As Seventh-day Adventist and American citizens we strongly support a Yes vote on Proposition 8. For multiple reasons, both civil and religious, we encourage others to do the same.

(Read more)

12 Civil & Religious Reasons to Vote YES on 8!
Civil Reasons

1. Scholars recognize that marriage is the fundamental and universal human institution. To call homosexual relationships "marriage" will be to sweep aside what civilization has understood as a marriage since the dawn of history and call the history and heritage of American family a mistake.

2. Without exception, our founding fathers such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson believed certain truths are "self evident." Among those self evident truths was the belief that marriage was defined and designed by nature for one man with one woman.

3. Yes on Proposition 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that "same-sex marriage" is the same as traditional marriage.

4. Same sex couples already enjoy legal rights of domestic partnership, etc. We do not need to surrender the definition of "marriage" to vindicate these relationships. Proposition 8 does not deprive domestic partnerships of any of their rights.

5. The same arguments put forward to justify same sex marriages can logically be used to legalize polygamy and lower the age of consent.

6. Unless we vote Yes on Proposition 8 our religious liberties are at risk. To better understand the threats to religious liberty see the following articles by Alan J. Reinach, Esq.:

- The Implications of Same Sex Marriage
- http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/10/36742.html
- Why Promote Marriage?
- http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/10/36745.html
- Same Sex Marriage Challenges Religious Liberty
- http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/7/35882.html

7. The most devastating effect of same sex marriage will be the destruction of marriage and family the way we know it. Redefining marriage will cause profound confusion to our children. California marriage licenses have recently deleted the words "husband and wife" or Bride and Groom" and replaced it with "Party A & Party B." Where will it stop!?

8. The California Supreme Court's decision changing the definition of marriage is profoundly undemocratic. 61% of Californians voted to retain the definition of marriage as recently as 2000.

Religious Reasons

We should Vote Yes on Proposition 8 because we love God and our fellow man. If we love Jesus we will not vote in support of sin. Sin is what nailed Jesus to the cross. If we love our fellow man we will not cast a vote that will directly widen the road to destruction.

9. Seventh-day Adventists have always believed there is a distinction between the first four and last six of the Ten Commandments. The first four commandments are religious in nature and governments should not make laws that dictate what god to worship, or when and how to worship him. Conversely, the last six commandments are civil in nature. Adventists have always supported laws that protect parental rights, life, truth, property, and family as found on the second table of the Decalogue.

10. Marriage is one of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Click here to read belief number 23 on Marriage and the Family. Also read the official Seventh-day Adventist Church's statement on same sex unions here: Seventh-day Adventist Response to Same-Sex Unions--A Reaffirmation of Christian Marriage

11. Adventists have a prophetic calling to champion the law of God. If we fail to uphold marriage we compromise our moral authority to defend the Sabbath.

12. Ellen G. White supported voting in support of moral issues.

"How can Christian men and women tolerate this evil?… There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society. Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foundations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?" - Gospel Workers, page 387

http://www.adventistsfor8.com/Default.aspx

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

My favorite reason(ing) is this one:

"We should Vote Yes on Proposition 8 because we love God and our fellow man. If we love Jesus we will not vote in support of sin. Sin is what nailed Jesus to the cross. If we love our fellow man we will not cast a vote that will directly widen the road to destruction."

I'd love to see their sinless voting record from say 2000-today.

Why don't these sinless syllogists put together a whole voting guide to sinlessness on the ballot. I wonder how this political philosophy translated in 2006 on Prop. 86. Did they vote to raise taxes on cigarettes?

Nic Samojluk, I enjoy reading your posts (even though I end up disagreeing with you on pretty much everything.) You do seem to believe what you write, and that is good for starting discussions, which is super-duper keen. Anyway, a response to your last post with the points from the Adventists for 8 website. I've kept the numbering for the points the same--pardon my not quoting the text of each point (my response is already long as it is.) In the interest of full disclosure, I plan on following my conscience and reason by voting No on Prop 8. Supporters of the measure are welcome to try to convert me. Or just call me a heretic. It's all good.

1. Who exactly are these “scholars” and what exactly are they saying regarding marriage? There are scholars who deny the Holocaust ever happened, believe aliens regularly visit Earth, and decry the lunar landing as a sham. Of course, there are MANY scholars who believe that the earth is around 4 billion years old and life evolved from protein scum, and I’m assuming the website is not suggesting that Adventists take their cues on truth from any of THEM. So a “scholar” could be an honest, intelligent researcher or a wingnut with an internet connection. Without knowing exactly what scholarly arguments the Yes on 8 website has in mind, this appeal to scholarly opinion rings pretty hollow. As for the second part, that’s one way to look at things, but it seems a pretty big jump from “Gay marriage should be recognized as a legitimate legal entity” to “The history and heritage of the American family is a mistake.” Some might be making such statements, but I’d guess that most of the No on 8 crowd (There’s at least one!) would find such talk to be pretty outrageous and irresponsible.

2. I’d be interested to see specific statements from the Founding Fathers on marriage, especially any statements explicitly condemning gay marriage in favor of “traditional” marriage. I’m not aware of any, but I’m a bumbling lummox hiding behind an Internet name. Without any documentation or citation, it sounds as though the truths referenced by the Yes on 8 site are indeed “self-evident,” but only to them. Further, the FF had some really good ideas, but on other topics they didn’t know their ankles from their elbows (support of slavery, denying women the right to vote are two off the top of my head.)

3. Would children really be likely to encounter such teachings or is this a possibility being presented as some kind of inexorable bulldozing certainty? Even if such a teaching should occur, public schools teach all sorts of things that traditional SDAs would not endorse (evolution, some forms of sex ed) so I’m not sure how this is such a huge deal. Adventist/Christian/uncomfortable-with-gay-marriage parents who send their kids to public schools could simply address gay marriage in the same way they do other problematic issues—by discussing with their kids what “we” believe and why. At least that’s what I would recommend. Actually, as someone with close ties to Adventist education, I’d recommend that they SEND THEIR KIDS TO CHURCH SCHOOL! Give your church school teachers some love! I kid, I kid (mostly)—lots of good folks in public schools too.

4. This is probably true, and the best argument I see on the Yes on 8 page. I do wonder whether “domestic partnerships” are in fact totally equal under the law (I really don’t know, so that’s all I will say on that.) I do find the language of “surrendering” puzzling, as if heterosexuals somehow “own” marriage and YOU GAYS CAN’T HAVE IT! Perhaps we need to listen to what we teach our kids, (in Sabbath School even!) be willing to play nice, and share. Simplistic, yes, I know, and probably not entirely helpful either. But in many ways I think the simple things I learned in Sabbath School are good.

5. It’s possible that some arguments could in fact spill over (I wanna marry my goat! My rights uber alles!!) but some of the more responsible arguments supporting gay marriage hardly seem supportive of more extreme constructions of “marriage.” For example, “Two consenting adults should have the right to marry” excludes both polygamy and marrying 7-year-olds. Contemporary American society has really good reasons not to allow an adult to marry a kid—this society has determined that sexual activity is really harmful to kids, and on that basis restrict the “rights” of adults to marry/have sex with children. Not sure that gay marriage has anything to do with such an argument, but I could be wrong.

6. Elsewhere on this site, some really smart and devoted people have placed links to article(s) that do a pretty good job (in my opinion) of debunking the points made in the Recorder articles. There’s one right here, assuming I didn’t screw up the link: http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/10/05/response_church_state_counci... As for my opinion on the articles themselves, Reinach suffers from the same problems as the talking points on the Yes on 8 site—he doesn’t provide references for the cases he cites (the wedding photographer who got sued) or leaves out really important information (the Boston Catholic Charities case over gay adoption.)

7. I could be completely out to lunch, but this just sounds like Chicken Little, slippery-slope, worst-case-scenario prognosticating. Ending with “Where will it stop?” leaves the point wide open to any interpretation. “It will end with society unwinding.” “It will end with the sun going supernova in ten days.” “It will end up in a perfect utopia where all men and women enjoy equality under the law.” All possible answers to the question. The issue could end very, very badly for this state. It could also end very well. One’s own biases determine how one perceives the vote, so this point essentially comes down to “We think gay marriage is bad.” Fine as a statement or assertion, almost meaningless as an “argument” or “evidence.”

8. Just to show I’m not hating on the Founding Fathers from point #2: Sometimes, the American voting public gets things very right. Sometimes, the American voting public wouldn’t know “right” if it kicked them in the face. If I remember correctly, at various points in the past, the public wasn’t too keen on African-American’s rights, Japanese-American’s rights, women’s rights—in fact, they’ve been wrong on a lot of issues relating to “rights.” I can at least understand the argument that CA voters got the “rights” question wrong AGAIN in 2000, and if that is true, then the court was correct to reverse the measure.

Just some thoughts from a fellow Adventist who really, really hopes the right thing ends up happening this November, whatever that is. Thanks to Nic for your post and to the Spectrum workers for providing this site. Sorry I don't have time to post a response to the religious reasonings--I have a book to read for class and it's been shouting READ ME! for the last hour.

"our founding fathers such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson believed certain truths are "self evident."

They also believed that slaves had no rights, including voting; nor that women had rights that we embrace today. Social conditions have changed since then, and they are changing at a much more rapid pace today as the people of California a few years ago indicated a majority against same-sex marriage; while today, polls show that a majority are favoring such marriages.

Perhaps the realization that more people have known friends, relatives, and business acquaintances that are gay and that they are not wearing horns, practicing predatory behavior on anyone, paying taxes; IOW, living their lives no differently than heterosexuals except in the privacy of their own homes. Refusing them the benefits of marriage, which are multiple, is essentially declaring them an inferior class simply because they are not in the majority. Our Consitution is the last governmental protection of minorities. When that ceases, those who have been so concerned about future laws that would some day rule against religious minorities, should be in the forefront of speaking for minorities, even those with whom they disagree. We are only as safe as we are willing to protect those citizens who disagree with us. If we only side with those who agree with us, who will then protect us? We must depend on the majority to make our existence safe.

Hi K2,

There are a few ways that Domestic Partnerships are not equal under the law.

1. They are not portable. A domestic partnership is specific to a state. When you move, you have to re-establish a new domestic partnership if they are legal in the other state. Marriages are automatically portable even internationally.

2. Domestic partnerships have absolutely no meaning under federal law. It is estimated there are over a thousand rights for married couples under federal law that will never be available to my partner and myself no matter how committed we are and how many years we are together (6 years and counting).

Here are some real examples; My employer offers medical insurance coverage for my domestic partner, which is fantastic. But, we were required to prove that we had lived together for at least two years, by showing coverage under the same automobile insurance or having our names on the same rental agreement or mortgage. We were required to show that we both contribute to our mutual support by providing rent checks or mortgage payments in both our names. After all that, I am taxed on the value of her medical insurance as income on federal income taxes. All a married couple would have to do is state that they were married and no proof would be required and the value of the insurance for the non-employee spouse is not taxed as federal income.

My partner and I applied to rent our current apartment. We were required to pay for two application fees where as a married couple would have paid one. This is in Washington State where recently sweeping domestic partnership laws were signed into law. I checked on the legality of this double fee and found it was legal.

Same gender couples with children face even more hurdles and pains because they can't get married.

You may have noticed that I use terms such as "same gender marriage" or "same gendered couples". This is because same sex marriage is already legal and practiced in this country and throughout the world. Transsexual people who have taken the required steps to legally changed their ID's are able to get married to someone of the same sex as long as their gender expression is opposite (same sex, opposite gender). Furthermore, if a married person transitions to another gender, their marriage is not automatically illegal, so there are a married people of the opposite sex but same gender. Thousands upon thousands of intersexed people are married to someone of the same sex, legally. Their gender expre