Thanks a bundle to Julius Nam, Jared Wright, Alexander Carpenter and all the others for getting this movement up and running. Sorry I don't know everyone involved--I know I left out a LOT of folks who deserve an equal amount of gratitude. I know y'all have devoted a lot of time and energy to this and it is good to see your efforts being rewarded. There are many, many devout Adventists who, for a variety of reasons, oppose Prop 8. As one of those, THANK YOU all for giving us a forum and helping us get our voices heard.

Also major props to President Ricardo Graham for his gracious response. It won't likely satisfy either side completely, but I felt he showed a great deal of respect to both sides of the issue. I am challenged to exhibit the same commitment to Christian fellowship and grace. Thanks, Elder Graham!

Thank you, K2, for the thoughtful and high-minded feedback. A breath of fresh air in this emotionally charged conversation.

One thing that people who appreciate this ongoing conversation can do is invite more people to join the dialog. The Adventist Church is ultimately best served where issues like Proposition 8 can be discussed in safe, open environments--environments in which tough questions are not taboo, environments in which honesty is expected, and environments in which no view is stupid or in-valid.

I invite everyone to spend some time looking at both sides of the issue and to be well-informed. Sometimes even "official" statments are incomplete, not telling the whole story.

I also invite everyone to tell someone else. Pass the word along.

And thanks!

In addition to a former California Superior Court Judge and the former Associate Director of Religious Liberty for the General Conference, to date over 25 pastors have also signed the petition.

Yes, pass the link along.

http://adventistsagainstprop8.org

Alex

I am a long way from the debate. But as I understand it. Prop 8 is a referendom on the California ballot to over turn the Supreme Courts ruling on same sex marriage. The Seventh-day Adventist Church seems to believe that Prop. 8 is an enchroachment on religious liberty. Yet they are also against same sex marriage. If that is true I can not see how the church has a dog in this fight. Therefore, Elder Graham may have signalled a very wise --take it easy boys and girls.

This is not a church matter as much as an individual judgement matter.

Let the state be the state and let the church be the church
and let the voter make up his/her own mind.

From the viewpoint of Spectrum's leadership--the consensus seems to be in favor of both same sex marraige and same sex church membership. The official church position differs. I am right or wrong on the above assumptins. Tom

And for those who do the MySpace thing, Adventists Against Prop 8 is also on MySpace!

Become a friend today.

Jared

What does a friend mean? To vote your way? To vote your beliefs? Can't friends disagree and still be friends? Even Christians? I am not a registered voter in California. I don't believe in gay marraige. I do believe in civil unions, because of properties rights only.

In the civil world there is a difference between crime and sin no matter how one defines either. One is primarily against society and the other primarily against God. Of course to offend a brother in God's sight is also an afront against God.

But I have a great difficulty understanding the posture of Spectrum on this issue. The web-site promotes gay membership into the church and promotes a multi-authored book on the subject. Now it wants to surpress the prescribed democratic process of Califorina on imagined Religious Liberty grounds.

When at the same time denying both Old and New Testament arguments against same sex activities.

What a farce, Support for Des Ford and concommitant support of the Investigative Judgement-support for a gay life style and a defense of E.G. White and Paul.

I guess it is correct that consistency is the hobgolins of little minds.

For the record: I am against gay marriage, I am for civil unions for property rights only. I do not believe in an Oct 22, 1844 Investigative Judgement. I don't believe that E.G.White was a prophet in the mantel of Isaiah et al, I do believe in Paul as an apostle born out of time. I don't believe that Prop. 8 is a direct or indirect challenge to Religious liberty. I do believe that Spectrum has allowed itself to be used to challenge the status quo regardless of the evidence of history or scholarship. Rather than an avenue to discussion and debate it has taken a direct advocacy role--I say this all as a friend today and tomorrow and forever. Tom

I am really impressed with the courage of the pastors, college professors, and others in church employ who have shown the strength of their convictions by signing this petition.

Tom,

I am blown away by the amount of ground you covered in that last comment!

Just so you're aware of what I had in mind, on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, I add friends to my list so that their pictures appear on profile, and my picture appears on theirs. Then we're friends on MySpace. Or Facebook or Hi5 or Jaxter or any one of a number of social networking sites.

So when I invited people to become a friend today, that's all that the invitation implied.

Sorry Jared

You differ from the norm. I should have know. The typical friend/enemy dichotomy within Adventism has been to utterly destroy any who disagree. It traces back to Canwright runs through M.L. Andreasen, Southern Missionary Faculty and others not nationally known.

I believe people can be friends and not agree on every point or issue. A story:

We hired a PhD fromm U. Of Michigan. I was from Illinois.
He had a strong background in literature and in Statistics.
I would draft and paper and have him read it and red pencil it. I would take the paper back and do a re-write and again return for his appraisal. This might occur 3-5 before I would submitt for publication. We became fast friends. At my retirement, he got me in a corner and said: "Tom you are quite a guy. When I first red penciled your paper, I thought that will be the last I will see of him! But no you kept coming back. Most people just can't take negative feedback. I, of couase, thanked him and said: "If I published a paper, a lot of people who are not necessarily my friends will read it. I want it as right as I can get it before, I send it to a publisher. and before hundreds of people read it."

Jareb, I thought you were separating Sheep from Goats in your reference to "Friend". M. L. Andreasen was a friend of mine although we disagreed on a Final Generation. The faculty at SMC were friends of mine although we were not congrunent.

A dean would ask his faculty a question, several times I gave an answeer he didn't like. He would said: "I didn't have to ask you Tom. I would reply: "But you did, I can't sit here and try and guess what you want me to say. I can only give you the best answer I have on the topic." You are still dean, you can accept or reject my advice and I will still respect your right to decide. I think that is what friends are for--to give the best counsel they can--agreement is not essential to true friendship. Tom

I think we have a bunch of sickos in the church including some pastors. This is not a religious liberty issue. I have some gay friends and even a relative, but I cant buy into this gay marriage crap period!!

Tom,

I probably should apologize for not having fully thought through the ways that my invitation to be friends might be taken. Particularly with the Church's history of friendships forming and ending over issues like this one.

I want to be quite clear in my affirmation that wherever people come out on this issue, it is certainly not something that should pit brother against brother along ideological divides!

Which then brings me to Lance's comment above. Lance, you're certainly welcome to voice your position on this matter. However, there are probably more constructive ways of voicing opposition to an idea than writing people off as "sickos" or calling it "crap", wouldn't you say?

If you have taken a minute or two in scanning the list of names that is already approaching 500 who have signed, you will have noticed that the list is a veritable cross-section of the church. There are administrators, presidents, pastors, lay people, professionals, home makers...

It is not really fair or even possible to label such a diverse crowd as being comprised of "sickos" simply because they have arrived at a position different from your own.

Nobody is asking you to buy into anything. In fact if you were to ask all the people who have signed the petition, you would discover that there are plenty of people who find same-gender marriage to be against their personal values. And yet those same people, many of them, have signed because they recognize that it is simply immoral to foist one's personal religious beliefs upon a population, especially by means of the law, and especially when it means eliminating a constitutional right!

It is absolutely unprecedented that the Seventh-day Adventist Church would stand for eliminating Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties of minorities! Historically, just the opposite has been our stance.

It is absolutely unprecedented that the Seventh-day Adventist Church would stand for eliminating Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties of minorities! Historically, just the opposite has been our stance.

Posted by: Jared Wright | 03 October 2008 at 12:38

As each new arguement of Moral relativism is refuted a new one is put forward.
The current one features the latest thinking in moral equivalence.

I just read the Church State Council's rebuttal at http://www.churchstate.org - apparently they think this has challenged their authority to tell you how to vote. Now it's on!

Yes, it is.

Just as more and more Christian conservatives are rejecting the politicization of their faith, it's sad to see our religious liberty employee at the Union parroting AM radio rhetoric about those scary gays!

We'll be posting a reply to his troubling arguments - keep an eye out for that this weekend.

http://adventistsagainstprop8.org

I guess those who take the word marriage as a divinely defined word would take exception to the Calif. Supreme Courts decision. I am one of those. With that given, I don't believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church should counsel its members other than to use their best judgement in the matter. The President of the Pacific Union did just that.

A very wise move, in my judgment. If the proposition wins, the religious right will take the credit and begin to use its power in other venues. Therefore, I think it unwise to form a league with such a group, no matter the issue. There is absolutely nothing democratic about the religious right. Just go back and read the history of the Mather's. Thanks God for Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Ben Rush, James Monroe, and James Madison. If you enjoy chills up and down your spine, read the original constitutions of the thirteen colonies--Cornell University Law School is an excellent resource. Tom

Californians are predicted to vote against Prop. 8. The Constitution is designed to protect the minority; which is why it is so necessary. Had we relied on the majority, we would still have slavery, inability of the blacks and women to vote, or the intrusion into people's most private areas of their lives.

One thing we can be assured: for those who are adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, it will have absolutely no affect on their marriages, future marriages, or their families. The only thing it requires of all is that we learn to be tolerant of people with different opinions and lifestyles, which is something we should have developed over the years of life.

To fight for retaining "tradition," if used as a general theme, how far would it go? Tradition once demanded that women stay in the home and kitchen; that they could not study, especially in professional graduate schools as their fragile and delicate temperament would not allow it. Within the lifetimes of some of us here, that has completely shown to be untrue as women have advanced so much so that they are now attending in even college and graduating in even larger numbers than men.

Tradition is not something that should be either worshiped or preserved without good reason. There is no good reason for not allowing equal marriage rights to an individual regardless of who is chosen. We do not object to marriage simply because we do not approve of choices made.
What about equal rights and free expression of them is not understood?

Tom and Elaine,

Good points! Both of you.

Michael,

I guess I'm just not following along. What refutation are you suggesting?

While we're on the topic of refutation, and Justin, since you mention the latest attempt to discredit AAP8 and throw down the "authority" trump card, I invite everyone to have a look at this web page. It is a point by point analysis and refutation of each of the talking points that the Church State Council borrowed for the Recorder article.

It seems evident that the CSC is willing to try to use the auspices of the Adventist Church as a source of authority for its misinformation campaign. But solid, reasoned arguments are in no short supply.

Regarding the Church State Council (CSC): Is there really a council, or is this only Alan Reinach? I looked on the web site and couldn't find other names listed.

Regarding their initial statement about Prop 8 on the CSC website:

The author of the article was not fully forthcoming about Boston Catholic Charities. It is far more complicated a story than poor little catholic do-gooders who get shut down by godless government thugs. There are at least a few additional factors to consider:

First, Boston Catholic Charities _did_ process adoptions to at least thirteen homosexual couples until the Vatican shut that down.

Second, when the Boston Office of Catholic Charities asked the Commonwealth of Massachussets for an exemption from state policy, eight members of the BCC board resigned in protest because the board had overwhelmingly voted to continue placing children with same sex couples against the wishes of the Vatican.

Third, United Way, one of the major contributors to BCC, was looking into cutting off their funding as well.

And here's the clincher: According to Catholic World News (3/10/2006), "Boston Catholic Charities has an annual budget of over $40 million, with most of the money coming from government programs."

Thus, they counted the cost. It was far better to shut down the adoption program than jeopardize the $40 million for other programs.

CSC must know this, but it apparently didn't want the faithful to know. The issue in Boston was not that BCC was being forced to adopt children out to gay households. It is that religious organizations cannot accept government money then circumvent the civil law. I am dumbfounded that our religious liberty spokespersons would take up the cause against the government who is upholding the establishment clause!

In the second statement issued by CSC the general argument is made, "The amendment is neither expressly religious, nor favors a specific religion, and defines marriage as heterosexual in nature. Heterosexuality is not exclusively the domain of religion just as homosexuality is viewed from both religious and secular perspectives. The amendment does not reflect religious ideas such as sacrament, sacredness, divine origination, or the necessity of being subject to divine authority."

OK, then, accepting that logic, in transparent honesty, why should it matter to the church which way this vote goes? How can one argue in the first part of the statement that the position we are taking is in harmony with church teaching, then say in the second half that it does not reflect religious ideas?

The second statement also justifies the actions of CSC by maintaining that we have a prophetic call to uphold the ten commandments. However, in another article they argue against putting those commandments in a courtroom. In addition, if all of our actions are based justified based on our beliefs in the ten commandments, does that mean we will only defend people with Saturday conflicts, and no longer all people with day of worship conflicts?

It's a sad reach. It feels to me like homophobia has clouded all the sound and consistent judgment we have built on for decades.

I do want to affirm that I agree with CSC that the church faces a difficult future in this matter, though for entirely different reasons than it appeals to:

The state and church disagree about whether homosexual practice is a moral issue or not, and whether homosexual identity is more like race (a non-threat to society) or robbery (a threat to society.). This is not some irrelevant theoretical issue, because lawsuits almost certainly loom about the employment practices of the church unless the government gives the church a pass to discriminate. I am sympathetic to the plight of CSC because I think many/most church members have such a distaste for homosexuality that they would endorse the church continuing to discriminate for religious reasons. They sincerely and honestly believe God wants them to do so. So I will pray for CSC to discern and utilize the best, most consistent arguments to Caesar; while I pray that the Holy Spirit will help the church to understand homosexuality for what it truly is, rather than what we might think it is.

Thanks for a very enlightening comment, Tim. I did a little more digging about the Boston charities example that gets thrown about, and you're absolutely right that it is far, far more complex than the prop 8 proponents want people to know. The charity was essentially acting as a government agency and accepting huge sums of money for doing so--of course they ran into trouble!

You're right that this is going to be a sensitive issue in the future, so there is a legitimate worry, but the way that the Church State Council (or it does seem like it's just Alan's personal program that for some reason is given such a big platform) seems totally anathema to what most Adventists likely assume this office should be about (and don't our tithe dollars support it?).

I heading over to sign the adventistsagainstprop8 petition now.

If you've not already done so, go to your NetFlix account and view "For the Bible Tells Me So" before November 4.

Tim, I applaud your careful analysis and clear articulation.

It should be understood that any religious, charitable, educational, or philanthropic organization that receives government money to fund its projects and goals, that it cannot discriminate, period!

Those SDA institutions: educational, hospital and health care facilities, all receive huge amounts of government money and by law they cannot discriminate.

Pastors and clergy are not government supported; however all the employees of the educational institutions receiving government support could be at risk for discriminating, and perhaps they should be if it could be proved.

Hi Richard!

It's good to see your byline again!!

Everyone:

Here are some more random thougts from me:

1. As far as I can tell, homosexuals are less of a threat to heterosexuals than heterosexuals are to homosexuals. Straight men frequently assualt and sometimes even kill gay men. If the reverse also happens, I have yet to hear about it.

2. I'm not certain what a "gay right" right is. Heterosexual people have basic rights and homosexual people have basic rights and increasingly in California they are the same.

I think that this is a good thing. But I gather that those who sponsor AFP8 don't.

If I am correct about this, if they are against straight and gay people having the same basic rights, as I think they are, our differences are deeper than merely how we use the word "marriage."

3. Let's keep in mind that how we use the word "marriage" is what this debate is all about. The point of the California Supreme Court was that when it comes to forming such unions the basic rights of homosexuals and the basic rights of heterosexuals are already so similar in this state that insisting upon using different terms for them is no longer possible to justify.

4. Issues regarding the separation of powers are the most interesting to me in this debate. The California Supreme Court explicitly states that when it comes to basic human rights it has the last word, not the legislative and executive branches of government, and certainly not ballot initiatives in the population as a whole. This is a fascinating debate in legal theory that the United States Supreme Court might have to take up.

5. Words do matter and this is why I intend to vote against Proposition 8. But there are other issues that are also important: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our global financial precariousness, ecological pollution and destruction, the inefficient and inequitable distribution of health care in the United States, widespread starvation in too many parts of the world, growing unemployment and the recent uprising in "human trafficking, or what we used to call "slavery." Let's not turn this into a single issue election!

6. The President of the Pacific Union Conference deserves our gratitude for encouraging all of us to consider Proposition 8 very carefully and then to vote in harmony with our consciences.

Many thanks!

Dave

Hi Dave,

I would be more thankful if other leaders in the PUC would take the same philosophy . Alan Reinach's writings on Prop 8 for the Pacific Union Recorder are nothing short of histrionics. They contain one overwrought false claim after another. In contrast to some in leadership who encourage care and thought when considering GLBT issues, he mocks civil rights by puting “equality rights” or “equality” in quotes. As we know, putting something in quotes, when it isn't a quotation is a favorite method of negating the term as you would by writing "so called equality rights".

As you pointed out. GLBT people want the same rights as straight people and mocking the meaning of these rights for some, undermines the rights for all.

The Church State Council submitted the following summary conclusion: "To state that we cannot advocate in favor of Prop 8 while AAP8 is free to advocate against it, constitutes a double standard that not only is unfair but is also undemocratic in nature."

As an Adventist and a citizen of another country, I'm not sure if what happens in California stays in California. What that means, to me at least, is it's wrong to advocate for or against Prop 8 with the Adventist label.

IMO, the California Supreme Court seems to have submitted a valid point that labels matter. In the eyes of the law, a civil union or domestic partnership is still not the same as marriage in this country. Here's why:

"The federal Office of General Accounting has identified more than 1,100 rights and benefits that are available only to married people.... While they're [same sex couples may be] registered as domestic partners in the state of California, the minute they set foot outside of this state, they'll be treated as legal strangers. Other states don't have any clear obligation to recognize California domestic partnerships, and most of them have absolutely no idea what that is."

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=138

Further,

"Unlike traditional marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships are invalid outside the state in which they are granted – except in states that expressly accept them -- and do not provide any federal marriage benefits. Federal protections conferred by marriage include 1,138 laws and policies, such as Social Security, family medical leave, federal taxation and immigration policy."

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=310206

About the Boston Catholic Charities’ experience of having to shut down their adoption program or else.... This to me is instructive in regards to how much freedom is available to religious groups when their belifs conflict with state laws. It's all or nothing, so it seems.

Lastly, in regards to race in comparison to gender identity, let me repeat what I've already submitted in another thread: as with gender identity so with race. Both are constructions of social reality. They are the result of a societal labelling process, also known as stereotyping, that is not harmless.

I suspect that much of the energy within the church around Prop 8 is that it may expose the Achilles Heal of biblical literalism. It will force people to ask, “Who knows the most about the nature of sexual orientation? Is it Moses and Paul, or is it the accumulation of scientific inquiry and the candid testimony of homosexuals?” If Moses and Paul saw it as a “sin,” then it has to do with choices and must be repented of. If it’s something more innate to the human condition (even as a heterosexual orientation is to many), then it can’t be called a “sin.” If Moses and Paul were limited by the prejudices of their time and can’t be trusted to speak “truth” on all matters for all times, then might the whole house of cards come down?

I’m also reminded of the pithy axiom: “You know that you have succeeded in creating god in your own image when it turns out that he hates all the same people you do.” How I wish people could catch themselves in the act of invoking god in favor of their own disdain for persons other than themselves.

I’m personally impressed and encouraged by the quality of thought expressed by many in this thread. In Adam Gopnik’s excellent overview of John Stuart Mill’s life in the recent New Yorker, he notes Mill’s belief that “a child becomes humanly intelligent the moment it realizes that there are other minds just like its own, working in the same way on the material available to them.” In that vein, may we continue to appreciate the distinction between our minds and the divine mind!

Jeannieb43

I too am thrilled to see Dick Winn posting here. I love your writings, Dick!

But the thing which bugs me about PARL leader Alan Reinach writing this advocacy piece in favor of Proposition 8 is that, IMHO: We should NOT be advocating for ANY political issue -- period!! A few years ago this type of thing was never done! Then the radical right has made religion/politics such a common mix that now even ADVENTISTS are getting into the same mishmash. I can hardly believe my ears [eyes].

This advocating publicly on behalf of a disputed political position on an issue which really doesn't impact the Adventist church in any way, just turns me off!

All of his allegations are false, or are based on false assumptions. --Sensationalism at its peak.

(And to think, my tithe dollars are paying his salary!)

Joselito, I wanted to address a few things in your last post. In my mind, there's a big difference between an official arm of the Seventh-day Adventist Church taking an official stance on a proposition and a group of individual Adventists who take a position (not the least of which is that one is funded by tithe dollars).

Also, you note that the Boston Catholic Charities represent "how much freedom is available to religious groups when their belifs conflict with state laws. It's all or nothing, so it seems." Again, let me point out that this case is hardly cut and dried. For one thing, BCC is still operational. For another, the big problem with BCC is that they were taking almost $40 million dollars from the state to place children that the state was involved with, essentially acting as a state agency. Did you get a chance to read that article that Jared posted earlier? A Mormon lawyer goes through all of the common fears/rumors about the "consequences" if Prop 8 doesn't pass and gives the bigger case history (http://www.affirmation.org/pdf/2008_09_18_thurston.pdf). It's very helpful, especially on this case.

As that document notes, Mormon adoption agencies in MA have had no trouble at all continuing to place children according to their beliefs and principles, but BCC ran into trouble because it was acting as a state agency and taking state funds.

Look at the list of signers-- liberal SDA's, ,many of which are "pastors" "profs" and other BS artists! I was fed this type of "progressive" garbage when I was at LLU. The definition of marriage has nothing to do with SDA's or even christians--it's been the same down through history, even in pagan cultures. These liberal assholes should be flushed down the toilet along with Gavin Newsome! "Whether you like it or not!"

You know, after reading Stone's comment above, my first inclination was that it simply out to be removed from the discussion - deleted for blatant disregard of Spectrum's guidelines for posting.

On second thought, however, I considered the place of such comments in this conversation. They do serve a purpose, though I'm sure it is not the purpose intended by Stone. Rather, comments like that demonstrate the results of passion overruling principle.

The Adventists Against Prop 8 petition has recently received a barrage of angry spam (which have been deleted already) laced with Bible texts like this one:

945 1 Cor 6:9-10 Do your homework, Dumbass

I wonder what such comments are supposed to accomplish. Is that going to change anyone's mind? Is that tactic persuasive to people?

The use of vulgar and/or profane language does nothing to advance a discussion. It only demonstrates the lack of self control and the limited verbal skills of the writer.

Yet I find much more Greek philosophy in the discussion than Bebrew/Christian moral thought.

We are less than a week away from the vote. We will see if the political process can resolve the issue. I for one don't believe it will. The drive for acceptance is exeedingly strong in the gay community. Tolerance is not enough.

Why they insist on acceptance by those who find their lifestyle disgusting is beyond me. Civility, of course, endorsing out of the question. Tom