Best advice when reading church diatribes to take a spoonful of salt--there is more sincerity than honesty. Running roughshod over the 9th commandment is simply to be overlooked.

Like the old adage of one of the three sayings you should never trust:

"Your check is in the mail."

"Sure, honey, I'll marry you in the morning."

"We're from the government (church) here to help you (understand things better--not!)"

Your first quote here,
"time and resources are being wasted on sexual issues that do not threaten Adventist rights to practice our faith."

would make more sense if you didnt contradict it here.

"...in one case, ruled on in January, the California State court found in favor of a Lutheran High School to expel two lesbian students based on the denomination's beliefs."

If your arguements held water, a person wouldnt have to go to court to get relief from something if they already had it.

If your worried about their resources you could always foot the bill on these lawsuits.

Maybe it is just me but I do not see a contradiction here. The CSC admits that they have stayed on the sidelines so long as churches were not impacted negatively. When the legislature tried to impose its will on churches, the CSC stood up against them.

I should note that it appears that Adventist institutions in California now pay benefits to domestic partnerships just like to marriaged people. It appears that they lost this battle and this may be why it is so important now as we go forward.

Buddy, do you have some evidence for that? And if domestic partners are now getting married, how does that change what already exists from the Adventist end?

Michael, you seem to be treating cases as an evil in themselves, but as you'll note from the entire "fact-check" document or even a review of the most pro-Prop. 8 sites, there have only been a handful of cases, which really aren't that much in the legal context.

Using your logic here, we shouldn't have supported equal pay legislation or sexual harassment laws because of the cost to seek justice.

I have been following the church state activities in the PUC and NPUC for some time now. Alan Reinarch and Greg Hamilton are the respective Religious Freedom heads. Each of them have been ratcheting up the language in their news releases and action alerts on marriage rights and GLBT rights.

I have, in the past, corresponded with both of them. They both made widely inaccurate assumptions about my life, negatively characterizing my lifestyle and the poor condition of my spiritual life without knowing anything about me except I am an SDA GBLT person with a domestic partner. These kinds of assumptions are called prejudice and bigotry.

The proof is in the pudding.

Michael, I know in another thread you've declined to identify yourself but said you are connected to highly ranked Adventist officials. Perhaps that's why you seem to immediately defend anything the official church hierarchy promotes. (And, I'd argue that it seems increasingly clear that the CSC might be essentially a mouthpiece for Alan Reinach and not necessarily the whole office much less Union.)

In response to Alex pointing out that one of the cases that Alan Reinach frequently cites was actually already ruled upon in favor of the religious institution (in this case a Lutheran school), you said: "If your arguements held water, a person wouldnt have to go to court to get relief from something if they already had it."

This seemingly indicates a very shallow understanding of how our legal system works. Everything gets tested in the courts, and then precedents get followed. Now that the courts have ruled this way, we can not only expect similar results from other cases, but we can expect that far fewer potential cases will ever even be attempted, as lawyers will know there's not a potential win.

What this case shows is that, despite challenges, our legal system is working in this matter. Private church institutions are maintaining their right to admit students based on their religious beliefs and values.

Buddy:
The government has the right to "interfere" in Adventist institutions when those institutions have accepted government funds. That's where the rub is.

Carlitas:
I wrote to them both as a mother, and never even received the courtesy of a reply. I guess I would call that discourteous and unresponsive.

The SDA insitution at which I work employs 13,000 people.

I doubt that all of them adhere to all of our denomination's doctrines and conform to all of its lifestyle expectations.

To "enforce the rules" regarding men and women in committed homosexual relationships and not to do so for heterosexual fornicators, sabbath breakers, wine drinkers, adulterers and take-the-Lord's name-in-vain speakers strikes many of us as unfair.

Also, from the point of view of Christian ethics, which is worse: a mutually loving, sexually exclusive and permanent homosexual realtionship or heterosexual fornication?

Which is more common in our instituions? A pinch of reality is often helpful in cases like this.

The easiest way to deal with these matters is to take sex out of the equation by allowing each employee to name, in addition to his or her children, one other adult on the group insurance plan with its reduced premiums.

This could be a spouse. But it could also be a grandparent, cousin, sibling or friend.

If this won't work, something else will.

In other words, if our goal is to treat others as we wish to be treated, if we want our institutional policies to reflect that we are disciples of Jesus, we will find some way to be faithful to our heritge and also helpful to others.

The other alternative is to keep on frightening people without cause. My understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus is that this is not what he would have us do.

I like your solution, Dave. Why don't you run for office?

This seemingly indicates a very shallow understanding of how our legal system works. Everything gets tested in the courts, and then precedents get followed.

Posted by: Stephanie (not verified) | 09 October 2008 at 10:12

Stephanie,
Having a precident case on the books is not the same as not being sued over it. DO you understand the difference?

Alex was lamenting the time and money used in areas he didnt think worthy.
The fact is they spent a pile of money to prevail.

Someone said it better than I can -- "The issue of government intervention on this issue is not limited to the Biblical aspect as it seems some here try to make it. This is primarily a societal concern, not a Biblical one. Governments are elected for the very purpose of ensuring that society is run in as healthy a manner as possible.

The fact that they have failed miserably in many aspects does not in any way translate to them not interceding when it is logically necessary. Just because they all too often make wrong decisions doesn't mean they should then stop making decisions altogether. I am stunned that some don't seem to see that this is where their reasoning goes.

Same-sex marriage cheapens the very concept of marriage and family itself which is the foundation stone of any healthy society. Just because many marriages don't live up to the ideal is no reason to further cheapen the institution itself and I am absolutely amazed when I hear that argument being used as though it is legitimate.

Governments exist to protect the citizens over whom they govern. This should always begin with those who are the least able to protect themselves: our children. Same-sex marriage goes beyond a simple argument about "loving" relationships being recognized, it is a political agenda designed to FORCE something utterly unnatural to be accepted THROUGH LEGISLATION! It is NOT just about being legally recognized or having it called a civil union would be good enough. This is also about having the right to adopt children as well as a whole host of other issues and it is primarily POLITICAL!

This whole thing is a social engineering experiment in which we and our children are the guinea pigs and there comes a point where we have to draw the line. NAMBLA is using the same arguments that same-sex proponents used. Do we want to go down that road too? Where does it end? I say it needs to end with protecting heterosexual marriage and upholding it as the ideal despite the fact that we have couples who don't live up to the ideal.

I would laugh at the argument that "you can't legislate morality" if those who make it weren't serious. So you can't can't legislate morality but you CAN legislate acceptance? Can you not see how ridiculous that is? I would also argue that most laws we have do indeed legislate morality in one way or another, it just depends on whose morality you are considering.

The government has an obligation to do what it can to ensure we have a healthy, well-functioning society and heterosexual marriage is one of the single most important things that can be done in this regard. This has been shown in study after study to be the case (as if we needed studies to prove the obvious!). Protecting marriage should be the first step. Strengthening the marriage covenant should be the next. Eliminating no-fault divorce would be a good start. How much might the divorce rate go down, and countless broken homes prevented, if you actually had to present a compelling reason for divorce and one or the other partner had to be demonstrated to be at fault for the marriage crumbling?

This argument about not having the government involved because it is a primarily religious issue is illegitimate in my opinion. This is primarily a SOCIETAL issue and that is where the government DOES exist to intervene."

The CSC states:

"It is ironic that in the name of human rights and equality, the bill tramples on rights of conscience and belief. Christian businesspersons and social service providers, as well as religious institutions, will be coerced into violating sincerely held religious beliefs."

This language makes it sound as if the government is threatening to force all citizens to enter into homosexual relationships. In fact, the situation that the CSC is anticipating is one in which they might - and whether or not this would happen is itself a point of contention - be obliged to refrain from imposing their own beliefs on others.

One example I have seen cited elsewhere is that Adventist colleges might not be able to punish 'sexual misconduct' in cases where the offenders are homosexual. In this dreadful situation the administration might be forced to leave students' private sexual activity private. That might not be such a bad thing - even for heterosexuals. It would also in no way coerce administrators into violating their beliefs in their own personal lives and behavior.

"Governments exist to protect the citizens over whom they govern. This should always begin with those who are the least able to protect themselves: our children."

How does preventing homosexual marriages protect children? Both marriage and divorce are protected by the state and when there is a divorce, the government becomes involved, especially when there are property or child-support and visitation rights. Preventing divorce for whatever reason in no way is able to coerce people to live together or to separate. No-fault divorce is a recognition that there can be no "guilty" or "innocent" party. The church operated on this principle for many years, making it a circus when one partner had to reveal the most intimate areas of life to convince the church of who was innocent and who was guilty. IOW, the church functioned as does the Catholic church when annulment is desired. It's a total farce.

No one is being forced to marry, period. No one is being forced to do anything other than recognizing that equal rights under the law means exactly what it says: no one can be denied the benefits that have been applied to some in the past: benefits of health and other insurance, tax benefits and more that cannot be enumerated.

The same arguments were made in the past to deny interracial marriage and what has been the harm?
If one is a student of history, it will be recognized that there has always been cohabitation between tribes and no law of any land has been effective in stopping that.

The only way to protect marriage is for each partner to determine to do so and support each other in whatever endeavors and be generous and loving. There have been homosexual unions that have lasted as long as traditional marriages. Your next door neighbors could be homosexual, and if it harms you, you shouldn't be meddling in other people's bedrooms. It is of no concern to you how other people decide to live unless it affects you in a detrimental way. No one has yet shown that to be a fact.

During slavery, many slaves were prevented from legally marrying. Yet, we all know there was cohabitation, and a lot of interracial cohabiting. Remember prohibition? It was soon entirely impossible to regulate. Some things are best left to individuals and the government should only support legal marriages to the extent of giving benefits to all marriages, not heterosexual. There are millions of heterosexual couples who will never procreate. Where's the children there who need protecting?
Surely, no one is suggesting that procreation should be a requirement of marriage, or proof of fertility before marriage, as there one was.

When I was young I used to think of the government as the answer to all of life's problems with the exception of salvation. You need a job, go to the government, you need an education, go to the government, you need medical care, go to the government. Now I realize that maybe, just maybe, the answer to all of these questions don't belong to the government - they belong to the people.

We the people who made this nation great cannot keep handing our lives over to the government. Here, we are trying to stop other people from living their lives, and since the church has FAILED MISERABLY at trying to EXPLAIN how to live a moral life to them, we now ask the government to take away their rights.

This not about passing a "moral law" or anything - it is about the church saying that the issue is too big for them to handle, and about turning to the government rather than God to get the job done.

That's the basis for all religious persecution - a religious person can't get their point across because they are so screwed up, so they try to get somebody bigger and badder than they are to enforce their will.

See this for what it is - it's the church trying to regain moral authority by force since it's other techniques didn't work out too well.

If I have to hear one more plea for a return to morality from some multiple-divorcee Christian I think I'm going to scream. Get your own life in order - that should probably take the rest of your life. Then in your next life, maybe you can start telling other people what to do. Until that time, shut up. Stop yammering about what other people should do while your own kids can't figure out if they live with mommy or daddy.

Has anyone wondered why the GOP has suddenly stopped talking about "family values"?

Could it be because a divorced John McCain chose as his running mate a stay-at-work mom who hid her last unplanned pregnancy, and who has a pregnant, unwed teenager with a self-described ****** redneck of a boyfriend who "doesn't want kids"....and an ex-brother-in-law who tasered her nephew, and a husband with a DUI who loves his country so much he joined a secessionist party?

All of which leaves the GOP clinging to one remaining family value--the shotgun wedding! All previous values are null and void be cause "life happens!"

(Stolen from Doonesbury)

Would not the public health of California, especially as regards sexually transmitted illnesses, be improved with legal provision for monogamous unions of homosexual couples?
And would not Seventh-day Adventists, devoted to health as a spiritual tenet, benefit from governmental support of such public health measures? Is it possible that exposure to pervasive, persistent pollutants such as endocrine disruptors (for example, polyaromatic chlorinated biphenyls) plays a role in sexual orientation? Regardless of causation, what is the role of Seventh-day Adventists in caring for the health and spiritual needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, questioning, and transgendered people? Do we abdicate the gospel commission when it sends us to people of whom we are afraid?

The old saying to "put yourselves in the other person's shoes" is very apt here. All the heterosexuals, try to imgagine if things were turned around: there are 90% homosexuals and heterosexuals are in the minority--about 10%. And heterosexuals have had to be closeted for most of the world's history but finally realized that they were as normal as left-handed people (who were once called sinister, the origin of evil terms) but heterosexual marriages, forbidden for thousands of years, was now finally legalized. Is it impossible to imagine the world from others' eyes? Would that make a difference in your perspective?

Most of the world is structured on the basis of the large majority being right-handed. Left-handed people have had to "make do" with appliances, driving, and many other manual appliances that have been constructed for right-handed individuals.

Shall we, as a liberty-loving, democratic people, deprive any people because of their natural-born orientation and deny them the same privileges and rights that marriage affords because they are not as "normal" as we, the majority are? Are we so insecure of our heterosexuality that we fear those whose orientation is different will somehow threaten the state of marriage? Especially, when they are affirming marriage and willing to join that state?

"In our own advocacy of Proposition 8, there are two points worth repeating here: first, the Church State Council has not opposed gay rights generally, or domestic partner rights in particular."

The contradiction has grown with the publishing of the fact-check-of-the-fact-check at the PUC Church State Council website. I saw only one example that was mentioned, access to married student housing, that is affected by marriage rights in California. All other examples are of GLBT rights in general. The right of GLBT people to be free from discrimination in accommodation and services due to sexual orientation is already the law in many states in this country.

The fear of being forced to rent halls to GLBT marriage celebrants should be directed against anti-discrimination law of the California Civil Code. This is in no way affected by Prop 8. According the the San Jose Mercury news http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10757746?source=most_viewed
The manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, Frank Schubert, acknowledged that constitutional protections for religious practice protect a church's tax-exempt status.
"A church would be very likely permitted to refuse to perform a gay wedding in the church with no risk to their tax exemption," Schubert said in a written statement. "But if the church rents out property to the public for use as a wedding site, they could not prohibit a gay couple from renting that property for the wedding."

The fear that some religious professionals being sued for discrimination because they refuse to provide reproductive services because of the sexual orientation of the clients is part of the anti-discrimination law in the California Civil Code and in no way is affected by Prop 8.

The list goes on.

The CSC fact check document makes much of the motivation of GLBT rights activists, attributing to them a desire to marginalize the role of religion in public policy. If a major role of religion in our society is to fight against GLBT civil rights, can you blame them?

Why hasn't the original writer contacted Alan Reinach himself and asked him to explain his position? Or is it easier to argue about a position rather than discuss it with the originator.

Alan can respond publicly. Your friend, perhaps you're not familiar with newspapers, magazines, op-eds, blogs. While it's good to have private exchanges in Adventism, public actions invite public conversation.

Can anyone tell me what fundamental rights, constitutional rights, or civil rights domestic partnerships are lacking here in California?

I'm hearing the term rights being thrown around a lot. According to Family Code 297.5 "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits... as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

There are about 1,500 Federal benefits given to married couples; however, marriage, for these benefits, is defined as between a man and a woman. It's my understanding that even if proponents of homosexual marriages retain their definition of marriage, that they still would not be benefiting from the Federal Government under these laws.

Are proponents of homosexual marriage fighting for the right to define marriage as they want? Because they already have the civil rights of spouses.

It seems if this were really an issue of rights, proponents would be fighting for their rights as opposed to taking on a name that historically and traditionally has not, by definition, included their type of union. I understand that it's assumed that if marriage can be redefined that eventually they can have the same benefits, but what's the deal with coveting the label "marriage"?

I'd equate it with myself trying to get a scholarship that only African-Americans could apply for simply because they're African-American. The idea of me influencing the Supreme Court of California to overturn what has been almost universally accepted as the definition of an African-American, seems just as silly as homosexuals trying to redefine marriage.

Creating legislation that retains the definition of marriage is no more a reduction of rights then African-American's retaining their right to define an African-American.

I ask again, if Prop 8 passes, what rights are homosexuals losing?

Alex:

To state that the "the Church State Council has not opposed gay rights generally, or domestic partner rights in particular" does not contradict the Church State Council's aversion to legislation requiring "all contractors doing business with California to provide the full range of employee benefits to “domestic partners.”"

It's one thing to not oppose the rights of homosexuals, it's another to oppose being forced to "provide the full range of employee benefits to domestic partners" because of religious convictions.

We should support the rights of all citizens, as the CSC was stating, but they will not support legislation that doesn't allow them to practice their religious beliefs.

I can see how one could rush to the conclusion you made when comparing the two statements. It's a weak argument at best.

Alex:

I am retracting my statement made at the end of my last comment:

"I can see how one could rush to the conclusion you made when comparing the two statements. It's a weak argument at best."

It was prideful and an attempt to understate your ability to reason, which I believe you are quite capable of.

It was antagonistic. There is no need for that in this forum.

Federal law recognizes only marriage between a man and woman. In the state of California, if both people can safely use the same dressing room at Wal-Mart, they aren't a couple for the purposes of federal benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits and federal taxes.

Couples may designate their marriage certificate and date of marriage as "confidential" so the information is not available to the public (CA Fam Code sec. 400 et seq.) There is no such process for domestic partners.

The final difference is this: While straight couples 62 years and older may register as domestic partners (to preserve their single-status Social Security benefits), heterosexuals are otherwise ineligible to register as domestic partner under state law (CA Fam.l Code sec.297(b)(5)(A),(B). Given the adminstrative ease of dealing with domestic partnerships, I wonder if straight couples will step up and demand equal rights or choose to bask in the rare glow of hetero discrimination.

Carpenter -"Alan can respond publicly. Your friend, perhaps you're not familiar with newspapers, magazines, op-eds, blogs. While it's good to have private exchanges in Adventism, public actions invite public conversation."

Such fol-de-rol!!

What part of what Alex said is non-sensical?

Alan Reinach has what can be easily described as a captive audience which he addresses from a bully pulpit. Those who disagree with his rhetoric, like myself, find here a rare forum to discuss this issue.

I, for one, have already expressed my fellings in private to Mr. Reinach.

The strange thing is that the only person that the Seventh-day Adventist Church wants use the law to limit the rights of is the homosexual.

A couple of years ago the Church Council was all about supporting the rights of Adventists who were discriminated against in the workplace. Now they are all about making sure that homosexuals are discriminated against in the workplace.

How is a gay person getting married going to affect me? I don't know and I don't care. They have been getting married now for several months in California and it hasn't affected me in the least. The only thing that has affected me is the sheer hypocrisy of the CSC and its crew.

They are just as religious right as the religious right and only want to protect the rights of Seventh-day Adventists who face work problems. They don't care about anybody else but themselves. This has totally shifted my thinking on SDA religious liberty work.

They might as well be run by Jerry Fallwell.

Alan Reinach has succeeded again in becoming one of the most controversial figures in the church. I've been following his writings for years ever since my work in the ministry in Central California and why they keep him around is beyond me. This contradiction is just the latest.

With such ideology as Reinach has demonstrated, and Cliff Goldstein, the church is fast heading backwards.

To put Alan Reinach's comments in context, I thought I would share with my California friends today's editorial in the Augusta Chronicle. The Augusta Chronicle is far to the right of James Dobson. editorial below: written by Michael Ryan

We the people--or Them the Judges?

Traditional principles won Tuesday in, of all places, California.

When voters there approved Proposition 8--to define marriage as a man-woman institution in the state's constitution--they not only upheld traditional family values.

They also upheld the fundementals of self-governing.

Californians had previously voted in a referendum to define marriage as between a man and a woman. But the courts threw out the vote in an aggravated display of judcial tyranny.

On Tuesday, voters overturned the state's Supreme Court by passing Proposition 8.

Now what are the activist courts going to do? Rule the people's own constitution unconstiutional?

We wouldn't put it past them.

Indeed San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said he hoped for just that.

Interesting. The gay lobby wants to force its agenda on the people, but when the people speak, the gay lobby goes to court to silence them. They even protested in the streets. Against what? A tyrannical government? An unjust court verdict? No. Against the will of the public.

Again, the principle at stake here is a people's right to self-govern.

This is almost as important a principle as defining marriage. Law-writing courts that routinely overturn the public's vote must be stopped in their tracks. Otherwise, we truly aren't governing ourselves. (end of editorial)

Anyone what to move to Georgia?

For Master's Week maybe! Tom

There was a large demonstration against Prop. 8 in front of the large Mormon temple in L.A., because they had such a large financial backing in support of it.

Give another 5 or more years; in 2000 on the same proposition, there was a larger difference, and smaller this time. As people begin to realize that the sky isn't falling, and traditional marriages are still made in a few hours in Lost Wages, even drunk the sacred traditions become rather simplistic. Time does change people's perception: remember the Civil Rights, and Women's Suffrage--changes take time, but it will come. Sadly, the formerly "oppresed"
black majority and Latinos couldn't equate equality with this proposition.