Adventist Today

Thank you, Kendra, for another thought provoking article!

 

Should we work to give these options for state sanction, even to those who believe/live differently?

Or should we continue to treat them, and those who defend their rights, as if they were our enemies?

 

I have often wondered why we demand protection for our beliefs and do not extend them to others, for theirs.

Awesome column Kendra! This could not have been said better. (Take cover for incoming!)

I agree with your conclusion.  I do have doubts about the religious element of marriage as an essential part of marriage.  It is hard to find an example of a wedding as a religious rite in Western European history until fairly recently outside of royal circles.  There you have the confusion of kings as priests and defenders of the faith, etc.  I believe the Jewish service is still essentially a family affair rather than overtly religious, just as it is in the Bible.  One point that makes it fairly clear that no Christian church views a wedding as essentially religious is that we not only accept marriages performed in other denominations as valid, but also those performed in civil, Jewish or Muslim services or in 'pagan' ceremonies.  There is no way we would do that with baptism or ordination.  I believe that having a marriage blessed in church is a good tradition, but the belief that only a wedding in church by an ordained pastor is a 'real' wedding is a very recent understanding, and not one shared by all Christians.  Like many defenses of tradition, what it is defending has a relatively short history.

Well said. 

If this argument were valid, that marriage (union of man and wife) is an imposition of Christian faith on a secular government, then one would have thought this objection might have been raised ere this. But until the 1980s or 1990s this issue was never raised by Jews, Liberal Protestants, Conservative Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Oriental Christians, Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Rastafarians, Daoists, Shintoists, Confucianists, Animists, Atheists or Agnostics. All accepted that marriage was rooted in the facts of human biology of reproduction--a male and a female come together, in a fruitful union, and the state gives protections and safeguards to this union to protect the family. Same was true in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Red China, Nationalist China, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere, the eastern hemisphere and the western hemisphere. Oh, there were cultures here and there that accepted polygamy, but these were a minority--and even they still accepted the basic formula of M + W = Marriage (they just added +W*x).

Now, suddenly, liberal Adventists invent this new idea that somehow the basic biological principles that the vast majority of humans agree on is "unjust" and "an imposition of Biblical beliefs."

All marriages ARE equal. All mariages are a man and a woman. All marriages bless and preserve the inherent nature of humanity as sexual (i.e., male and female). Any man is free to enter into this union with a woman--it isn't dependent upon his fickle "preference." Same thing for women. But there is no basis in biology, history, or the Constitution for redefining marriage as something other than what it is--a union of man and woman.

The current battleground over same-sex marriage has more to do with political power than conscience.  Just wait until this steamroller has run full course.  Churches that stand in the way will suddenly become victims of reverse discrimination.  The relgious liberty implications of state sanctioned same-sex marriage and non discrimination policy will be turned on its head.  The present argument of separation of church and state  for sanctioning same-sex marriage is nothing more than a red herring.

Marriage is a definition issue not a conscience issue- one man one woman.  The territory of Utah was not permitted to become a state until polygamy was outlawed.   Marriage is more than a religious institution, it is a social one too, and the state has a vested interest in preserving traditional marriage even though it seems to be on life support now.

Kendra hi

I believe incest is illegal in your country? would stand for the rights of brothers who wanted to sleep with sisters? Since we are on the topic of same sex marriage would you support the right of biological brothers?

The second point is that marital polygamy is illegal in your country so are you going to stand for the rights of of those who wish to be engaged in a polygamous situation. In my country there is a cluase in the law that provides that those who wish to engage in a polygamous marriage. So is my Country more tolerant than yours in this respect? For the record I am against Homosexuality, incest and polygamous for the same reason. My final question is is it possible to support the rights of only one of these groups and not be preferential and hypocritical?

To clarify the point, and I will hereby speak for myself (although it is conceivable that Kendra may not disagree), I am not an advocate of gay marriage.
 
I am also not an advocate of gay civil unions; nor am I an advocate of any number of things that facilitate what I believe to be sin.
 
The point is that when my religious dogma is imposed upon someone who does not share my beliefs, someone else’s religious dogma may at some juncture then be imposed upon me; regardless of my beliefs.
 
Marriage in western society, at least in the U.S., is a hybrid institution, sanctioned by the church and by the state.
 
The church should recognize what it will. The state should recognize what it will. This means that the church would reserve its right not to recognize any marriage that does not comport with its definition.
 
Indeed, the church’s realm of authority and the state’s realm of authority should not overlap whenever it is at all avoidable. In the case of marriage, it’s avoidable.

Homosexuality is allowed but need not be condoned.  When you have the president of our country flip-flopping for the purpose of elections it tells you of the condition of the morals of the country.  These extreme actions from the left wing will cause a blacklash for the sake of values... and when the religous right
takes back control there will be a rush for legislation.  (mandated worship to turn our country back to God?)

This is a VERY REFRESHING ARTICLE. It puts us, as stated, Conservative Christians at a crossroads. If we support Freedom of Choice, are we also advocating same sex marriage? The apparently overwhelming voice is that would be the case. The problem that I have in the regards of State mandated laws of marriage is: What is the DEFINITION of marriage? And then when someone may tell me it is only between man and woman, my next question is: Where is the definition found? Whether it may be within the Bible, Torah, Koran, or any other religious books (in this post, I will stay with the Bible due to America having the majority of its people as Christians and the Book of use is the Bible), they all serve their purpose: Spiritual guidance. Here is where my concern starts. If people start making Legal decisions with the phrase, "It says it in the Bible", other decisions can be made concerning a majority's perspective of the Bible. This situation is a dangerous "Slippery Slope" that can have implications that many of us didn't expect, but may have to face when we want to legislate morality off of the Bible. I consider myself a Moderate Adventist. I do not believe in gay marriage, but I do believe in the power of choice. If God doesn't force us, then why should man? God is doing something now. Read Rom.1:25-28 and be reminded that we are truly are in the last days. Maranatha

How far shall we go in not allowing the state to legislate in "matters of conscience?"  If there were a religious minority which believed that cannibalism was intrinsic to their religious ceremonies, would you then admit that the state had a compelling interest in preventing it?  Alcohol is part of some religious ceremonies, yet we were counseled to vote for prohibition.  Where are the brakes on this slippery slope? 

The state has an interest in promoting a well ordered society.  The best formula for that is when society is composed of stable familiies consisting of one man, one woman, and their children.  That fact that the divorce rate is high is no reason to assume that this model is not the best one.  The government erred when it made it so easy to get a divorce.

Those professed Christians who promote homosexual "marriages" may be shooting themselves in the head.  When what first becomes accepted becomes mandatory, churches which refuse to allow or recongnize these bogus marriage may be subject to persecution.

hi Kendra

Would you then support an incestrous relationship if they decided to adopt?

Roger Williams would be proud!  I am glad you are able to understand the foundational issue in the gay marriage debate.  I hope others may perceive that we the people have established a religious definition of marriage and that our own clegy exercises a role we have worked so hard to prevent.

Where do we draw the line? We may not want our government legislating morality, but there has to be boundaries somewhere.  People should always stand up for what is right. One thing history should have taught us is that no civilization will survive moral decay.  When Christians stand up and speak out against something, people say we are intolerant or discriminatory....however those same people are just as intolerant or discrimnatory against Christianity.  Our civilization is fast growing into an "anything goes", "if it feels good, do it" society and we are on the path to our own destruction.  As it was in the days of Noah.....

well said, Kenda... 
Thanks for the timely article.

To: StandingFirm"  Your argument that "anything goes" is graping at straws... It has nothing to do with Kenda's article.  In fact she is "standing up and speaking out against intolerance and bigatry"  She is taking a stand against those who would disciminate against religion.   In the "days of Noah" people were expendable - and their rights were being exploited - they were cruel and inhumane - they treated people as things - Kenda is taking a stand against the actions of people who in Noah's day were promoting moral decay.  

No way is being "for" personal rights and freedom a stand for "moral decay".  On the contrary, being against  religious freedom and individual rights is the path of destruction. 
 

Didn't the Roman Empire rot from within?  Seems as if we're going in the same direction.  No wonder so many Muslims hate us.  Our descent into decadence disgusts them, whether it be becasue of the proliferation of pornography, or the lack of sexual restraint.

What does a civil union between 2 gay people have to do with the SDA churches? Do they allow this? I would be very surprised. Seriously is homosexualality tolerated in SDA churches?

Moral decay, from apple tree to ark...

or from ark to cross to now.

 

Seems the apple has not fallen so far away.

 

God did not enforce boundaries; He said there will be consequences. 

Both for our behaviors, and for our demeanors. If we trust, He also took full responsibility

and neither passed the buck nor winked.

God is, seemingly, so pro-choice, that he said "you can kill my baby"-but I will covenant to love you, anyway. Will you finally accept my love? Its almost as if within our human psyche DNA we have complete aversion to grace...accepting, or giving.

Kendra,

Welcome back!  I've been missing your thoughtful discussions of current issues and appreciate the way you have presented this one.

For most known history it was the churches that sanctioned and recorded marriages.  However, in recent centuries tht state has taken on that function to varying degrees, as your example of Austria illustrated.  In America most states function as the official sanctioning body for marriages because the marriage does not exist for legal purposes unless it is registered at the courthouse.  The state allows clergy to act as their agents in the official recognition of the marriage.

The problems with Obama's support for same-sex marriage go beyond what is apparent.  If the state can force citizens to accept or tolerate what is contrary to their religious beliefs, can the state compel a person to perform a same-sex wedding when that marriage is contrary to their beliefs about right and wrong?  This is not speculation because military chaplains are now required by executive order from Obama to perform same-sex weddings when requested.  Those chaplains can face court martial if they refuse.  If that is the case in the military, how long before it is the law across the nation?  So the challenge I see for us is to balance our respect for and defense of others having the right to practice as they wish while protecting our right to not have their wishes imposed over our religious beliefs about what is right or wrong. 

By the way, that order from Obama is causing the military to experience a shortage of chaplains in all branches because of the number who are choosing to not re-enlist rather than be compelled to compromise their beliefs.

Kendra you asked me what I meant by reverse discrimination and  streamroller.   A good example of reverse discrimination was what happened in Toronto a couple of years ago when the SDA church was refused participation in the food fair because of what was claimed to be a discrimnatory policy against homosexuals.  Just imagine how our hospitals and schools will be affected when we are at odds with public policy on discrimination of gays.    A case in point is what happened to Bob Jones University over 30 years ago, when it losst its tax exempt status and  was disqualified as an institution to accept students with government grants/loans because it refused to allow interracial dating/marriage.    While I don't support the university position, I am merely using it as an example of what happens when and religious institution runs afowl of  public policy.    

As for the steamroller. You have to admit that while not one state has passed  gay marriage when it is put to a vote of the people, state legislatures and the courts has pushed the envelope  on this one.  Now the President has joined the throng of those supporting gay marriage.  I look for a plank in the Democrat platform supporting  it this election.    There is a persistent march toward  making gay marriage a civil right with anyone standing in the way looked at as some bigot.  People, churches and institution who stand in the way are going to be increasingly marginalized and eventually discriminated against for their convictions against gay marriage.

On the religius liberty front, I see this as a threat  much more in the near term than the long awaited Sunday law.

Because, my brothers and sisters, freedom of conscience for you and me means freedom of conscience for everyone.And if we want to continue having our rights as a religious minority respected, we will continue to fight for the rights of other minorities, even if we disagree with them.
Satan tempted Eve with a tiny veriation the truth. You wont die "look at me I'm alive and I'm juggling this fruit." So, I'm sorry what rights are taken away? Every state has a civil union law that is a binding contract binding both parties no matter what the gender. The fight is not about rights taken away or they dont have , it is about how marrage is defined. This is what the battle is about. When I left the Roman Catholic faith I left their cusades too. Sorry, lets try to stick to our 7 pillars of faith,and get back studing our bible.

Thank you, Kendra. A beautifully written explanation of why anyone's rights are threatened if someone else's rights are denied. "And when they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up." Thank you for speaking up BEFORE they come for you -- I only wish more of your fellow conservative Christians understood. They think that because they are in the majority right now they are safe,  but when it becomes routine to infringe someone's rights because you don't agree with the way they exercise them, nobody is safe. Majorities can change. Better to stand up for everyone, and look to them to support you when it's your turn.

Thanks for this thoughtful, intelligent article, Kendra. I think it is difficult for those who see homosexuality itself as a sin to separate the legal ramifications of marriage from the religious aspects - but as you so eloquently point out, it is important that they do if they wish to keep religious freedom alive and well.

 

I am one of the minority of Adventists who believe that homosexuality itself is not sinful. This is because I am confident that one's sexual orientation is not a choice - hence calling homosexuality a sin is like condemning people because they were born with blue eyes instead of brown, or because they have a natural gift for music that the majority do not possess. I know that my opinion is an unpopular one, and that I will probably be decried by some here as a heretic, but I have done a lot of research on this topic, and feel that the weight of the evidence, both scientific and biblical, supports my belief. I am respectful of those who have also done the research, but who have arrived at different conclusions. I would encourage anyone who has not explored scholarly research on this topic to fully inform themselves before taking a stand on this issue.

 

I think people tend to forget that God did not institute marriage - humans did. And the concept of marriage has evolved through the centuries, influenced by culture, religion, and society. It's interesting to note that Christians have not always been opposed to same sex marriage. There is historical evidence that ancient Christian churches performed what they called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). See http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html for more information.

"Majorities can change" and they have.  Only ten years ago there was more opposition to same-sex marriages than today; minds have been change when they have a son, brother, uncle or other close relative who is gay.

No one has given a logical explanation of how one's rights are being trampled on by allowing others the same privileges in choosing their marriage partner.
Someone referred to Bob Jones University's loss of federal funds for disallowing interracial dating and marriage.  FYI, this was a SCOTUS ruling in 1967 that no longer was interracial marriages illegal (Virginia was the last hold-out).  To receive federal funds, the institution must abide by federal laws.

"No wonder so many Muslims hate us.  Our descent into decadence disgusts them, whether it be becasue of the proliferation of pornography, or the lack of sexual restraint."

How naive!  The Muslims have always practiced polygamy.  We may call it decadence if practiced in the U.S. but they are living  true to their religion that allows it.  Pornography in Islamic states?  Of course, it is simply under cover.  Does anyone believe that the wealth amassed by some is not spent on such pursuits?

If the states had been given the right to vote for or against civil rights, most of the South would surely have voted against it.  When the majority is allowed to vote on whether all citizens should have the same rights, it becomes a fragmented U.S. where a couple could be considered married in one state and
not legally married in another.  The right to "pursuit of happiness" is embedded in our Declaration of Independence, and marriage should certainly be one based on pursuing happiness, not conforming to someone else's decisions of who to marry anymore than allowing others to choose your religious beliefs:  all very personal decisions.

The purpose of government is to place legal restrictions on activities that are damaging to its socio-political community.  The government has no say in morality or ethics (although ethics still applies to many government workers).  Until there is substantial documented evidence that same-sex marriage is detrimental to the US in a socio-political-economic manner, the government has no reason or right to regulate it.  There are many things that the government has made legal that many Adventists think are immoral (e.g. pre-marital sex, alcoholism, wearing short skirts, holding hands, dancing, eating meat, fibbing, name calling, going to restraurants on the Sabbath, listening to rock music...the list goes on, worshiping on Sunday, bacon).  If you feel that marriage between two gay people is immoral, you are free to not participate in it.

The other side of the coin is that the people are free to set up any laws they wish.  If it comes to a vote and you are against legalizing something for whatever reason, you are more than free to vote against legalizing it.  If a community of whatever size votes to outlaw something, they are free to do so.

The Bob Jones University case had nothing to do with direct  federal funding, but it did with regard to tax exempt status and acceptance of students who used federal money for tuition.   so if an Adventist hospital did not fall in line on the issue of  sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws that will someday, sooner than you might expect, become universal, they may find that they are forbidden to take Medicare, Medicade patients and students with Pell grants would find that Adventist colleges would not be able to accept them.  Please distinquish the difference between federal funding and federal payment for services rendered.

My opposition to gay marriage is not based on homophobia, but on the undercurrents I see that will threaten religious liberty.  I am gay myself.   The definition of marriage is ages old.   No one is trying to cram their religion down someones throat who wishes to maintain what has been the definition of marriage foe eons now.   Quite the contrary, those who are using  separation of church and state as a reason to change the definition of marrriage are really the ones who want to turn everything upsidedown.     

Kenda, I have always appreciated your thoughtful contributions on the subject of loving gays, but do you see how the church will be  the victim of  movement that is going  in a direction that may eventually leave the Adventist church with the option of yielding to the state public policy that  is in direct opposition to our beliefs or lose tax exempt status, and maybe even bankrupt our hospitals and schools?

Again, I think the undercurrents of gay marriage will do us in long before the Sunday laws.

Kendra, 
As a former member of your church, I commend you for your very thoughful and insightful comments.  The idea of a true separation of church and state is not new, but I believe it must be reintroduced to members of Congress, and particularly to some of the crazier, less logical, and more hate-minded lawmakers in states such as North Carolina and elsewhere where gay people are treated with such vehemence, disdain, and fear and anger. After the horrifying experiences of being ostracized and despised for what others assumed my sexuality to be, (at Broadview Academy and Southern College of Seventh-day Adventists), I am glad that someone in the Adventist church actually believes that people such as me should have the government-condoned right to marry the person I love.  Thank you.

Whether an institution receives direct federal monies, are through student loans does not change requirements that they must abide by all federal laws of anti-discrimination, OSHA, etc.

This applies to all SDA schools, hospitals and non-church operations.  One cannot accept monies while refusing to abide by the laws attached to the money

Kendra,
You've been able to state much more clearly and eloquently what I've believed for a long time. Thank you! And yes, there may well be negative consequences on both individuals and churches, or on the denomination as a whole. It's scary, I admit, but it wouldn't be the first and won't be the last time we face difficulty for standing up for freedom, or for that matter, risk being misunderstood as condoning something we see as sin. Jesus faced that sort of difficulty all the time. When was the last time one of us was called a drunkard because of our relationships with all the "wrong" people?
I find Lorelei's opinion interesting, too. I myself have very mixed feelings regarding homosexuality. I don't believe it's part of God's best plan for us, but I don't know whether to look at it in the way I'd look at an inborn tendency to a sin, or . . . well, I just don't know how to look at it. A friend's son, some years ago, went through a sex-change operation (don't misunderstand, anybody, I do know that's a whole different thing) and my inward first reaction was, "God wouldn't let someone be born as a male in a female body or vice versa!" That lasted about a second, until I realized God allows people to be born without arms, or with their skulls open to their brains. This IS NOT the world God planned!

Here's what I do know: God commands love. Love everybody, love all the time, love no matter what. Err on the side of liberality when it comes to love. We are all muddling along as best we can in a very difficult environment, and only God sees the whole heart. And I am certain that God would rather have any human being in a monogamous relationship than in a promiscuous and self-degrading lifestyle.

All this assumes that there is no secular state interest in maintaining the current definition of marriage.

Just because there is a religious reason to support something does not make it a matter of religious freedom. The Bible prohibits murder, so does the state. The state has a secular rationale for doing so: Any state that tolerates the destruction of its citizenry will soon cease to exist, de facto in the short run, de jure eventually.


To oppose the repeal of statutes outlawing murder is not a church state issue just because the Bible and law agree. Lest someone miss or ignore the obvious  application of this it involves so-called honor killings. One can easily imagine this being framed as a freedom of conscience issue, and it is in fact being so framed in some cases. By the reasoning in this column, we would have to support Muslims right to do so. I realize that not all Muslims believe this is a part of Islam. But having a court decide what is part of Islam and what is not is a violation of church/state separation for certain.

The ancient religion of Molech practiced child sacrifice. The reasoning of this column tells us we should respect the rights of such a religious minority.

Then there were the Thugs, followers of Kali, who practiced ritual murder. It was a religious belief. Opposing that religious belief because the Bible prohibits murder does not make it a church state issue.

If we say that because a religion has a position on an issue, such as murder, no laws which enforce that position are permissible, then Molech worshipers and Thugs would be free to practice the dictates of their conscience.

The law also prohibits polygamy, and prosecutes those who practice it. By the reasoning in this column, we should also support that as a freedom of conscience issue. Some self-proclaimed Mormons believe they should still practice it. Once again, having courts decide which of two interpretations of Mormon doctrine is correct would clearly be a violation of church state separation.

The state must concern itself with actions, behavior, not with beliefs and attitudes. I may covet my neighbors car, but unless I steal it, the state has no cause for action. Anyone serious about protecting freedom of conscience should oppose hate crime legislation, because such laws target beliefs and attitudes, not behavior.

The real question is whether the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If polygamy, so-called "gay marriage," or any other variation is destructive to the interests of an orderly secular society, then prohibiting them would be an appropriate function of state power. In fact, the state has a perfectly sound secular case for not re-defining marriage. Kevin's point about the state accepting marriages no matter what the faith that solemnized them argues that the state recognizes that there is a in fact a secular good being advanced by marriage as one man and one woman.

I will not make a case for or against changing the definition of marriage here, because it is a separate issue. The point of the column is not that gay marriage is a societal good, but an issue of freedom of conscience. As I have demonstrated, that argument is false.

Could not agree more.  This shouldn't even be a contentious issue within the church.  Adventist's believe many things that we would NEVER advocate should be the law of the land.  We don't believe in pre-marital sex, it's hard to think of a more counter-cultural belief than that one, but we certainly support people having the legal right to do so. So why should it be an issue for us if society decides that gays have the right to get married?

It is important to remember that various well-established churches performed same-sex weddings long before they were recognized by any goverment.  This includes the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.  These are not fringe groups, and although they are "liberal", they do contain real Christians, and true Christin preaching and teaching can be found there.  In those locations where their same-sex marriages are not recognized by the state, their religious principles are being violated by their local governments.
BTW:   Same-sex marriage = murder?  Really?  Get a grip.

I have read alot of the comments here and some I agree with and some I don't. It sounds good for us not to infringe on anyone elses rights to save our own freedom, but at what cost. If we say yes it is for two women to get married and two women ,then what about when one of them decides to find Jesus or discovers christianity, but they have built a family with someone of the same sex. How do you then minister to that person? Do you advise them to get a divorce and destroy their family that they built before their commitment to Christ?
If you feel that Christianity and a clean life is the only way anyone is going to make it in to heaven you should want to do what ever it takes to save someone from making a Huge decision like this. Either you believe it or you don't care about the person who doesn't know any better. Again I understand where you are coming from, but I have to disagree. Muslims will blow up a country for what they belive in, but we won't stand up for what we believe in, in a board meeting or a political debate.... WOW

Why is the editor of Adventist Review permitting you to write such garbage on our church's publication? This article is highly offensive to bible believing Adventists.  I'm sorry but Kendra Perry's is arguing for something that during the time of Moses people were stoned for.  How dare she write such garbage on our church's website.  This is my first time here, not sure if i want to come back!  But I will.  Someone needs to start standing up for the truth.  

 Kendra, thank you for articulating well what needs to be seen as the real and bigger picture of this issue. My heart has bled and still bleeds often, for my Commander-in-Chief, who must daily, put his personal feelings aside, step into unpopular territory, face the targeted cruel sentiments of the selfish majority, and be misjudged, mislabeled, maligned and disrespected, in order to fulfill the awesome task of being the burden-bearer and civil rights bridge for the collective peoples of this country. So few of us, in fact, too few of us understand and realize, that the POTUS does not belong to, represent, speak for, back or is identified with any one group of people -- but rather, ALL Americans - regardless of race, creed, color, culture, social status or religion. Your stated premise and how this matter relates to and can affect us as Sabbath keepers should be ever so clear, and should be stated in no uncertain terms in our SDA churches, so that we don't become the unfortunate victims of our all to often narrow, tunnel-visioned, biased view on things. (Satan ALWAYS has more than one angle of attack designed into his destructive plans!) While I believe and know that it is our role and duty to reveal the truth of God's Word and the standards by which God desires for us to live by to the world, while we are in this world, we must keep before us the admonishment of Christ - to be "wise" (correct in our thinking, approach and viewpoints) as serpents, and "harmless" (not allowing ourselves to become a detriment in any way to the welfare and rights of others) as doves!" Did I PERSONALLY agree with the President's decision, and the viewpoint of those who seek "same-sex" marriages - NO! Can I still honor, respect, pray for and support this President - ABSOLUTELY YES! Because he was just "doing his job - protecting the rights and freedoms of ALL Americans!"

Dear Ms. P
What if the couple is heterosexual, but one or both are divorced without proper, Biblical cause, then remarried?  Is it OK for them to remain in their adulterous marriage when one or both convert to Christianity?

I can see that what I am saying is falling on deaf ears.   Just how long do you think it would take our Adventist hospitals to go bankrupt if they could not provide services to Medicare and Medical patients.  This is a sizable portion of any hospitals revenue.   AGAIN,  PLEASE MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND A FEE FOR SERVICES RENDERED, which is what Medicare and Medical are.

Elaine is right when she said that whether it a subsidy or indirect  money as in a student loan, an institution must comply with all anti-discrimination policies of the federal government to be eligible for participation.  Make no mistake about it, the goal here is full anti-discrimination policy with no religious exemptions in the area of same sex marriage and  beyond.   There are some gay activists who want to silence any opposing their position by marginalizing, intimidating or whatever means legally available to them to punish those who they see as their enemies.

Sure churches will not be forced to perform gay marriages, but they will surely be sued if they refuse spousal benefits for same sex  marriage partners as is now the case for opposite sex marriage partners when one is employed by the church.
If you think for one minute that these people will rally for the rights of the church, think again.
The costly  legal thicket the church faces if  gay rights ever equals race is beyond comprehension.   

To somehow muddy the discussion  Kendra by trying to equate Sabbath and gay marriage is preposterous.

If one lives in and has citizenship in the U.S. he must abide by all the laws applicable. 

If church institutions are willing, and accept government payment for Medicare and Medicaid and government loans to students, they do not have a choice:  they either obey the law or go out of business. 

If we do not stand up for rights that may not be ours, when our rights are being threatened, who will stand up for us?

Again, and I can’t reemphasize or reiterate this too much, the point is not advocacy of same sex marriage or polygamy. The point is advocacy for individual civil liberties that do not abridge others’ rights.
 
Marriage in which procreation is not possible obviously includes heterosexuals of an advanced age. Marriages are clearly no less legitimate to either the church or state such instances.
 
Ancient Hebrew culture, in fact, recognized polygamy.
 
Make no mistake about it; the fact that we are having this discussion is a sign of moral declension or devolution. But that is my personal, religious view.
 
I have no right to impose my personal religious views on other people when doing so might abridge their civil liberties. But my motives are undeniably selfish; because I don’t ever want others to impose their personal religious views on me; since doing so might abridge my civil liberties.
 
My role as a Christian in this, or any, society is to live and treat others in such a way that they will want to know the Jesus who I claim, by name, to follow. I should explain why the homosexual lifestyle is not God’s will, much less His ideal; and hope and pray to win hearts and minds.
 
As for civil affairs, as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I should take a big picture view; and treat others as I wish to be treated. I never wish to have my civil liberties threatened by those whose religious beliefs may differ in some ways from mine.

What gives the State control over marriage? What is a marriage license - "a license is permission to engage in an activity that would otherwise be illegal" - required for? Is marriage ILLEGAL without State permission? Permission request can result in a YES or NO - can the State refuse to allow you to be married? If the State cannot refuse to allow you to be married, why is permission (license) required ? Actually, you can look at marriage licenses as discriminating exclusively against marriage, since shacking up, one night stands, prostitution, etc. do not require licenses. ------ We should go back 200 years when marriage was an institution controlled by the church - not the State. Marriage was recorded in the family Bible, and that was it. Marriage was instituted by God, and He defined it. There is no need to redefine it!

Kendra,
I want to personally thank you for restoring my respect and faith in a fellow Adventist!  You have a very strong grasp on the concepts of religious freedoms and civil liberties.  Most Adventists, for some reason, are just unable to do that.  I think it may have something to do with the lack of civics education in our Adventist school system.  I see that the majority of Adventists who have replied to your article cannot wrap their minds around this freedom concept.  For most Adventists, this issue is just too much.  They cannot see beyond their own feelings about the immorality of homosexuality.  This issue is not about that.  It is about civil liberties.  I agree with you, and I support same sex civil unions...big deal!  It is not going to make me want to be joined in a civil union with another woman.  And I could care less if Obama supports same sex marriage.  What bothers me about his support is why he is just now announcing that; right before his trip to Seattle.  He only has one thing on his mind:  votes.  And it kills me that the gay community is now all joyous about supporting Obama...really?  Do they think he is going to follow through on his support after the election?  Like he followed through on so many of his promises in his previous campaign?
Really, though, I must take it a step further and ask why is it that the government is involved in legalizing marriage at all?  Do we really need a marriage license for the traditional marriage.  How long has the government been in charge of licensing marriages?  It should be about legal spouses/partners and who has rights to benefits and such; not about making "marriage" legal-  however you want to define "marriage".
Thanks again for sharing your expertise in the constitutional realm...very encouraging!

I was wondering too if anyone was hearing what Tom was saying.  (Go back and read his posts again.)  Thank you, Tom. 

So Elaine you would be in favor of the church losing its institutions if caught in the vise of either submitting to public policy on this issue or going out of business.   Or maybe this is just the vice you want the church to be caught in.   It's no secret you have nothing but disdain for the denomination, so I think you would rather enjoy the costly legal mess it would be embroiled in when gay rights is the same a race in matters of ALL public policy.

Kendra, there are many behaviors our church tolerates that it does not approve of in the realm of employment.   But they do not rise to the level that gay marriage would impose.   There are many places that insure domestic partners, cities like San Francisco,  where one is an employee.   Would you expect the church to follow suit and do the same?  Never.  So why would the church bow and recognize a same sex marriage in matters of employment benefits or even employment for that matter.  Where is the church's right to say "no, we are not going to recognize this lifestyle."?    

I get the feeling that some here really do not understand where the undercurrents are trending on this issue, how legal experts in our church's religious liberty departments are warning   of the onslaught of litagation that will ensue should gay marriage become the law of the land.

Our President, who claimes that his position is evovling on the issue, has just stuck a wet finger in the wind and seen that it's okay to run as a Democrat and now support gay marriage.  He claims to still think it is a state issue, but give him a chance to replace another Supreme Court  judge, especially if one of the conservatives retires, and he will have to make it the law of land  when the court strikes down state laws banning same sex marriage.

It hurts me in a way to take such a strident stand on this particular issue, being gay myself, but   I can't help but see that separation of church and state is being misused as a means to support gay marriage.  One can argue against gay marriage and not even mention a religious reason.  If anyone is trying to force their beliefs on the rest of citizenry it is those who insist on changing  the definition of marriage.

Tom, where did I ever indicate I would be happy if the SDA hospitals closed?

I only gave the obvious result if an SDA hospital refused to adhere to federal laws they could no longer have the privilege of admitting and receiving pay FROM THE GOVERNMENT under Medicare.

That was not a sentiment, only a clear statement of facts.  Please show where I ever indicated that I "would be in favor" of the church losing its institutions.
Do you agree or disagree that non-conformance with federal laws would prohibit Medicare funding?  Is there another possibility you could suggest?

My apologies, Elaine. you didn't say it directly but your tenor here certainly makes the case for what I am trying to say.    the implications for our church and it;s institutions should federal law ever be extended in total to include sexual orientation as it now does for race.  Gay marriage is the precursor for the entire enchalada. What do you think the church should do when that day finally comes, and believe me it's coming.

I was reading the article posted on Sabbath and Same Sex Marriage by Kendra Perry... These are my thoughts: What if the gay / lesbian issue is primarily a rampant sexual identity crisis? Can we stem the growth of this crisis in today's political climate? Or would we be stopped by an enraged gay / lesbian community for simply trying to shift the i...ssue from “you are bad” to “you need our sympathy”? Because by default, if they need our sympathy, then there is still something definitively wrong with them. I do not propose that there is necessarily a “fix”, at least not that I know of, but I certainly believe that the gays and lesbians are not in harmony with the “normal” course of nature.

I believe that gay / lesbian people fall into one of three categories: 1) Fetal reverse brain-gender imprint, where the brain is mismatched in gender to the genitalia. 2) External gender-related confusion in childhood and/or actual sexual abuse in childhood. 3) Perverted heterosexuals. I further believe that the majority of gays and lesbians in our society today fall into the first two categories. Yet the prevailing “Christian” reaction is aimed at the 3rd group because Biblicaly, Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned and even destroyed in judgment for homosexuality. But remember, when God sent messengers to warn Lot about the impending destruction, all the men of the city came out to gang rape the strangers. A perverted heterosexual is someone I would equate with a pedophile; a disgusting, evil, and very hurtful person who would pervert others for self gratification. This is like the gay man obsessed with having intercourse with a “straight” male and the very worst of these type actually prey on little boys. These perverts are what the Bible condemns.

If I am right, this would mean that most gays and lesbians are victims of biological malfunction or childhood rape or abuse of some sort. This means that what most gays and lesbians need from the Christian world is understanding rather than criticism and sympathy rather than judgment.

But that doesn't mean that we need to institutionalize this problem and present it as normal to the society as a whole. I remain opposed to “gay marriage”, but I am in favor of a distinction that exists in allowing “gay civil union”. Normalizing the behavior in the societal view will escalate the sexual identity crisis aspect of the situation creating more victims. It will create more victims and leave an entire generation more confused about sexual norms. The gravest sin in our politically correct culture seems to be stating that the gays and lesbians are not normal, but in reality they are not normal, this is not normal human behavior any more than bees would normal be if they refused to pollinate flowers.

If you start with men and women who refuse to procreate normally you have two options; 1) Procreation stops. Or 2) Artificial insemination. The first problem, if it became universal, could only be tolerable by a society for a generation or so and then the real problem becomes obvious. The second issue raises up kids without both their biological father and mother in the home, and this we already know makes for kids with severe childhood rejection issues, even if it is cause by divorce. In fact kids who suffer a parental death in childhood do not have these feelings of rejection and the boat load of issues that comes with that... So, should we fight to stop gay marriage? It's a fight worth the same effort as fighting divorse, and I believe so. Should we live and let live? I believe so. Should we fight civil unions? I believe not. Should we allow these civil unions to bring children into the world through artificial insemination? Or should they be allowed to adopt? I believe not, because this is endorsing the emotional abuse of "biological-parental rejection" that we already know will haunt these kids deeply later in life. Well, it's just my opinion, that's all...          

I think that you all are spending too much time and energy debating an issue that will ultimately be decided by God.  Try to focus on what really matters.  Your salvation.  Satan wants us to spend time debating things that make no difference to the individual or the worlds salvaion.  God will ultimately decide wheather Homosexuality is a sin or not.  It is not for us to judge.  Starting this debate is a destraction from the real issues.  The "Church" is not what matters.  Only our salvations, and the work that God has called us all to do.  Time is short, and this issue, should the church or the state deside on what "marraige" is, makes no difference in the ultimate work of the Lord.

As a teacher and an individual who is passionate about Adventist education, the gay rights issue has concerned me for a different reason. With Tom, I see huge implications down the road. At some point, I believe churches will be told they cannot discriminate in hiring applicants just because they are gay. Even though I believe that being homosexual is not a sin but practicing it is (just like being hetorsexual is not a sin, but practicing sex outside of marriage is), I do not want to see our churches and schools being told that if a homosexual person is otherwise qualified to take a position in one of our schools, we must consider hiring him/her and cannot discriminate based on his/her sexual orientation. While the person applying for the job may be gay and we may not know to ask the question if he/she is or is not because they are not in a same-sex relationship at present (or may not be legally able to ask the question), they may or may not engage in a same-sex relationship at some future point. Would we as a church entity be allowed to fire the individual based on his/her sexual preference or sexual activities? Perhaps at this point we could, but I have envisioned a future where we would be sued if we did such a thing. 

 

I agree with the philosophy of standing up for other's religious rights, and hence this makes the issue so much more involved. I wish that like some other countries, the US had a separation of the civil and religious institutions of marriage. I completely agree with Kendra's (and others') position on supporting the cival rights of others just as we want others to support our civil rights (and loved the quote from Martin Niemoeller that Kendra included). Even so, the push this minority is making for "equal rights" will likely not stop with marriage. How and at what point do we say, "This is now a religious rights issue"? When the State says pastors must perform marriages to gay couples, as is the case (apparently) in the military? When the State says we must hire qualified candidates in our schools, regardless of their sexual orientation? The gay rights issue is already being compared to the Civil Rights movement. Hiring or not hiring someone based on color is now not allowed, and this is as it should be. But, I am firm in my belief that acting on one's homosexual desires is not in keeping with God's word (just as fornication is not in keeping with God's word), and hence I would be firm in taking a stand that Adventist churches and schools should not hire homosexuals as teachers and preachers. What I fear is that this may one day mean we defy government mandates. However, we believe we will be doing that in other areas (think Sunday laws). And of course, the issue with whether we keep Sunday or Saturday is not one of allegiance to a day, but is one of allegiance to GOD. Likewise, allegiance to God says I will put His will above my own - and above the will of any other entity, including any government anywhere, any time.

By the way, like many others have stated, Adventists run counter to culture in many of our beliefs, including our beliefs about sex. I would venture to say that society's culture has morphed into one that believes that sex is a "right,"  not an incredible gift from an all-loving God. Our culture screams out that we have a "right" to have sex with whomever, whenever - with few exceptions based on consent, age, and relationship (incest still being considered innappropriate overall in our society). The societal norms of sex have changed drastically in the past 50 years. Last I checked, God's norms have stayed the same. 

I think that as libertarians believe we should have the right to do what we want as long as it doesn’t detrimentally affect others.  Yet I also believe what belongs to Ceaser, give to Ceaser, What belongs to God, and let’s leave with God.  Through all of this and even through some misguided responses I haven’t seen or heard and argument in which Marriage is not a religious institution.  We say it’s just tradition, but traditions come from somewhere.  In fact if you look at the history of our laws I this great America, we’ll see our original laws came from Europe, and not even just their written law, but from common law, which was the law of the common man, passed down from generation to generation.  Let’s not look down on traditions, we should find out if they have a basis in today’s society, and not change what works.  It’s the same argument we have about the constitution being a living document, it’s only living so that when it grows, it no longer gives us the protections that it did when it was an infant.  I think I’d rather stay with my juvenile Constitution, than your adult version. Thank you.

I'm confused.....  have spent more than an hour following this argument and as far as I can see noone has spoken of the "so called rights" that are being kept from the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community. Are they not allowed to seek out happinness together? Are they not allowed to keep homes and will their worldly possessions to each other? Are they not allowed to adopt children and/or artificially inseminate (since they obviously cannont procreate)? What right are they seeking that they currently do not have? If it is the right to physically say that they are married, we still have freedom of speach in this country do we not? Is it the right to FORCE others to acknowledge them as married?

As far as I know NOONE has the right to force another's acknowledgement and noone should seek it.

Why is it the people who cry the loudest for tolerance are the most intolerant?
 
Why must I tolerate your right to choose your life's partner but you don't have to tolerate the fact that i beleive it's a sin?

This is not a case of concience or morality, it's a case of people seeking to impinge on the rights's of others. Those people being those that would force somone to accept what their religion, their upbringing, their concience, and the hearts tell them is wrong. Who is rallying for my right to say I don't beleive this? Who is rallying for my right to say you can choose to live in the way that you see fit but like wise so can I? Marriage has always been a religious institution, it doesn't matter who came after and chose to support what, there has been only one person in this whole affair who has dared to say otherwise and it's because his education is sorely lacking.  To say that the state should define it at any point and decide who should legally partake of it is a mistake. It is something that should firmly be entombed in the boosom of religion and if it is then there is no argument to be made.

This is not bigotry, this is not discrimination, it is merely factual.

I support the right to choose. If God allows free will who are we to put limitations on it where it doesn't affect the rights of others. What i do not support is their desire to make their will the collective will by force (by law).


The gay/lesbian/transgendered community is fighting so hard to make themselves accepted that they are making themselves unacceptable.

Kendra,
    Thank you so much for your well thought out and clearly written article. I feel the same way you do, and I have always felt that this made the most sense. I must order my life the way my conscience dictates, but I would never support any law which orders that anyone not be allowed to do the same. I may even take it farther than most reading this post would care for, but I feel very strongly about it. For me, I could never stop a life. As far as I know, only the One Who gave it has the right to take it away. However, I would vote for others to be able, IN VERY EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES such as life-threatening physical conditions, etc, to make that choice for themselves. They, of course, will be the only ones answerable to Him, so I try not to judge. I didn't create the life, so the sin is not against me. I feel that I can say this because, when I was pregnant, an early screening showed that my baby could have Trisomy-18. I was very young and frightened. The way it was explained to me was that, if my baby did have this condition, I would carry to term, and the baby would be born alive. However, she would be so twisted and malformed inside that she would live only a few seconds to a maximum of 30 days. She then informed me that I had the option of terminating the pregnancy if that was the case. I had to wait 2 weeks to get the test and results (indicating that she did not, in fact, have Trisomy-18 or any other such defect, thank God), but I already knew the day I got the results from the screening, it was not my choice to make. The thought of seeing my baby terribly malformed and twisted and in pain tore my heart out, but it was not enough to coerce me to take the reigns from my Creator's hand. I could see, though, how those thoughts could torture someone into making a decision they normally wouldn't.
 When someone asks me whether I am pro life or pro choice, I have to ask, "For whom?" For myself? Completely, wholly and without a doubt: Pro Life. For another, perhaps young, scared, drug addicted or impoverished woman? Under some extreme circumstances, absolutely Pro Choice.
 That was a little tangent... what I really wanted to say was, thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for saying out loud what I have only spoken of with close friends who already know how eccentric I am. It filled my heart and renewed my faith in the Adventist church to hear you affirm everyone's rights, not just those who share our own often unpopular beliefs.

I've read through the comments, and while some of the points I'm about to make have been made by others I wanted to emphasize a couple things.

Some commenters seem to be unable or unwilling to make a distinction between what should be permitted by law and what's moral.  Their argument seems to be because I believe gay marriage to be wrong, it should be illegal. I strongly disagree with that mindset. Such a mindset could lead to others imposing their religious views on us.  HOWEVER saying something should should be legal does not preclude advocating against it as being wrong. By all means stand up and speak out against the things that you are convicted of. But that is in no way inconsistent in being for allowing people to have choice in how they want to lead their own lives. 

The other argument seems to be the slipperly slope argument, in which if gay marriage is legal, down the road it will infringe on our rights as Adventists to exclude people who are living in sin in this manner from positions in our churches, schools, hospitals, etc or will force us to tacitly support gay couples either through allowing them to get married in our churches or provding them with insurance or certain benefits in our institutions. I find this to be a much more interesting arguement. I'm curious if it's one unique to same sex marriage, are they other things that Adventists oppose the legality of largely because we want to maintain our ability to institutionally oppose? I don't know what the practical consequence of legalize gay marriage would be but in general such a concerns support Kendra's larger point of the need for being strongly supportive of and fighting for more religous freedom for everyone.  Which would include supporting religious organizations having the right to discriminate as dictated by their conscienses. 

Lastly, it seems to me that some of the energy in opposing the legalization of gay marriage is a little misdirected.  Whether or not same sex marriage is legal, we know that there have been and will continue to be many people engaged in gay relationships.  We know there are gay people in countries where homosexual activity is severely punishable by law. The only solution, and where our focus to should be, is the same solution for all conditions caused by our sinful nature, bringing people to Christ, and allowing the Gospel and the Holy Spirit to change their lives.

Thank you Kendra,

I highly appreciate your article. It is surprising how intolerant could some Adventists be, when the church itself was in the beginning a minority defending human rights.
Growing gay Christian is one of the hardest things, especially in the SDA church. Some people will never understand what does that mean and they don't have to as long as they don't impede the slight progress the society makes in favor of gay rights.
And I welcome this progress. It is slow - first - slavery, then religious rights, then women rights, now gay rights, the society is growing mature. Unfortunately some Adventist fellows call that LAST DAYS. Well, this is not true! It was Paul saying that a woman should not speak in the church and I think that today no one quote this anymore.
Once again thank you

"Even though I believe that being homosexual is not a sin but practicing it is (just like being hetorsexual is not a sin, but practicing sex outside of marriage is)"

 

When considering employees for an SDA hospital, it is against the law to ask them about their sleeping arrangements; or for that matter, their sexual orientation.  What they do on the personal time should not interfere with their work.  Does an SDA hospital require its employees not to drink?  Not to eat pork?  The employee cannot be asked such questions under anti-discrimination laws.  Their liberty of conscience cannot be infringed; just as an SDA employer is not to be their employee's consciences.

Marriage is a state institution and because it is often blessed in a church ceremony, many forget that all clergy are given the privilege of performing marriage ceremonies, but they are totally unnecessary. 

 

With some state laws legalizing gay marriage, can another state that does not, reject their married state if they move to that state?  IOW:  what one state recognizes as legal may be illegal in another state?  This will eventually lead to more problems than are presently foreseen.  Adventist institutions are well aware of these laws and are not about to run afoul of them.  Why could it possibly matter if a nurse is gay or heterosexual?  Is it because some still believe that gays are a danger to society?  There are far more dangers caused by heterosexuals than any number of gays have done.

 

I appreciate your article. I think it behooves us, however, to make a distinction between fighting for civil freedom of conscience and religious freedom of conscience. I can't find Biblical justification for openly advocating something that God has explicitly denounced. At the same time, I don't think that anyone has been authorized by God or by any state power to deny this freedom of choice to others.

Romans 1:24-28 says that God has given people up to do what they please. While he is against it, he chooses to tolerate it for a while. Why should we act differently? Let the State legalize whatever it wants to legalize if some of it's citizens feel that it is necessary in order to facilitate their well-being (i.e. emotional contentment), and as long as no infringement is made on the civil or religious freedoms of others. Religious communities have nothing to do with legalizing or outlawing of brothels and casinos, why should they be involved in supporting or denying same-sex marriage? In keeping with the principle of separation of Church and State, however, Government cannot coerce any particular church to bestow the status of marriage to ANY couple, whether hetero- or homosexual. If same-sex marriage is to be recognized by government, then it needs to be validated only by a branch of government (i.e. civil registry office) erected for that purpose, or any church that choses to recognize the matrimony.

 

I believe in supporting the religious freedom of others even if I don't agree with their religion. But in doing so, I'm not fighting for the religion, but simply fighting for government to stay out of all religious matters. I cannot advocate supporting all forms of civil freedom since some may stand in blatant opposition to God's law. And in reality, supporting such forms has nothing to do with upholding the separation of Church and State. (Same-sex marriage is not a religious matter but a civil matter.) The real issue is this: For everything that God has instituted, the Devil has tried or is trying to insinuate his own counterfeit. For Sabbath there's a Sunday, for Creation there's Evolution, for marriage ordained by God, there's marriage ordained by the State (spurred on by the Devil since it's clearly not from God). The Devil will play his game until God declares that he's played long enough. The main concern of Christians should be that Government does not interfere with the Church. Christians have as much to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage as they have with any other culturally accepted violation of God's principles: none.

 

The bottom line is this: judicious, Bible-believing Christians should neither support same-sex marriage nor actively oppose it. In doing so, they demonstrate love to both God and man. The word of God is honored and they avoid further burdening their neighbors by adding to their physical and psychological struggle, especially if these two neighbors of theirs have both consciously agreed to spend their lives together.

Obama does not respect the difference that you are putting out here.

He believes in forcing the church to follow his public policy.  Remember his war with the Vatican over controceptives?  "It's my decision.  Sit down and shut up.")

I think the bigger picture is being missed. Up until now the president did not comment on this issue. What made him do it now? Money, the gay and lesbian orgaizations were holding back the contributions to His re-election campain, about 37million and there was another fundraiser were more money would be raised. So, the question I have to ask myself is can I trust a man that can be bought.

He is not activly doing anything about legislatively to help them only talking to get their money. What else would he do for money? Gay and Lesbian rights are on the table in many states and they (the states) will have to decide that issue. Churches will have to decide what it will allow to happen in their services but each individual will have to decide which type of leader they will follow. Presidents terms are 4 or 8 years then they are gone but the federal judges they appoint and the regulations they pass are usually around for 40-50 years or more.

     It definitely is being brought up now for political reasons.  However, I agree with Kendra and how she has stated the church/state issue involved here. 
     Since I don't hear churches getting so excited about adultry (in the ten commandments), this is quite an uproar.  Would they want laws against adultry which hurts more people than gay marriage ever would?  
Elaine:  I like what you said--"When considering employees for an SDA hospital, it is against the law to ask them about their sleeping arrangements; or for that matter, their sexual orientation. What they do on the personal time should not interfere with their work. Does an SDA hospital require its employees not to drink? Not to eat pork? The employee cannot be asked such questions under anti-discrimination laws. Their liberty of conscience cannot be infringed; just as an SDA employer is not to be their employee's consciences."   Exactly!

Yowza. I was brought here by someone else, and it's quite scary to see that this is the supposedly "liberal" side of this whole thing.

You have freedom of religion, as anyone does, but your religion is frightening. It is people like you who make me glad that there is no such thing as a god, and simultaneously sad that anyone ever thought there was.

After reading http://www.atoday.org/article/864/columns/perry-kendra/2011/god-loves-gays-and-so-should-we, here's the point: There's nothing wrong with being gay. There's nothing wrong with having sex (premarital or otherwise) with a consenting adult with appropriate precautions. It's not a "disability" or a "sin", it's humanity. But by all means, write your smug, condescending columns, looking at it as such, and telling yourself you're better than those who actively discriminate. You're an enabler, and you're not. Shame on you.

Wait until gay marriage is fully institutionalized and then you'll see how those of religious conscience who oppose will suffer discrimination and sanction.  Already in New Mexico a photographer  (Elane Photography) refused to give photo service at a  lesbian  committment celebration and she was sued and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found in favor of the plaintiff and  was forced to pay $6,637.    So where is her right of conscience to refuse  business that she finds in violation of her conscience.  This is not an institution but a private businessperson here.   To what length this steamroller will squash anything that gets in it's way.   As I have said before  legalizing gay marriage has nothing to do with   respecting religious liberty and everything to do with political power by some who  want to intimidate, coherse, and  effectively silence any opposition they might see to their lifestyle.   Wake-up.

Elaine Photography is not a public business.  It's a private business that does offer pay for service to the public.
She didn't  discriminate on the basis of gender but on fact it was a committment celebration for two lesbians. She has every right of  conscience to refuse service based on the ceremony being a violation of her beliefs, than she does to refuse to take photographs of a  bunch of guys getting drunk at a batchelor party for a groom, if she so chooses.

A private business should be able to do business with whomever they chose to.  Freedom of choice is not a one way street.   Should a bakery be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding?  to some it is a conscienous decision, not a matter of just swallowing your pride as you say.

In matter such as I have stated above it appears that some folks here are pushing the envelope when it comes to anti-discrimination.  This is the very slippery slope I have been warning about.

In my opinion, the issues at stake in same-sex civil unions revolve around such things as company sponsored health insurance, income tax rates for married individuals, and other money related things. As far as property rights goes, any two people can have a deed or will structured to their liking with or without the benefit of marriage.

This is not a matter of church and state. It is not a violation of someone's religious principles to deny same-sex marriages unless there is some religion which requires them. It is a matter of sex and money. It is a matter of people wanting to benefit in a financial way that only married people are allowed to benefit. Financial benefit from other aberrant sexual behaviour is strictly prohibited by most state laws. For instance, prostitution is outlawed as well as certain pornographic trafficking. Likewise same-sex civil unions should not be permitted.

When nations have laws which are pleasing in God's sight, then those nations are blessed. When nations have laws to the contrary, they forfeit the blessings of God and even incur His wrath. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah. Christians have the God given responsibility to fight against laws which will in any way demoralize society or in any way desensitize people to the awareness of the exceedingly sinfulness of sin.

I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage.  No one is condemning the sunday keepers or protesting in front of their church...They are going against God's Law.  Yes.....I do believe homosexuality is against God's Will and is forbidden in the Bible.  The problem with this push by the homosexual community is that they are wanting protection under the law for everything.....In my state there is a city ordinance that states you cannot use sexual orientation as a reason for dismissal from a place of work.  That directly touches us as a denomination.  You cannot work for the Seventh-day Adventist Church if you are a homosexual.  Sooo we give them legitamacy, the next step is too bury our beliefs because the law says so....I don't believe we should condemn them, because I know Jesus wouldn't. Yet are we as a church ready to set aside our beliefs, because that is exactly what will happen if we just sit by and let same-sex marriage become common place.   

"If the state can force citizens to accept or tolerate what is contrary to their religious beliefs, can the state compel a person to perform a same-sex wedding when that marriage is contrary to their beliefs about right and wrong? This is not speculation because military chaplains are now required by executive order from Obama to perform same-sex weddings when requested. Those chaplains can face court martial if they refuse. If that is the case in the military, how long before it is the law across the nation? So the challenge I see for us is to balance our respect for and defense of others having the right to practice as they wish while protecting our right to not have their wishes imposed over our religious beliefs about what is right or wrong."

I am a retired US Army chaplain.  As such, no one could tell me that I had to marry any couple.  This is aaccurate in my present position as a VA Chaplain.  In both positions I refused to marry some couples and I performed the marriages of others. The decision was mine and no one elses.

Those who clailm that Federal chaplains could be forced to perform the marriages of homosexuals totall misunderstand the situation.

I think it is a little too much to say that you can't work for the Adventist church and be homosexual.  I would not support such a position, especially if one is single and celebate.  even though I am against gay marriage for the reasons I have repeatedly stated, I would never slam the door in the face of anyone gay even if they were in a relationship.  It is quite a difference between love and compassion and  institutionalizing gay relationships by redefining marriage.

I agree that gays have been discriminated with all too much frequency.  And there needs to be some protections, but there are some in the gay rights movement who are determined to push the envelope to the max as demonstrated by the New Mexico photographer who was sued and lost because she refused to photo op a committment ceremoney of a lesbian couple.   

Our mission as a  church is to proclaim the everlasting gospel to everyone, gays included, and prepare a people for the kingdom of heaven.  All our resouces should be directed toward that end.  Valuable time and money should not have to be spend   in litigation, which is exactly what is already happening and will redouble if   this   steamroller  isn't slowed down.


This has not been the easiest converstaion for me to engage in under my own circumstances.    As one blogger commented here, it has given me no end of  internal turmoil to say some of the things I have felt compelled to point out.

Some of you seem to finally be getting the drift of what I have been trying to say.  Thank-you for listening.

My own personal beliefs aside, I see one hole in your argument. Doesn't God factor into any marriage, be it civil or religious? Isn't God part of marriage, even if the two people getting married don't believe in God?
I, too, seek loving answers in the debate on same-sex marriage. And I strongly support the separation of church and state. What troubles me are these question. When is God not present, not part of the union that God created, regardless of whether it is civil or spiritual, or who believes God is or isn't part of it? If God is always part and party to marriage regardless of whether it is civil or religious, then how, in the case of marriage, do we separate church from state? 

As this debate has raged over the past 2 decades here in California, it has become increasingly clear to me that the phenomenon of "people talking past each other" is in play here.  ALL those who are supportive of this thing called "same-sex marriage" see it as a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.  In other words, it is a diminishing of a certain minorities' RIGHTS to prevent them from getting married.  On the other hand, ALL those who are uncomfortable with "same-sex marriage" see it as a REDEFINITION issue.  They see the whole episode as a re-defining of the historical meaning of the word MARRIAGE.

Every editorial in the press that argues FOR same-sex "marriage" uses the word "rights" repeatedly.  Every editorial arguing AGAINST same-sex "marriage" uses the word "redefinition" repeatedly.  So each side is making its case from a completely different framework, using different terminology, understanding the issue from a totally separate point of view.

The question then becomes: is the great debate about whether gays can "marry" a RIGHTS issue, or a REDEFINITION issue?  If gay couples were to have all of the exact same RIGHTS as married couples, would there still be the passion to call their unions "marriage?"  If gay unions have all of the RIGHTS of marrieds, then the issue no longer becomes an issue of RIGHTS!  From the perspective of the REDEFINITION crowd, it is not an inherent CIVIL RIGHT to re-define "marriage."

Of course, the RIGHTS crowd says: "Hogwash--there is no standard definition of marriage.  The institution has morphed from one thing to another for centuries!"  This may be true, but when we come across the word "marriage" in any textbook, novel, encycopedia, history book, or religious text (i.e. any writing in history) it ALWAYS contains the same meaning; we all know what it's referring to--a union, state-recognized or otherwise, of a man (husband) & a woman (wife).

This issue is filled with existential angst because we see it differently.  We cannot even agree on the rules of engagement.  Kendra has offered a state-sponsored CIVIL UNION FOR ALL alternative--which may help.  I've heard this alternative offered on radio talk-shows and in private conversations for years.  It appears to be a workable alternative.  

It is a sad day to learn how this issue has now come forth to the forefront. We have not learned from the debates of Prop 8 in California.
Unfortunately, there is confusion by thinking protecting some immoral activity of a "minority" is somehow confused as a civil rights issue, that somehow the "people" or government have no right to make some boundaries on behaviors as this somehow intrudes on civil rights issue because of conscience.
Unfortunately, many of the comments somehow fail to understand the true purposes of the same sex agenda to not only make same sex relations legal but also completely acceptable and should any oppose this concept of idea it would be branded as "hate speech" and in some countries (Canada) churches are told it is illegal to preach against this same sex or ministers or preachers could be fined or imprisoned.
 

For those who are naive enough to think that there are NO instances of same sex individuals preying on hetersexual kids are only kidding themselves as there have been a case in the South where a boy was tortured and killed by two homosexuals.
For those who are naive enough to think that opposing or supporting same sex is just politics, should consider the ferocious opposition where people's right to express themselves opposing same sex marriage were bodily harmed and beaten to the point of going to the hospital. Politcical signs opposing this agenda was ripped off peoples' lawn. I personally had and saw my neighbors's political signs ripped off and shredded.
For people thinking that some how we can live and let live into accepting this type of relationship are dreaming. During the gay parades in San Francisco, it was just amazing and disgusting out in the open and in public in front of children and families in the city and parks open same sexual relationships, nudity, mocking Christianity, defacing Christian icons, opening urinating on Christian symbols, etc. Would these people have dared to do this on Muslims symbols? For the discussion groups to say this is okay type of behaviour as government nor the people have any right to dicatate or limit behaviour as it would limit their concience are deluded.
For those that don't think that there is not an active recruitment going on need only read about LAMBA and how they seek to soften oppostion to having relationships with boys under the legal age in our society. 
Now the same sex movement seek by law to soften opposition by education mandating acceptance in public school education as early as kindergarten and first grade with no opt out.
Unfortunately, when you do research and read the same sex manifesto on their plan for making their agenda acceptable to society, they are on track to ultimately be successful.
Unfortunately, there is a saying that states the reason why evil triumphs is that there are no good men to speak out against this evil. There is confusion and there is cowardice to speak out because of fear of calling evil by its right name.

Same-sex marriage is not a religious liberty issue, but a civil issue. Even within that realm, same-sex marriage is border line because civil rights issues have to do with discrimination based on race, national origin, gender and so on. At its core, homosexuality is a choice. While we are all tempted by various sins, homosexuality is just one of those temptations for some. The difference is what we do with the temptations we face.

The writer is then correct in the ascertion that the government should never dictate doctrine or morality to the church, thus limiting freedom of conscience. That is the perogative of God. God, on the other hand, can and does limit our freedom of conscience as He sees fit. You see, we respond to His love voluntarily by choice. In doing so, we automatically accept His loving restrictions on our lives.

Therefore, as God call Homosexuality sin, we must call it likewise. Thus, we cannot support any so-called "right", even in the civil sphere, to same-sex marriage.

The fight for same-sex marriage is not the same as the right to keep the Sabbath. Adventists defend the right to do so based on a biblical principle. Same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality we can say is not sound bibical principle because the Bible is clear about where it stands in regards to that issue. Though gays and lebians should have the right to marry, how can Christians especially Adventists with a clear conscious help and support the right to do so if we believe and know where that will ultimately end? It is counter productive to the spreading of the gospel. How can we co-sign on something that we are not willing to do? What I'm saying is why help someone get the right to get married if we will not perform it at our churches based on what is clearly revealed in the Word of God? Will homosexuals be able to marry at Adventist Churches? No. Let them fight that right becuase they whole heartedly believe that they should have the right to do so, but if we cannot based on what God has already made clear,  actually marry them, then we should not support it. Helping or supporting the right to do so does not automatically or necessarily help us politically. 
If Christ was comfortable with our sin He would not die for us. He died because He does not support sin though we maintain the right to sin. That's why He choose to die. He took a stand and chose a side. We have to be careful about being double-minded. We shouldn't choose to live one way in the world becuase it sounds politically correct and live another way in our church because within these four walls be know its wrong. We are called to be a light that shines in a dark place, how can we be a light that compromises? What does light have to do with darkness? Nothing, that's why there is a separation of Church and State. And in times past both ancient and modren Christians have upheld the Word of God over the prinicples and traditions of men and have died for it. The Word of God in it's proper context, for the Christian, is above all. The fact of the matter is, as a Christian you will always be the minority because you go against the grain, and that is biblical and prophetic.

Oh dear, now this topic has had some anti-gay inflammatory words thrown into the mix.  This is difficult to continue here.   Yes Kendra you have stated my case in asking me if I think the church should still be able to retain the right  to not hire someone based on living in a gay relationship.   I know this sounds bad at first glance, but the church must have the religious liberty to uphold its beliefs.    

I think it is wishful thinking that if gay marriage become the law of the land, that churches will be able to practice their beliefs in opposition to such.    There are too many in this movement who are not satisfied until  they not only win their marriage rights but intimidate and silence any opposition.

While most gays would be satisfied with a  live and let live on gaining the right of marriage,  there is an undercurrent in this movement who want to be punitive and will not stop until they have succeeded. Much as I dislike saying it there are some gays who hate religion as much as they are hated by some christians.  It is regretable that this issue has created such polarizAtion and a standoff with a take no prisoners position of both  extremes.

A very thought provoking article. Having discussions on such issues is important in the growth of any community or individual. Several questions do arise though. I apologize if other commentators have mentioned these, but I have not had time to read all of the comments.

One question you elude to is how individual denominations and churches will choose to handle the issue of same-sex marriage. You said, "Whether or not same-sex couples should be married in Adventist churches, by Adventist pastors STILL remains a topic for us to decide within our faith community." We also need to realized that we are not just members of a "faith community" but we are also members of a larger community that encompasses the political, social and cultural commuity around us. It is within that community that we are now debating the issue of same-sex marriage and it is that community that President Obama is addressing. Society is based on its own accepted morals and views and subject to variability based on the predominate cultures of the time. Thus we have to ask ourselves, "where do we want the direction of the moral compass of our larger community of society to point?" We are members of several communities and thus responsible to all of them.

Then there is the emphatic comment that you make, "And if we want to continue having our rights as a religious minority respected, we will continue to fight for the rights of other minorities, even if we disagree with them. " This is a very, very slippery slope. Should we fight for the  right of female genital mutilation as it is a religious custom of a small subset of Islamists in Somalia? They are a minority. The reality is that we can find many, many "minorities" that are fighting for rights within the larger community. Some of those rights are extreme and counter to our customs and morals and we should not fight for all rights for all all minorities just because they are a minority. We must evaluate the "right" and how it will affect the culture and community as a whole before jump in and fight for it.

The reason this is a matter of definition rather than rights is simple: Everyone has precisely the same right to marry.

Any of us who is eligible--majority age, currently single, mentally competent-- can marry any eligible person of the opposite sex who will have us. There's no box on the license application that asks your sexual orientation, denying some the right to marry. So that right belongs to everyone.

What is being asked for is not an extension of that right, which everyone has, but redefinition. Right now, that definition is and has been for a very long time, one man and one woman. The desire is for marriage to be redefined as between any two consenting adults, without regard to sex. 

This would not amount to extending an existing right, since that right is available to everyone already. No one who was eligible to marry before would be made ineligible, and no one who was ineligible would be receive eligibility. The only difference is that marriage would be redefined so that different sexual combinations are permitted.  Right now it's M/F.  The current campaign is to redefine marriage as being either M/F, or M/M, or F/F.

Why there is resistance to these facts is a different question.

Hello Kendra danke für den Artikel...ich habe gerade darüber nachgedacht ob du auch in Österreich in Bogenhofen warst ? ...Liebe Grüße und ich werde den Artikel nochmals sorgfältig lesen. 

See what I mean, Kendra?  Ed has articulated the more conservative stance---that same-sex "marriage" is a REDEFINITION issue.  Tom (and all those of the more progressive persuasion) would argue that it is a RIGHTS issue.

As for Tom's lament that this thread had taken on some "anti-gay inflammatory" language, unfortunately that is true.  However, from the perspective of the biblical literalist, there is nothing "anti-gay" about it.  The literalist believes that God has spoken in the literal text, and that same-sex intimacy is a sin, and that the homosexual is a sinner.  For the literalist, God has declared this is so.  It will take perhaps months of re-learning the historical context, meaning of original words, original audience, why it was written, etc of these texts before a literalist can begin to see these passages in a contextual framework.  I used to be a literalist (I knew no other way).  Most people are literalists (or they just let the "church" interpret the Bible for them).

To see the LGBT person as an individual, as a child of God, as a fellow sinner on life's pathway, is a HUGE step.  And what bothers me about the same-sex "marriage" debate, is that the progressives are asking people who haven't even taken the FIRST STEP (accepting LGBT's as loved by God) to LEAP forward MANY steps and accept a whole new definition of marriage.  It just won't work.  It can be legislated, but legislation cannot change hearts.

Unless you believe there is no such thing as objective truth, GMac, then you are missing the point. Just to declare something a "right" does not make it so. Abraham Lincoln once asked "If you count the tail as a leg, how many legs does a cow have?"

His respondent answered, "Five."

Lincoln replied. "No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

I have demonstrated that everyone has exactly the same right. What is asked for is a change in the defintion of marriage.

IF someone actually wants to make the case that it is a right, let them produce a reasoned argument. I have never seen one that holds up under examination. In the American context, which is where this is currently being debated, we have a definition of what a right is, based on the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. If someone wants to reason from those foundations and find a right, I'd be eager to see it.

This is not just a matter of phrasing. It is a matter of clarity. As Orwell warned us, "The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

This applies to much of contemporary discourse, and especially on this topic.

Ed, I believe in objective truth.  The debate is over what those truths are.  Is same-sex love and intimacy a "sin?"  Is THAT an "objective" truth?  How can we know which biblical "truths" are OBJECTIVELY seen as truth?  There are things that are observable that the overwhelming majority of humans acknowledge as TRUTH.  We would probably agree on those.

I agree with you that changing the historic "definition" (common understanding) of marriage is NOT a "right."  But I also see the argument of the pro "re-definition" crowd.  They strongly see this as a "human rights" issue.  They believe that it is the RIGHT of every person to marry whomever they want to.  They believe that the state should legislate this "right."  Without necessarily realizing it, they want to fundamentally re-define the most basic institution in human history.  They believe that the long-range effects will be positive for all humanity (and yes, in many cases, they have not considered the long-range effects).  They elevate EQUALITY higher than any other value.

I am not a post-modern---but I believe that all of our positions must be REASONABLE, and must appeal to the REASON of others.  Frankly, the only conservative writer I've read who articulates a reasonable argument against the re-definition of marriage is Dennis Prager (radio host & author).  All other arguments based on religion or tradition fall short.

This is actually a matter of semantics.
 
Marriage can be defined as/including polygamy wherever polygamy is legal. Where polygamy is illegal, the state denies this right. Where polygamy is legal it partially defines marriage. So the definition is only determined by legality. Anyone has rights to do that which is legal. So, this is about rights.
 
Where the legal right to marry does not change, the definition will not change; because it’s about rights. As the legal right is granted, the definition is changed.
 
Churches can/should grant or deny rights and privileges to its members as they will without necessarily affecting the rights of non-members. The state, of course, has no non-members. This would simple to comprehend if the spheres of church and state were separate(d). 

Hello all,

A friend recently brought this article to my attention, after which I sent him a rather lengthy assessment.  I had intended to register here and comment directly, but it occurred to me that it'd save time if I merely shared here what I'd shared with him.

 

I grew up in the Adventist church and attended Sacramento Adventist Academy.  I'm also gay, and for the sake of candor (and to what I suspect will be the pleasure of several people here, after having read the comments), I'm no longer Adventist.  I'm sharing my thoughts below in an effort to demonstrate the outsider perspective, which may not be clearly represented otherwise.

 

All my best,

 

Tim

 

______________________________

XXXXXX,

Kendra's argument in the article is dead on and well-delivered -- I couldn't agree with her more. It was a pleasure to read, and if I can find the time, it'd be nice to commend her in the comments section for sticking her neck out. The problem, though, is that she's an idealist, which she probably knows and which is clearly reflected in the reader responses. While she's not wrong, her position isn't reflective of what I expect to be that of the majority of Adventists (or any other conservative denomination). It takes an admirable capacity to think critically for one to extricate politics from religious conviction, and despite her apparent ability to do that, it's clear the vast majority of people can't. Not only are people unable or unwilling to compartmentalize their religious beliefs with respect to Constitutionally guaranteed rights afforded to nonbelievers, but they truly believe that the religious texts obligate them to express their convictions through political processes -- e.g. at the voting booth, whether to elect representatives who will carry out their legislative wishes or to themselves vote on religiously-derived propositions. That fact translates to precisely the opposite of what Kendra is advocating, and it's a fact that won't change. Even a casual glance at some of the vehement opposition to the article demonstrates that quite well.

So while people like Kendra and yourself exist, you aren't a representative sample. If you were, I'd be perfectly content as a mere atheist, and a much less vociferous one at that. But people like me are forced to defend ourselves against a full-on, enduring ideological assault that has very real consequences for us. For this reason, I'm not expressly an atheist -- I'm an antitheist. That is, I not only passively fail to believe in god(s), but I actively assert that those belief systems cause exceptionally grave harm. I wish I and others like me didn't have to take that position, but we have no choice -- in a more perfect United States, we'd all be coexisting without the need for State codification of any religious institutions (marriage). But if the most assertive Christians had their way, and if we were silent, people like me would not merely be denied civil rights, but we'd be *imprisoned* (or worse) for being what we are, predicated on the patently absurd belief that homosexuality is a choice one makes in defiance of "God's Law." If that sounds like an extreme assertion, one need not look very far for real-world examples -- homosexuals are routinely persecuted around the world, up to and including death, and in every last case I can think of without exception, such persecution has a religious basis. A few minutes spent Googling will return a not insignificant handful of American representatives who've expressed these very same desires. That's not only disagreeable to me; that's dangerous. It's a call to battle.

Another important consideration that I'd be remiss to avoid is the very real harm these belief structures cause gay youth who have no choice but to grow up in them. By some miracle, I made it through relatively well-adjusted despite being atrociously crass and dark-humored, but things could have just as easily turned out otherwise and damn near did. I can't tell you how many years I spent crying myself to sleep, literally begging god to "change my heart." I felt worthless and deeply ashamed of myself... and for what? The common response from Christians when I bring that up is that I must not have prayed hard enough or truly "known" Jesus or some shit, which makes me more angry than I know how to communicate -- murderously angry, in fact, the kind of deep and violent anger that I wouldn't wish on anyone. The kind of crippling anger for which you see only the faintest shadow in some of my expressions on Facebook.

As an adult, I can't abide the thought of others having to endure what I had to simply for being who and what they are. I was very lucky in that it wasn't my parents who harmed me directly -- it was simply the nonsensical belief structure itself that I'd internalized. Others aren't as lucky -- not only do they needlessly feel worthless and ashamed, but they're kicked out and disowned because who they are doesn't mesh with an elaborate fairytale. And even in adulthood, we still live with the loathing and condescension of the religious around us, even if its delivered with a hug and a smile. It makes me sick to my stomach.

I went off the rails a bit with respect to the specifics of the article, but.. for these reasons, while I can and do appreciate that people like Kendra exist, and while certainly we'd all be better off if there were more like her (and you), I'm unable to take her position as my own. If I were to, I'd not only be ceding the ideological war to your fellow, less introspective and less Constitutionally-aware religious brethren, but I'd be implicitly condoning the literal hell that gays have to endure growing up in a conservative Christian environment, to say nothing of the hate we endure from the same as adults. I hope you understand that. We may be able to coexist happily on paper, but human nature being what it is, we will never coexist happily in practice. Freedom of conscience is a utopian concept. It's myopic, a pleasant indulgence. The reality is war in the marketplace of ideas, as it always has been.

And the term "Christian morals" is a common oxymoron.  What a horrible, sad indictment that Christianity supports.  When will it ever end?  A religion that proclaims that God is love--very conditionally!

GMac, have you read all my posts on this blog?  You claim  that I  ( along with other progressives see this as a rights issue.)  First, I don't consider myself a progressive, and I see same-sex marriage not as a rights issue but a redefinition issue, one I am opposed to.

Tim- I hear and resonate with some of what you say.  I am sorry you are so wounded that you are no longer a believer.  I can relate to your anger over being told you just didn't pray hard enough for victory over homosexuality.     Some folks who just don't understand, or don't want to, dish out that kind of BS.
Believe me when I say that I understand the "literal hell that gays have to endure growing up in a conservative Christian environment" that you state.  Been there done that.  It would have been easy for me to take the same views you do, but a loving pastor and a family in the church took a special interest in me and loved me even though I was gay.   Never did I feel the least hint of rejection from either.  They really emulated the love of Jesus that too many christians talk about but rarely practice.   Perhaps if there was more of this there would be less of war in the marketplace of ideas and the tendecy of overreaction on either side.

I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and take a risk.  I am a senior pastor of a fairly large SDA congregation.  We are identified as a "gay-friendly" Adventist church.  All that really means is that we preach that ALL of us are God's children, and we embrace the reality that every person is on a legitimate spiritual journey.  Our church clerk and church organist are gay.  A parishioners' sexual orientation is of no concern to any of us.  Our gay brethren are people of integrity--as are our straight brethren.  We respect each other.

I have co-officiated at a gay "marriage" ceremony in a non-Adventist church.  I am not for a redefinition of marriage, and therefore I'm not a "gay marriage" proponent.  But I AM supportive of committed relationships--especially among my homosexual brothers and sisters.  If calling gay unions "marriage" is the only way they can have the same RIGHTS as married couples, then I'm for that.  If gays can have the same RIGHTS through Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships, that, I believe, is preferable.  In other words, I'm more comfortable with the historic understanding of the word "marriage."  I have my reasons.

None of my gay or lesbian friends hold my views against me.  They don't think I'm a "hater" or "homophobic".  They love me as their friend and/or pastor, and understand perfectly my views (whether they agree with them or not).  We've had long conversations over wonderful food, drink, long into the night.  We are all just journeying through life together.  My point is: you can be "against" a redefinition of marriage and get along just fine with those who are "for" same-sex marriage.  This issue need not be a dividing wedge.  But we need to talk with each other in a calm, non-judgmental way.  And we need to love each other.

@Ed:

 

I don't want to sharpshoot on a point you made almost offhandedly, but with respect to the following:

 

"...As to whether homosexual orientation is inborn or [chosen], I am currently agnostic. I don't know, neither do I think it particularly relevant."

 

On this point, I categorically disagree -- I don't think the distinction could *be* more relevant, actually, because whether or not homosexuality is an innate behavioral trait, a "lifestyle choice" or something in the middle makes all the difference in how we approach the entire spectrum of issues related to sexual orientation, including same-sex marriage.

 

Those who hold fast to the notion that it's a choice (a notion so categorically absurd as to be laughable, given the enormous body of evidence, both empirical and anecdotal, to the contrary) use that "fact" as a foundation from which to impugn not just homosexual behavior, but homosexuals themselves by virtue of their apparent choice to defy Biblical morality.  Of course, when the argument is bounded in such a way, the conclusions arrived at by those who believe homosexuals to be immoral people are not strictly wrong by definition.  Their positions are justified by the false premise that we've had a choice in the matter.

 

However, if we suppose that it's not a choice -- and rest assured that it unequivocally is not -- many of the arguments we hear in opposition to homosexuals and homosexuality become invalid.  It opens a can of worms that, in my appreciable body of experience, many Christians are simply not equipped to reason through.  It forces one to think critically about the premises for their beliefs, and in psychobabble terms, that constitutes a threat.  Ergo, one defaults to the simplistic and comfortable position that the Bible says it's a sin, that if homosexuals only turn to Jesus they'd be healed, and that's that.

 

It's a tongue-in-cheek analogy, but there's an episode of The Simpsons (big fan, so you'll have to excuse me) where through a string of happenstance, Homer briefly became a genius.  He approached Flanders in his front yard (the token religious character on the show) with a logical attack he'd come up with in which he accidentally disproved the existence of God.  Homer walks away as Flanders flips through it, and Flanders says to himself, "huh.. everything looks to be in order.  Welp, can't let this little doozie get out..." before he takes out a lighter and sets it ablaze.

Having aspects of one's world view upended is an extremely uncomfortable and upsetting proposition.  But the reality is that before we make real progress, in order to first define the variables in play, that's precisely what needs to occur.  Conservative Christians must come to realize that it is -not-, in fact, a choice before they can hope to accurately frame the issue.  Whether consciously or not, I think many people are on some level aware of that necessity, which only drives many to tighten their grip on the Bible and tote it even more animatedly in desperation. 

A homosexual is someone who has the preference for someone of the same gender.  I did not chose my gender preferences and neither did any homosexuals.  In my professional experience I have worked with homoxesuals who were celebate.  But, they still considered themselves to be homosexual as that was their gender preference.

As to sin:  I do not beleive that God charges anyone with sin on the basis of a gender preference that they did not chose.

As to the practice of homosexuality:  We ask unmarried, non-homosexual, adults to be celebate.  The SDA Church does the same for homosexuals.

“As part of its broader religious liberty campaigns, the Adventist church has supported believers of other faiths in being able to freely practice elements of their religion that we explicitly disagree with.”
I completely support and agree with any denomination that chooses to support another denomination’s religious practices, as long as what they are supporting DOES NOT conflict with what the Bible teaches. We must always remember to keep the Bible as the foundation of our decision to support another denomination’s practice(s).  When the State attempts to pass laws that conflict with the Bible’s teachings, those laws should be struck down.
In Ancient Egypt, Pharaoh and his empire were the equivalent of today’s modern day State. Pharaoh’s philosophy was clearly in conflict with what God wanted for His people, the Hebrew Israelites. When the State of Egypt impeded them from serving God, He unleashed his wrath upon Egypt and Pharaoh. When the ideology and philosophy of the State conflicts with what God has ordained, we must always remember to follow God. REMEMBER THIS PARAGRAPH AS YOU READ THROUGH MY REBUTTAL TO Kendra’s editorial.
 
“Adventists do not believe in peyote smoking, and we do believe in prayer, but we have supported cases advocating for members of other religions to have the freedom to smoke peyote or decline to participate in public school prayer.” As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, your ability to justify what aspects of another religion you choose to support should be dictated solely on the basis what the Bible’s stance is on that particular matter, not what you think or feel should or shouldn't be supported. In essence, what does the Bible say about smoking? What effect does smoking have on the body? What does the Bible say about the body and how it should be maintained? What role does peyote smoking have in fulfilling what God has ordained us to do? These are the important questions we need to ask ourselves before blindly supporting another denomination’s practices. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Cor 3:16, 6:19). I could go into the ritualistic applications of smoking peyote and why it should be condemned but I’ll leave it up to the readers to show some initiative and do the research.
Of all the excerpts I have read in this editorial, the following, is by far, the most bothersome… “Because, my brothers and sisters, freedom of conscience for you and me means freedom of conscience for everyone.  The reason we can ask for Sabbath off in our workplaces is because we live in a country where a Muslim woman can ask to wear her hijab as part of her work uniform. And if we want to continue having our rights as a religious minority respected, we will continue to fight for the rights of other minorities, even if we disagree with them.”
“Because, my brothers and sisters, freedom of conscience for you and me means freedom of conscience for everyone.” Yea, you’re right. Granted to us by the First Amendment. Now why do we have to fight for another religious minority’s rights again? Does the Bill of Rights take care of that already?
“And if we want to continue having our rights as a religious minority respected, we will continue to fight for the rights of other minorities, even if we disagree with them.”  WRONG!!! If you want to continue having your right as a religious minority respected, Support the First Amendment!!! Fight for it!!! What Kendra is asking everyone to do is become servants for another group’s religious beliefs, regardless if you disagree with that belief or it conflicts with your religion and the Bible. 6 “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers 7 (namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth), 8 thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him; 9 but thou shalt surely kill him. Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God…(Deu 13:6-10)
 “In essence, it is the concept that the church should look after people’s spiritual welfare, and the state should look after their temporal, legal, and civil welfare.  The two should not mix.” The author is contradicting himself or herself. If you say, “the two should not mix” then why are you encouraging people from your denomination/Church to support the “rights” (by voting I would imagine) of homosexuals? You clearly wrote, by Thomas Jefferson’s term, there is and should always be a “separation of church and state.”
“Everybody with me so far? [CLIFF NOTES: Legislating religious belief or practice = BAD. Separation of church & state = GOOD.]” Your cliff notes contradict your persuasive goal. You’re trying to involve your Church/denomination in what is clearly a Constitutional/State issue. If that isn’t the case, then why write this type of editorial on an Adventist forum if you really believe in separation of Church and State? Why not create a blog? or your own website? Why didn’t you keep it Chuuch and point out why support of same-sex marriage is spiritually wrong by citing scriptures?
“But I believe that for us, as Adventists, this POLITICAL issue should be an easy one to decide.” What political decision are you referring to? Your CLIFF NOTES imply that you are for “separation of church and state.” If that is the case, don’t use “Adventist”, “POLITICAL”, and “decide” all in the same sentence. Remember, you said trying to keep Church and State separate = GOOD.
 
 
 
I understood the two separate parts of marriage much more clearly after spending a couple of years in Austria with the Adventist Colleges Abroad program. In Austria, all couples MUST be married in a civil setting called the Standesamt. This is the state-recognized portion of the marriage.  Couples who wish to have a religious ceremony must have that separately… They did not consider themselves married until after the ceremony on Sunday, for then they felt that they were married *before God.* With all due respect to you Kendra, I doubt most people are interested in what you understood about the two separate parts of marriage in Austria. If God himself did not tell you that the proper way of marriage is the way Austrians do it, then you can’t possibly determine what has impact on the Spiritual aspect of marriage. We are interested in what the Bible has to say on the subject matter.
“In America, we have conflated these ideas into one wedding ceremony. You know that little line where the pastor says “By the power vested in me by the state of XYZ?” That’s where it happens.”
 
“So President Obama’s declaration, and (if it should happen) even the eventual acknowledgement of same-sex marriage as a recognized legal arrangement has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the church or on the SPIRITUAL aspect of marriage.” Your statement couldn’t be more ambiguous and misleading. If what you are claiming was true, then that would mean opposite sex marriage has no impact on the SPIRITUAL aspect of marriage either, hence, it’s not recognized by God because as you stated, “In America, we have conflated these ideas into one wedding ceremony.” As the good old quote says, “If its good for the goose, its good for the gander.” So if it has no impact whatsoever for homosexuals, then the same has to stand true for opposite sex marriages, right?
 
Where is the data from your research? Where is your supporting Bible verse that “same-sex marriage as a recognized legal arrangement has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the church or on the SPIRITUAL aspect of marriage?” Sorry, but at this point, I can’t take your word for it!!! Kendra, I would imagine that you’re obviously going to support same-sex marriage if such a law becomes an option so surely you’re also going to be in support of the act that typically follows marriage between two people, right? I know the Bible says… If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 20:13). You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).
“We don’t have to agree that Adam and Steve’s marriage is moral or right, but if they are two consenting adults, to deny them the right to marry under the civil laws of the United States is violating the separation of church and state.” So you’re asking everyone to disagree with his or her better judgment and agree with something that they feel is wrong and immoral? Homosexuals are not being denied the right to marry. They can go to California. They can create they’re own Church and religion and get married in there by the rights granted to them in the First Amendment. We (the Churches) are not denying homosexuals from anything!!! THE STATE IS!!! Since when do Churches deny people their rights? Or create laws? I thought that was the role of Congress. What the Church is doing is creating a separation between Church and State and allowing the People to decide on the issue, if it ever happens. People like you who apparently don’t know anything about Church or State but act like they are experts on the matter, are going around fooling readers into supporting something that will lead them to condemnation.
 
If you are a believer in what the scripture prophesies will be happening as we approach the end times, you’ll agree that the days of your “freedom” to practice your religion as you please are numbered. Take for example the following excerpt:
 
On December 7th 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. US citizens feared another attack and war hysteria seized the country.
State representatives put pressure on President Roosevelt to take action against those of Japanese descent living in the US.
On February 19th 1942, Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. Under the terms of the Order, some 120,000 people of Japanese descent living in the US were removed from their homes and placed in concentration camps. The US justified their action by claiming that there was a danger from those of Japanese descent spying for the Japanese. However, more than two thirds of those interned were American citizens and half of them were children. (http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/japan_internment_camps.htm)
 
If there is one thing to be learned from what the Japanese Americans experienced, it is how easily the very freedom/right you are trying to get people to sell their soul for can be taken away from you at the swipe of a pen. Don’t allow the enemy to make you make irrational decisions where you are compromising your religious beliefs. God does not change, bend, or fold on what he opposes and neither should we.
 
In closing, I’m not an Adventist but I’m sure you’ll agree that Adventist doctrines teach you that there are things coming during the End Times that are inevitable. Our freedom to practice our religion as we please will be taken away from us, it is inevitable. So pray and strengthen your understanding and relationship with God.
All I ask from all Christian denominations is this, on the subject of same-sex marriage… If you’re a voter, VOTE AGAINST IT. If you want to maintain a separation between Church and State, DON’T VOTE AT ALL. Whatever you do, DO NOT VOTE FOR RIGHTS OF OTHER MINORITIES, WHEN THE BIBLE AND YOUR BETTER JUDGEMENT DISAGREE WITH THEM

It was inevitable that this thread would morph into a debate about the "separation of church & state," or a debate about what "homosexuality" is.  The ground of the former is POLITICAL and the ground of the latter is PHYSIOLOGICAL.

As to the church/state issue, my view is that re-defining "marriage" has absolutely nothing to do with the separation of church & state, nor is it a religious issue.  It is a SOCIETAL & sociological issue.  Do we, as an American society, want to re-define the most fundamental, long-lasting institution in the annals of human history?  If so, WHY?  What are the REASONS for re-defining marriage?  Those who don't want to change the historic definition of marriage ARE NOT ON THE DEFENSIVE in this debate.  It is the responsibility of those who want to change the definition to make their arguments persuasive.  The issue is not RIGHTS.  Two people of the same sex, in a Civil Union, can have the same RIGHTS as married couples.  It is not a RIGHT to re-define marriage.  I want all Civil Unions & Domestic Partnerships to have the exact same rights as married couples.  But I'd like for "marriage" to retain its historic uniqueness (my reasons for desiring this would take many pages to articulate).  My reasons have nothing to do with religion.

To the question of what homosexuality is, I understand human sexuality thusly: If your sexual desire is for a person of the opposite sex, you are a heterosexual (the overwhelming majority of individuals in human history).  If your sexual desire is for a person of the same sex, you are a homosexual.  If you find yourself sexually attracted to people of both sexes, you are bi-sexual.  Does this make sense?  In addition, human sexuality can be so complicated that you could be anywhere on a continuum between the two extremes.  I never said as a teen, "I think I'll be attracted to people of the opposite sex."  That's just the way I found myself from my first dawning of sexuality.  It's the same with a homosexual.  Nobody decides to be a homosexual.  Now, some young people who are conflicted may actually experiment with homosexual AND heterosexual intimacy.  There appears to be a greater proclivity for WOMEN to greater experimentation.  The reasons for this are complex.  Sexual orientation (or whatever you want to call it) is a reality.  You ARE what you are!  The possibility of changing your orientation is remote.  I can't imagine having a sexual attraction for a person of the same sex.  The very thought is repugnant.  A homosexual is repulsed by opposite sex sexual intimacy.

Let's get back to a healthy debate about the merits of re-defining marriage as a society.  And for those who want a new definition that includes same-sex couples, what would that definition be?  The ball is in YOUR court.

You are right, Kendra.  Language changes over time.  However, the language for what a marriage is has never changed over time (as far as I can tell).  It has always been a societally recognized contractual union between a man and a woman.  Polygamous relationships did not change the fundamental societal contract.  Each "marriage" was between a man (husband) and a woman (wife).  This goes beyond religion.  Certainly there was no distinction between religion and the state in most ancient civilizations.  But even in those civilizations that attempted to separate the two, the ancient state still identified marriage as a societally recognized contractual union between a man and a woman.  I've never read a history book, sociology book, novel, book of fiction or non-fiction, which referred to marriage (or "husband"/"wife") in  any other way.  

So I'd like to hear some good arguments as to why this should be changed.  If, in the future, the United States government wants to re-identify "marriage" as something other than its historical meaning, I'll have no quarrel with it.  "Civil Union" for all is fine with me, also.  But WHAT will the definition be of a "civil union"?  Again, why redefine "marriage" to mean something it's never meant in recorded history?

You know at first glance the points you brought up were intriguing, but to further read your posts, I found them somewhat misleading. For example, you referenced Ezekiel 16:49 when trying to say that Sodom's sin had little to do with homosexuality, however you left off the remainder of the quote. Ezekiel 16:50 "And they were haughty and committed ABOMINATION before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit." You'll notice the reason why God took them out was because of their abomination. In addition, the reference of Ez 16 is not a good chapter for you to reference in trying to defend homosexuality. WHY? Because the entire chapter is about the sexual perverse acts of the nation of Israel. Just look at how many times Israel is compared to a PROSTITUTE and adulterer. The entire chapter is about the sexual perversion of Israel going around like a whore and you want to use that as your crowning defense of homosexuality/sexual perversion not being the reason why Sodom was taken out. Really?
 
In addition, the part you did quote "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." would actually fit rather well into the current dialogue our country is facing right now. The whole "occupy" movement and taxing the rich sentiment is based upon the arrogance and selfishness of the rich in this country who do not care for the poor and needy... Now you add the part of the verse you left off and you'll see that you're actively campaigning for us to set up an image to Sodom that mirrors its very ruin. All the country has to do is support that abominable sin and you have Sodom's twin.
 
What's going to happen during the end times when men/women must choose on whether to stand for truth or for what's convenient? Is there a switch that goes off and says it's time to stand for truth now? You see the mark of the beast is on the head and the hand. The head represents the beliefs one has, but the hand represents the actions one makes (even though they don't specifically believe it). Well if people cannot take the inconvenient action of voting for a law that agrees with their religion now, what action will they take when they must decide on living and being persecuted? This is the time of training and one day we'll take the real test. Hopefully, during the real test we'll see that it's not always the easy choice that's the right choice.
 
So basically you advocate becoming SLAVES to secularism to achieve freedom of religion.

Kendra, Uphold the Bible's response is another reason we should stay away from the Bible, the Koran, the Tanak, The Book of Mormon, and ALL other sacred texts when dealing with this issue.  People want to MAKE this a religious issue, and all it does is sidetrack us from the real issue.

Now to your short response to me, in many ancient cultures the "legal" contract WAS initiated by two men (groom and bride's father, groom's father and brides' father, etc).  You are correct.  However the MARRIAGE was NOT between the two men----EVER!  The groom was MARRIED to the bride.  The married couple was NOT the two men.  Again, MARRIAGE has always been a union between a man and a woman.

I'm enjoying the enlightening give-and-take.  And I'm willing to learn.  Thanks for starting this thread will your invigorating article.

The test is not and should never be only "Are someone else's rights being infringed?".  
Our republic and forefathers framed our Constitution on a morality notwithstanding their fears of a Christian Nation.  Contrary to the Christian Conservative movement we are not a Christian Nation.  The Establishment Clause provides for many things, but it does not provide for EVERY thing.  It is not a blank check for any bent.  Take it seriously and don't try to stretch it.  We are facing serious issues related to church/state problems.  Same Sex Marriage is not in the same league. 
I am a political liberal with strong feelings for  a tall wall between church and state.  However,  Kendra, your arguement is a quantum leap and I disagree with you. 
Bill Cork, whoever you are--thanks for your early statement.  (See above)

We are forgetting a crucial point in this discussion.  There are secular reasons for opposing same-sex marriage.  In my state, the legislature passed a bill that changed the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex couples.  In the legislation, the terms "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," "widow," and "widower" were made gender-neutral.  Thus, marriage was not the only word being redefined here.  My concern is that next "father" and "mother" will be replaced by "Parent 1" and "Parent 2."  This is ridiculous, and thankfully the law never took effect because of a People's Veto.  There is no reason for the Adventist church to condone these fundamental concurrent redefinitions of gender-linked terms.  It is a red herring to suggest that Adventists go along with these major changes in statutes out of an obligation to the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause, because the author has not established that the First Amendment necessitates such a redefinition of marriage.

And Kendra, I agree wholeheartedly with your concluding sentence of your last post.  But I'd prefer that same-sex unions be called "Civil Unions," and that opposite-sex unions continue to be called "marriage."  I see no reason to change the historic meaning of marriage.  I still await a new definition of marriage from somebody that would be a workable framework for a new understanding.

Peace to all.

Whether it was called marriage, when speaking of tradition, the tradition for most of the Hebrew Bible was NOT limited to "one man, one woman" but for the man, he could "take" other wives, and there was nothing unusual in those arrangements as the Bible lacks commanding against it. 

It is also odd that for Adventists, many of its doctrines are derived from the same Hebrew Bible that described polygamy:  sabbath, dietary laws; and multiple laws describing all possible sexual arrangements--indicating an unusual amount of attention to all such possibilities; and YET, NOTHING about the evils of polygamy!

This makes it rather tiresome to consistently read resources to the Bible for marital rules for today.  Perhaps the  separation of church and state in these matters should be left to the state laws, and especially to the U.S. Constitution specifying freedom of religion for all its citizens.

Membership in a  church has nothing to do with privileges and responsbilities for citizenship except, and unless they interfere or seek to interfere or effect civil laws

Elaine, if you read some of my previous posts you'll see that I don't believe same-sex marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue at all.  Rather, it is a desire for EQUALITY by changing the historic meaning of the institution.

I beg to differ with you, however, on your understanding of the Hebrew Bible.  Each marriage of a husband and wife was a separate entity (a separate marriage) in polygamous societies, throughout the ancient Near East.  Marriage, therefore, has ALWAYS been a societally recognized union between a man and a woman.  With polygamy, a man married MANY women--but each marriage was distinct.

There has been only one "definition" of marriage throughout history.  But I'd love to hear what YOUR definition might be in the new understanding of marriage.

The wheat and the tares will grow together until the end of time, but that does not mean we should stand by and let the truth be trampled on. I understand many who are making comments may not even know what the  pioneers of this church even believed. Kendra, you will be held highly responsible for leading people the wrong way, since you are a Pastors wife. "By their fruits you shall know them". Who's law comes first, definitely not mans. No one ever said you to hate homosexuals, but to allow gay marriage because you think we will be persecuted is really satanic reasoning. I will pray for you that you see the truth for what it is, all sin is wrong and Jesus takes us in the way we are but we must also "go and sin no more" as the Bible states?

Whatever the merits of gay marriage arguments, making this a First Amendment issue has about as much intellectual traction as analogizing heteronormative legal policies to slavery. Taboos against homosexuality and homosexual marriage have historically crossed cultural and religious boundaries. Just how far do you want to go with this freedom thing? What about laws regulating or prohibiting public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and drugs? Is state regulation of those activities a threat to religious freedom? The First Amendment argument implies that all legally recognized public morality laws which restrict the privileges or freedoms of consenting adults are a threat to religious freedom. Does the fact that I can't act as a witch doctor in this country put Sabbath keepers in jeopardy?

Remember, "Brothers and sisters, freedom of conscience for you and me means freedom of conscience for everyone." Slogans work great for moral bullying, but they should not be a substitute for reasoned debate. Calling gay marriage a freedom of conscience issue doesn't make it so. Do you mean to suggest, Kendra, that for most of American history, our religious rights have been in jeopardy because gay "rights" were not legally recognized, much less forced on religious people against their consciences? Outside of hard core libertarians, most who advocate for gay marriage have little interest in protecting the freedom of conservative religious consciences. They believe that where religion acts as a barrier to their moral political agendas, conscience must yield to the greater good.

Even the most activist liberal courts have not used First Amendment principles to promote the gay agenda, because that is an intellectual and Constitutional cul de sac. Privacy and Equal Protection - not freedom of religion - have been the principles under which the gay agenda has advanced.  And that is where the debate should remain if it is to have intellectual respectability.

I've been toying around with this same line of thinking in my head for a while now and I'm glad Kendra took the time (and was brave enough) to put it in writing so brilliantly. 

 

No matter how sensitive the issue is and no matter what your religious predilections are, it's really quite simple:

 

1) If marriage is a religious institution defined by biblical principals then the government has no authority to establish marriage as the only legally recognized civil union ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - 1st Amendment).

 

2) If the government is going to define marriage and thus the benefits thereof, such as tax rates, healthcare, survivor benefits, etc, then it cannot restrict those privileges to certain citizens ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" - 14th Amendment).

 

So, the government is bound by the Constitution to either:

 

1) Butt out of marriage entirely. Legally recognize the civil union of any two consenting adults and relegate marriage to a religious institution that individuals can enter into if they so choose. And religious groups, as is their freedom, can define marriage and restrict it to whomever they choose.

 

2) Lift the restrictions on marriage.

Religious believers are seldom able to separate rights under the Constitution and rights within their religious authority.  This is evident in most of the comments against same-sex marriage:  giving religious reasons against civil laws.  The courts do not, nor should they, respect one's religious beliefs when they run contrary to civil laws; courts are not there to uphold religious beliefs but enforce and respect the laws of the state.

What rights are you willing to give to the state for your decisions in marriage?
Why do you believe that the state should establish restrictions on who you marry?  What if the state refused marriage between different nationalities?  This was the law of Moses--prohibitng marriage between the children of Isarel and other tribes.  Is that law, given by God, something you would like to  see reinstituted?  If you were widowed would you like to have your brother-in-law take you to be his second wife?  This was also the law given by God through Moses.

At the rate the same-sex marriage equality is moving, it might as well be accepted as in a few short years it will be approved by almost all the states.  The times they are a'changin'.

So I take it we are all agreed. There is no evidence which would justify the state in wanting to give preference to  institutions which promote the traditional nuclear heterosexual family? Marriage is only about two people in love who want to share their lives, right? The reality of what is happening to birth rates in countries which do not promote traditional marriage and are contemptuous of traditional family values is of no consequence, right? Those who oppose coerced normalization of homosexual preferences are simply religious bigots, right?

It is not so much that I disagree with you Kendra, which I do, as that I am astonished at the moral clarity and judgmentalism with which you oversimplify an issue that is multi-dimensional, and has ramifications far beyond two consenting adults. Is there no fear and trembling when we decide, based upon little more than sentiment, to repudiate  the moral wisdom of virtually every human civilization since the dawn of time?  Is there no regard for the law of unintended consequences?

Kendra,
 
You gotta understand; my man Nathan never separates/compartmentalizes issues from political ideological orthodoxy.
 
In fairness to you Nathan, perhaps you could see Kendra’s point if it was not set forth in terms of our (as Adventists) being asked to fight for this civil right being granted to gays. Suppose her emphasis was that we should abstain from the issue on the grounds that marriage is an anomalous amalgamation of church and state, and that while we view the homosexual lifestyle as sin and therefore may not conscientiously support it, we are also cognizant/protective of the concept that our religious or sectarian beliefs about behavior should not be imposed on those who may not share our particular belief system, and therefore we will not oppose the extension of the civil union privilege either?

You gotta love global language....

i NEVER use it. 

ever.

 

Except Jesus ALWAYS sided with the disenfranchised.

Both Nathan and Stephen might benefit, if they might sometimes use suggestive instead of imperitive language and tone. This perhaps encapsulates the deeper issue why we as a church major in creating schisms from isms. That might just, succinctly and sadly,define AdventISM.

Can someone explain why homosexual partners cohabitating with each other require any acknowledgement by the state or federal government? The fact is that their lifestyle, in and of itself, does not require codified recognition. Why does the state feel compelled to define marriage at all as it relates to taxes, custody, estates, etc.? Why not realize the complex relationships that exist (because homosexuality has been around for a long time) and compel everybody to make a last will and testament in bequeathing their possessions and not seek to define terms in statute, such as “bride,” “groom,” “husband,” “wife,” “widow,” or “widower”? The definitions that government places on such terms are derived from a typical social arrangement whereby the nuclear family is established. Do all heterosexual couples have children? No, but certain gender-specific terms associated with the union (not to be confused with the so-called “civil unions”) can easily be applied nevertheless (i.e., “bride” and “groom”). The homosexual lifestyle does not fit into these definitions. These terms are associated with a heterosexual lifestyle. In the same way, other terminology will be a challenge for the states or federal government when addressing cases of custody when you do not have a couple that fits neatly into the categories of “father” and “mother,” words that define our nuclear families. There is no way for homosexual couples to get around this. Society can pretend that words in general can be perpetually subjective, but what are the consequences? Even terms like “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” are embarrassingly not analogous in any way to marriage and, again, I do not see the interest of society in introducing such terms into its laws.

There are benefits NOW to marriage.  Inheritance is only one of many; nor is there any neccesity that the partners be identifed as "mother" and "father."  The recent book My Two Moms clearly tells that the young man was not damaged in any way that his parents were the same sex; the only thing that matters is that love for everyone is felt and respect.

Worrying about "possible" consequences is wasted; many times such worry turns out to be totally unwarranted, as there are many such families that have functioned in our society for several decades without any measurable damages.

An example of major changes in marriage within the last 50 years:  interracial unions.  The sky hasn't fallen; there are millions of "mixed" babies and children and the obsession of a "pure Ayran" race is blatant bigotry.  Society has never remained constant for long except in cultures far removed from the outside world.  Fear of "what might happen" should not direct political action by the government.

Nathan said, "The reality is wherever gay rights advance, the right to discriminate against homosexual relationships based on religious beliefs becomes a hate crime or a basis to deny a livlihood to those who would be true to their consciences.  so gay rights  have had and will have a coersive effect on religious beliefs.  This is the primary goal of the gay agenda- to bully and shame society into accepting their lifestyle as normal."

This is exactly what I have been trying to say!!!!  Gay marriage is more than just two people of the same sex wanting to get married.    It is SYMBOLISM  that will go far toward  advancing the real agenda at stake here, as you state in those few sentences.   It is hard for me to say this, being gay myself, but I know how some of these people think and what Nathan has said, that I quoted above, is at the core of this entire gay marriage debate.   Do you see the point now, Kendra??     An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.   

@ Tom P., judging from your first phargraph you really don't know the Bible and what our Church believes. But the best one is that I should not be on here, well neither should Kendra. Ellen White is a female by the way.
The Bible teaches women to be submissive to their husbands and not be ordained Pastors. (our church has changed all that anyway). As for the rest I am well aware of how to be humble but fall like the rest and some of it what you brought up wa part of Jewish ceramonial laws that were abloished when Christ died at the cross. Anyway you should not be looking at sinful church goers as your excuse. (I know someone who has the same thoughts as you)You should ONLY be looking to Jesus for an example of how to live, and in that case there should be no marriage to worry about. As in my previous comment,  I do not hate homesexuals like you stated and prayer does work. I have experienced it many of times. Do you spend time with Jesus? Then He will send the His Holy Spirit to lead you. My point to Kendra very simple, no need for a book. Sin is sin but their are greater sins than others, the ACT of homesexuality is a sin, marriage should not even be a question. By the way what gay people got married in the Bible? The truth is the truth and you can reason all you want, this is a religious site and if you don't believe in the Bible then why are you on here? Satan is working real hard to destory people, don't look to others for your decisons read he Bible and pray like your life depended on it. God Bless..

Okay, thank you all for the conversation.  I think I am done responding to individual comments here.  I am seeing several common threads which I am going to attempt to tie together and address in a new column (or maybe more than one).  Hope you will all comment on that as well.

Thank you Kendra, for your courage to discuss these rather sensitive, often contentious topics.

Perhaps the take-away is that most people are impervious to any reason but their own, and said personal "reason" is usually rooted in their own traditions, experience, and, hopefully, most importantly, prayerful study and respectful dialog.

 

 

This has been a very engaging, and for me, a very difficult discussion on this blog.    It is less than a week old and it has generated over 300 responses.   I have felt challenged, but nonetheless repected, even by those who disagree with me.  There have been no insults directed my way, even though in some quarters I would be considered a betrayer of the cause, being gay but opposed to redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex.  I will be looking forward to your follow up blog on the subject of gays  and will probably contribute to that one too.  I only hope you will  consider some of what I have tried to point out here these past few days.

It was much easier, for me at least, commenting,  on your blog "God loves gays and so should we".
Regards,
Tom

We should not have to have our gov. condone homosexuality with granting it marital status or by the back door way of civil unions either.
If 2 people wish to engage in homosexual acts behind closed doors-they can already do that freely. They don't need a wink of approval from the populace at large.
And please quit drawing the church into these issues, there is nothing "brave" about dividing the country or the church.

God names homosexuality an abomination, period. It is not something that's open for "vote."The day that the SDA church legitimizes gay ministers or gay marriage will be the day I leave this church for good.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.

Death was the sentence then, and still is today--unless there is repentence.

Mal_3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed.

A careful reader whould have noted that this subject is directed not toward one's religious views, but the civil laws.  There is nothing in the state allowing same-sex marriages that infringes on anyone's religious views.  For those who call it an abomination, there is nothing written in the law that forces them to be involved in "abomination."

"Abomination" is a strictly religious term and has no place in civil laws; just as "blasphemy" is not covered under civil law.

No one's beliefs will be changed; for someone who sees this as sinful and abomination, simply avoid doing acts when you label abominations and allow others the same rights as you have:  to marry whom they wish and to worship however they choose.  This is a no-brainer for those who are uninvolved.  Your neighbor does not need your approval on either his religion or marriage partner; and you have the same rights and privileges.

We want others to let us keep our Sabbath freely hence we should extend that right to any consenting adults to freely do what they define as rights. I think it works well in anarchy. Does anarchy guarantee freedom?

Kendra I understand what you are saying as well as others who have commented about this sensitive topic...but it doesnt matter what happens in our society prophecy will and must be fulfilled....eventually our(SDA) rights will be taken away...but because we fight for the rights others which we dont morally agree with means we protect our freedom to worship as we please? I dont think so....once marriage is redefine at the state level than it will be taught in schools that marriage is between two consenting adults....smh....
The fact that this is constant topic in the political arena shows how close we are to the coming of our Lord....romans 1:25-28...

The bottom line is, just as those of old, we as Christians , especially SDA,  should be standing up for our moral beliefs BASED on the Bible.  EVEN, IF IT COSTS US OUR FREEDOM!  

"that this is constant topic in the political arena shows how close we are to the coming of our Lord....romans 1:25-28..."

Then most assuredly we should urgently agree to same sex marriages as it will

hasten the coming of our Lord.  Why cause it to be delayed by fighting it?

I do believe God enforced it and imposed his moral beliefs by destroying Sodom...
I also think this is being confused  "rights of conscience" with "civil privileges" . ...Gays have rights ! They have the choice to be gay with no persacution. They have total freedom to choose what they like. We are not forcing/imposing ANYTHING on them. In fact we are very accepting of it....They are just not given the same "civil privilages" such as tax breaks, as a married man and woman.  Our country was founded on christian principles and as Bible fearing christians , this is morally wrong. Not by my opinion, but by God's standards.  There are many non christians that also believe it is morally wrong, and do not codone it . W
If we go down this road, we open the door for children to divorce their parents , fathers marrying daughters, people may want their pets to have benefits as well. Where does it stop?  Will our children then be tought in school that marriage is ok between anything that walks?  History repeats itself , and as we look back we see the break downs of socities that have  allowed these types of policies.
Ellen White has warned us to be very careful for what we stand by in politics as we are then supporting it!  I for one, am sickened to hear this and have to wonder if this is the shakening of the church she warned against. 

"rights of conscience" with "civil privileges

Elizabeth, I respect your right to hold the belief that gay marriage is wrong/immoral.  No one is pressuring you to change that opinion/belief.  The overarching issue is this:  "Does one group of people have the right to take away the rights of another group of people they disagree with?" This is the meta question that directly affects us as Seventh-day Adventists.  This is the question that will be turned against us when public debate turns to Sabbath vs Sunday worship.

For those who wish to read a scholarly, groundbreaking work on same-sex unions should read John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality:  Gay People in Western Europe from the Begining of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century.  University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Hi Kendra,  I must say that I am skeptical of your approach.  I agree that try to have Sabbath rights while opposing marriage rights is awkward, but believing that the gay community would fight foro Sabbath rights because we fought for their rights seems unlikely.  Further the goal of trying to maintain Sabbath rights for ourselves seem a bit selfish.

For those who can accept it however there is a Biblical reason for supporting marriage equality; enlarging the family of God.  The same law that is often quoted against gay people states: "No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord." (Dt 23) Yet Isaiah goes on at length about how God will bless eunuchs.  And we have the parables of Jesus himself in which he instructs his followers to gather everyone and let God or the Angels sort out the good from the bad at the end of time (Tares, Fish, and Wedding feast).  Finally we can even look to Adventist history.  In a chapter entitled "The Southern Work" Ellen White clearly states her unhappiness with racial prejudice in the south.  Nonetheless she clearly calls for the church not to challenge what she refers to as "the color line".  This advice is given especially to make it possible for white people to join the church (and by "white" she clearly means racists).  Instead the church was to bear with the flaws in southern culture to win as many souls for the Kingdom as possible.

Marriage equality is inevitable, it may take 5 years or 10 at best.  The question for Adventists is how will they respond to this development.  I say invite 'em all and let God sort 'em out!

It seems  that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible for Christian believers to view civil government as separate from church government.  It should not be impossible for someone to very ardently believe that what is  condemned by religious belief could be allowed under civil laws.  The OT condemns many things which are not believed and practiced today, but this is a real deal breaker.

There are many things we do not approve in  daily life:  liguor, cigarettes, not worshiping on Saturday, but are happy to extend to others the right to choose  on these.  Why is same-sex marriage so different?  It does affect us more for someone to smoke and use liquor than for homosexuals to be extended marriage rites as we have enjoyed for thousands of years.

Extending others the rights which we have taken for granted, demonstrates that we do not separate  "others" as being  inferior, or even the need to separate from the majority.  Minorities in the U.S. should never be prevented from rights of the marjority.  To do otherwise is treatng them as second-class citizens.  There are NO second-class citizens in the U.S.  We are one.

Again, we are not preventing them from choosing what they like and they are not being persacuted. They are free to do as they please, nor do we force them into anything.... 
If you want to get down to the freedom of choice part, there are many areas we are not free. I am forced to wear a seat belt in my car, and to restrain my children in car seats.*** It is not a choice.***
I could go on and on....The new health care laws (Obamacare) will not be a choice for some. This stuff is forced upon us...
The last point I want to make ,cause clearly many disagree...if you are SDA you have heard that we will  lose  freedom of worship at some point... it is predicted! So, why keep arguing the enevideble. No amount of defending gay rights, or anything else for that matter is going to keep it from happening, it may delay it, but not prevent it. I personally think we are better off to prepare for what is to come then trying to fight useless battles. 
Again, Ellen White has said, be careful what we defend politically and get involved in , as we are clearly supporting it. Why would choose to support something that God has so cleary spoken against.?

That is a red herring that they are being persecuted.  Who brought that up?
EVERYONE, without exception my use seat belts, obey speeding limits, etc.

Since suddenly a strawman--the healthcare law is being introduced (it was never mentioned in the article). This is totally irrelevant to the subject being discussed so why bring it up?

If the SDA eschatology is certain, then  we should do nothing to prevent it by being involved in politics at all:  what will happen will be as the SDA eschatology predicted--so it would be wrong to delay the inevitable.

Thank you Ed, my thoughts exactly.

@ TIm, I don't believe,  I ever said it is, a choice. I believe through sin we have all been born with things, tendencies, etc that may not be part of Gods perfect plan for us...it is however, our choice to act upon those desires. 

As many have stated, marriage between a man and woman was ordained and blessed by God. Why would we fight to change what God has made and blessed? Ellen White has said, man will think to change times and laws. What are we doing?

Maybe we should be a secular country(anything goes), we're almost there any how. Because what's the point of having God involved when we don't support following what he has laid out for us. That way we wouldn't be accused of forcing our beliefs upon others as well.   It is said, that in the final days the event of the sunday law will come into play because of the wrong doings of our nation and the demands of getting back to God. What do you think that consists of? 



At Elaine,  are you SDA, or maybe used to be? 
Part of this discussion is about our freedom being taken away,or infringing on rights or did you miss that part? I am merely pointing out that we do not have choices in a lot of things.  Seatbelts are forced upon us as well as a health law.  I can not choose to not use them, even though I am hurting no one else by not using them. Traffic laws would infringe on someone else , but the latter doesn't. BUT again , I do not have choice.
 If your goal is to speed things up for Christ's return, maybe you have forgetten that it is all in HIS time. No amount of hestening it on our part will change that! And ultimately people are  condoning what they stand behind no matter how they slice and dice it.  

@ Tim, I was referring to the fact that they have the choice to live an open gay life style, not that it was a choice to be gay or born with it, even though I don't think that matters...Sorry, I should have clarified that better.