Gay Marriage

[Gregory Matthews]

On the point of a public official.

Public officials whether elected, appointed or hired must enforce the statute as it reads without either favor or discrimination.

I have refused to do the wedding of people whom I believed should not marry. Yet, those same people had the right to obtain a license to marry and to require a public official wh certified marriages to do so for them.

People who cannot perform their public functions should not remain in that position. A clerk who cannot issue a license to marry to a couple legally authorized one should no longer fill that clerk position.

A Justice of the Peace, who performs civil functions which are not religious, must do weddings for people who come for such.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Here is my point, that I tried to make earlier.

Why place the focus on the 1% when the marriages of the other 99% seems to be collapsing?

Stan, most of us read your comment closely enough to know what you actually said.

[kailooa]

Gregory Matthews, what a wonderful story! I wonder how many evangelists I know of who would consider doing the same thing. More germane, I wonder how many evangelists would consider doing that for a group of gay people? I wonder what it is about gay folks that makes straight folks lose their ability to reason. I guess Stan touched on it above when he said he finds "the whole gay experience repugnant." The WHOLE experience, Stan? I'm sure you are referring to the actual sexual acts rather than the mundane things like going to the grocery store and taking a nap... Gay people are actually just people. People who have usually learned to fear and abhor Christians because they've been so hurt by them.

To me, a key part of the story above is "at one point the evangelist was asked who he was and what he did." He didn't come thundering at the prostitutes, condemning them and placing himself and his God above them. He simply treated them with love and compassion. And because of that he was able to witness.

Whenever I am told that I'm a good friend despite my Christianity, it makes me very sad. I wish I had a church that I could refer my gay friends to in good conscience. But I know that any interest in a community of faith would get slaughtered by their first conversation with an SDA person. It's tragic to me. I'd rather be out in the world, worshipping alone, than in a church like that.

[kailooa]

I absolutely agree that it is highly unlikely that a US pastor would be required to marry gay people against his faith. This issue has been addressed in Liberty magazine and elsewhere.

[Gregory Matthews]

The story of the evangelist, the birthday party and the prostitute is all over the Internet.

Here is one place where you can read a longer version:

http://edelliott.tumblr.com/post/5837849793/i-belong-to-a-church-that-throws-parties-for

[M. T. Cross]

I am not going to debate this any more, because in the end my opinions on what your country does don't mean jack. I will simply thank all the Gods that my nation is as tolerant and accepting as it is.

But I think that it is important to point out what continuing the lack of tolerance does. Take a minute (or 7 ) and watch this video. More and more stories like this keep showing up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INT0lG677Rk

[olger]

PS John317's testimony is more powerful than all the hate mongering that comes from Christianity. Thank you my friend.

FORSOOTH.

[Tom Wetmore]

The story of the evangelist, the birthday party and the prostitute is all over the Internet.

Here is one place where you can read a longer version:

http://edelliott.tumblr.com/post/5837849793/i-belong-to-a-church-that-throws-parties-for

A short film of the story, The Least of These, was made by an Adventist film maker. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338191/

The rest of the story is that this event marked a turning point in the life of that prostitute. That act of kindness effected her so much that she turned her life around. She is a different woman.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

Since the legitimacy of the homosexual coupling has opposition to it based upon a moral position, declaring it a right makes any infringement - even that of ministers refusing services - a punishable offence.

Sorry, Ted, I disagree with you on this one. NOTE: As we are speaking about the law, I write in a U.S. context.

A clergyperson, doing a wedding, is performing a sacramental (religious) function.

Under the 1st Amendment, the State cannot intrude on the sacramental (religious) functions of clergy.

The only possible way, and even this could be argued, would if a clergy person were to set up shop on Main Street and advertise that he/she was in the wedding business. Doing so would potentially take the issue out of the religious aspects ant into the business arena.

Make no apologies about it, Greg - that is your perspective, and while it disagrees with mine, it does not mean we part ways. It simply means we understand the issue from different points of view.

While the clergy is doing a sacramental (religious) function - they do so also as a state's licensee. The pronouncement of union is made "by the power of God and of the authority of the State of..........." after the vows are exchanged, is it not? The State already intrudes into the sacramental, Greg, by asserting itself as an authority in the matter - because the State DOES have a vested interest in defining what the fundamental building block of the State's society (the nuclear family) will be.

Am I understanding you correctly to say that once the State has decided to include gay unions into that definition, the homosexual militants will not further concentrate that authority of the State down to the licensing of ministers - that to fail to render "services" (as the gays see it) could become a condition whereby the ministerial license is revoked by the State due to discriminatory practices?

I recognize, Greg, your are looking at the issue from minister's perspective....and I further recognize that perspective may look at the above question as an unlearned point. My perspective, though, comes from what I saw happen in Canada with both the gay marriage issue and the Sunday law there.

Like what the Canadian proponents did with the Sunday law in side-steeping the religious issue, homosexuals here are side-stepping the morality question to make it a civil rights question. If private organizations are not immune, how long does anyone really think the religious sector will be untouched with the reframed issue? If you want to see the future of the gay marriage issue, look no further than what is happening currently with the Boy Scouts on the issue of "acceptance"...

What will happen when a "newly-wed" couple decides to go to a church where such a union is NOT recognized as valid, due to morality issues? It is one thing to treat them lovingly as people; it is quite another to accept their union as moral and valid in the eyes of God.

Will there be a charge of discrimination to force churches to extend communion and rites to these gays, simply because it is a civil right?

The bigotry charge is a very powerful thing - I can simply look at what the Boy Scouts are having to deal with simply to be a private assembly of people holding to a moral point. I do not think this issue will quietly fade away here in the US like it did after Canada recognized it.

Greg, it is simply my perspective that when "civil rights" trump morality, the State (read: US government) will necessarily intrude further to promote its agenda. I do not see clergy a being exempt from this based on the 1st Amendment's religion clause, any more so than the Boy Scouts are exempt from this based upon the same amendment's right to peacefully assemble clause.

In combining with your next post, I'd have to include the thought that forcing people by law to conduct business contrary to their beliefs is a major flaw in our culture and economy. While it appears so very noble, it only forces underground what should be plain at the surface and dealt with there.

If single private business owner does not want provide services with any other person - for whatever reason - they should be free to. The lesbian couple only had to go down the street to find someone who would make a cake for them.

It is the business owner who loses the business. While it may be wrong to do this based on ethnicity/religion/gender, it is that business person who must now see someone else pick up where they did not provide. In today's climate, one either learns not to discriminate along those lines, or get passed up and pushed to the sidelines by those who will take the business away from those who do discriminate on those points.

Morality, though, is a completely different issue from ethnicity. Two homosexuals cannot conceive a homosexual baby by engaging in their activity - making homosexuality a lifestyle choice rather than an ethnicity by birth. They are no more an ethnicity than any of the other sexual unions spoken of (which are gaining sympathy in the political circles even now).

Right now, I see the State including into the civil rights arena lifestyle choices that are both morally and politically charged. I simply do not see the 1st Amendment's religious clause affording that much protection, especially when the assembly clause is treated so very politically.

Blessing,

[phkrause]

Quote:

So then lets say some prostitutes get together and want to have a grand prostitute celebration and ask the Baker to bake a cake for them celebrating that event - and he does not want to be party to such an event?

This story has been so publicized in the conservative religious world that many reading here probably know about it.

A well-known evangelist was in a seedy late-night café getting a cup of coffee, after he had just disembarked from a very long flight, and was in transit to his hotel.

A group of prostitutes walked in and began to talk about their night. One mentioned that another one was having a birthday the next day. That woman responded that it would be nothing special as no one had ever given her a birthday party.

After the prostitutes left, the evangelist asked the owner of the café of they regularly came in after their nightly duties were finished. The answer was "yes." The evangelist then asked if the owner would be willing to throw a party for the woman, if the evangelist paid for it.

The next evening the party was held, with the evangelist present. At one point the evangelist was asked who he was and what he did. He responded and the next question was: What kind of a church would throw a party for a bunch of prostitutes?

The answer was: A church that follows the teachings of Christ who told it to love.

The response to that answer was: I would like to know more about that kind of a church.

I loved that story Gregory. That would be Tony Compolo, or was he telling a story of someone else? Either way a great witness of Jesus.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Am I understanding you correctly to say that once the State has decided to include gay unions into that definition, the homosexual militants will not further concentrate that authority of the State down to the licensing of ministers - that to fail to render "services" (as the gays see it) could become a condition whereby the ministerial license is revoked by the State due to discriminatory practices?

I have no knowledge of Canadian law and that system. So, I cannot speak to that country. But, I can speak to the U.S. system.

In the U.S. the government does not have the authority to revoke the license of clergy. That function belongs solely to the Church.

The individual states, not the Federal government, have the authority to state who can and who cannot certify that a marriage has taken place. I once lived in and got married in a country where I could not be married by clergy of any denomination. That marriage, which exists today, was performed by a government official. I once lived in a U.S. State where I had to register with the State government and purchase a civil bond before I could perform the marriage. and, the State enforced that requirement, as I personally know--not to me. I now live in a U.S. State where any competent adult who is a citizen of this State, can certify a marriage. YEs, it is the right of a government to prescribe (and proscribe) who can and cannot certify marriages. But, in the U.S., under the 1st Amendment, as ruled by case law of the U.S. Supreme Court, clergy cannot be forced to certify the marriage of any person. NOTE: The one possible (???) exception might be the clergyperson who set up a commercial business and was therefore operating outside of the venue of a denomination.

Quote:

Like what the Canadian proponents did with the Sunday law in side-steeping the religious issue, homosexuals here are side-stepping the morality question to make it a civil rights question. If private organizations are not immune, how long does anyone really think the religious sector will be untouched with the reframed issue? If you want to see the future of the gay marriage issue, look no further than what is happening currently with the Boy Scouts on the issue of "acceptance"...

O.K. I will take on the issue of the Boy Scouts. In my opinion, the case law on this issue is not totally clear. However, as I see it, what you would call adverse case law has often been related to the governmental support that has been given to the Boy Scouts in the past. Yes, a private organization which accepts governmental support may become liable to intervention in its affairs by that government.

Quote:

What will happen when a "newly-wed" couple decides to go to a church where such a union is NOT recognized as valid, due to morality issues? It is one thing to treat them lovingly as people; it is quite another to accept their union as moral and valid in the eyes of God.

Will there be a charge of discrimination to force churches to extend communion and rites to these gays, simply because it is a civil right?

Absolutely not, in the U.S. Supreme Court case law is clear on this point.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

If single private business owner does not want provide services with any other person - for whatever reason - they should be free to. The lesbian couple only had to go down the street to find someone who would make a cake for them.

That may not be true for the lesbian couple. They may have to go 100 miles to purchase that cake, if the area will only support one business in that area.

Let us address the elephant that is in this room that has not been addressed;

NOTE: In my opinion, individuals have religious rights under the 1st Amendment and corporations do not. I am aware that what I have just said could be debated. With that awareness, that is my opinion.

In some areas of the country a hospital can not exist unless it is given permission to exist and to the specific services that it provides. E.G. In these areas of the country, an existing hospital may be required to obtain permission before being allowed to expand their services to provide PET scans to the community.

Once a hospital has applied for and been given permission to provide specific services it cannot refuse those that type of legal services to any person who can demonstrate a need for those services under the applicable statute and can pay the permitted charge for those services.

In addition, Those commercial businesses do not have a right to in violation of labor laws discriminate against classes of employees. E.g. As a commercial business they cannot pay females less than males for the same work product.

Going one step further: As SDA hospital will generally have a large per-centage of non-SDA employees. It should not be allowed to, on the basis of religious convection, refuse to provide the health coverage that the government mandates be provided.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Right now, I see the State including into the civil rights arena lifestyle choices that are both morally and politically charged. I simply do not see the 1st Amendment's religious clause affording that much protection, especially when the assembly clause is treated so very politically.

I spent several years working with people who were HIV infected. Out of that, I cam to a clear understanding that civil unions are a civil right. In a State where Civil Unions have been established, those civil unions must have the same rights ad do marriages.

Do not erect a Straw man about me, my beliefs and practices.

I believe that Biblically, marriage is only between a male and a female.

I will not certify any arrangement between to persons of the same gender, even if legal.

[John317]

.... My original question still stands. Maybe God wants things one way according to our religion. Is that a reason to deny someone legal rights? We are not talking about whether being gay is right or wrong. We are talking about equal rights under the law.

It surprises me no end that a religion that warns about things like Sunday laws, a religion that fights for separation of church and state in courts of law all over the country, would advocate for denial of equal rights under the law on the basis of religious philosophy. It seems backwards to me. I truly don't understand the position.

I am OK with the state making a law that allows for gays to be "married" if that's what the people want, but I don't believe it would be right for me to participate in making a decision that I know is against God's law.

It really is not a matter of equal rights under the law; it is a matter of whether as Christians we should vote for men to be married to men and women to be married to women.

If the nation wants gays to have equal rights before the law, it can easily grant gays the same rights as married couples without referring to their relationship as "marriage." (By the way, I do believe gays should have those same legal rights and be treated by everyone with the same respect and dignity as anyone else.)

As a gay person who formerly practiced for many years and almost got married to a lover, I've given this subject a good deal of thought.

A homosexual couple can never be "one flesh"-- a term God uses in reference to His intentions for husband and wife.

Also, two males together or two females together can never be in the image of God.

So, then, whether the state calls it "gay marriage" or not, it will never really be "marriage"-- at least not in the eyes of God, the One who created marriage and therefore has the sole right to define it.

[John317]

I spent several years working with people who were HIV infected. Out of that, I cam to a clear understanding that civil unions are a civil right. In a State where Civil Unions have been established, those civil unions must have the same rights ad do marriages.

While I agree with this from the viewpoint of legal rights, I do see in it a problem for Christians.

The easier it is for gays to be together in a Civil Union-- or marriage--that is blessed by both Church and state, the less likely it will be for them to decide that God is opposed to gay sexual relationships.

Personally I would not want to participate in sin in that way.

Similarly, and for the same reason, I would not vote for people to be allowed to drink alcohol or become prostitutes.

At the same time, in my personal relationships with people, I try (by God's grace) to treat everyone-- whether gay or straight, or bi, or alcoholic or not-- with the same love and kindness.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

It really is not a matter of equal rights under the law; it is a matter of whether as Christians we should vote for men to be married to men and women to be married to women.

The State is not concerned about Biblical issues.

The State, at least in the U. S. is concerned about equal treatment. During the period of time that I was working with HIV infected people I became much more aware of the struggles that they had for equality under the law as the statutes related to homosexuality and heterosexuality.

NOSTE: The people I was working with were: male, female, adults, children, homosexual and heterosexual. But, the vast majority were homosexual, adult male. Some were of Seventh-day Adventist background. Some were celibate. They had vastly different personalities. Some liked to flaunt their sexuality. Others did not. It became clear to me that none of them had chosen their gender preference. Gender preference is NOT a choice. The practice may be a choice. But, the preference is not.

AS to the statement above that Christians should not vote for men to be married to men and/or for women to be married to women, I would make two suggestions: 1) I am comfortable with civil unions as long as those have equality with marriage. 2) The Biblical teaching is that God gives people the right to sin. God does not prevent people from sinning.

[John317]

AS to the statement above that Christians should not vote for men to be married to men and/or for women to be married to women, I would make two suggestions: 1) I am comfortable with civil unions as long as those have equality with marriage. 2) The Biblical teaching is that God gives people the right to sin. God does not prevent people from sinning.

Yes, it's true that God gives people the right to sin if they choose to. He gives people life and keeps them alive while they do all kinds of horrible things, but does that mean I should help them do those things? God does many things that it wouldn't be right for people to do. It's also right for the state to do many things that it would be wrong for the church to do.

I wouldn't judge other Christians if they decide differently than I do about this topic. I simply don't feel comfortable in a spiritual sense in voting for marriage between members of the same sex. If other people do, that's between them and God.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

It really is not a matter of equal rights under the law; it is a matter of whether as Christians we should vote for men to be married to men and women to be married to women.

The State is not concerned about Biblical issues.

Unless you count murder, theft, prostitution, lying, etc.

When A.T. Jones debated Senator Blair in congress over the issue of the National Sunday Law of 1888 - he did not hesitate to point to the fact that the state was bound by the Bible in places like Matt 22 and Romans 13 to only legislate in regard to the last six commandments.

During the debate the example was raised by Senator Blair regarding Mormons and the state laws made against polygammy that were against Mormon religion. A.T. Jones pointed out that this was ok since it deals with the last 6 commandments "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars" - Matt 22.

And of course Adventists were promoting government issues explicitly on Bible grounds in cases like prohibition and anti-slavery during the 1800's.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

If single private business owner does not want provide services with any other person - for whatever reason - they should be free to. The lesbian couple only had to go down the street to find someone who would make a cake for them.

That may not be true for the lesbian couple. They may have to go 100 miles to purchase that cake, if the area will only support one business in that area.

Let us address the elephant that is in this room that has not been addressed;

NOTE: In my opinion, individuals have religious rights under the 1st Amendment and corporations do not. I am aware that what I have just said could be debated. With that awareness, that is my opinion.

In some areas of the country a hospital can not exist unless it is given permission to exist and to the specific services that it provides. E.G. In these areas of the country, an existing hospital may be required to obtain permission before being allowed to expand their services to provide PET scans to the community.

Once a hospital has applied for and been given permission to provide specific services it cannot refuse those that type of legal services to any person who can demonstrate a need for those services under the applicable statute and can pay the permitted charge for those services.

Fire protection, police, hospital care - can not be equivocated with "baking a cake to celebrate pornography" as if child pornographers , prostitutes and homosexuals rely on cakes baked for their celebrations - the same way other people need hospitals.

I think we all see that.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

So then lets say some prostitutes get together and want to have a grand prostitute celebration and ask the Baker to bake a cake for them celebrating that event - and he does not want to be party to such an event?

This story has been so publicized in the conservative religious world that many reading here probably know about it.

A well-known evangelist was in a seedy late-night café getting a cup of coffee, after he had just disembarked from a very long flight, and was in transit to his hotel.

A group of prostitutes walked in and began to talk about their night. One mentioned that another one was having a birthday the next day.

Interesting bait-and-switch quoting the point above about "celebrating prostitution" and switching it to "prostitutes celebrating a birthday".

How "instructive".

Notice "The details" that in the article in question the story is NOT about "A baker that refused to bake a birthday cake for someone who happens to be gay".

This "not so subtle detail" makes all the difference in the world in this case because in the first example above the issue is whether the baker will participate in celebrating homosexual marriage and the destruction of what God declares holy in the Bible, vs celebrating a birthday!

Clearly if you are successful in switching the context in that regard - the conclusions are different regarding "said celebration".

But I prefer to stick with the actual point of the article regarding the Baker in this case because "details matter". Apples-with-apples.

The other "bait and switch" is to exclude the Bible based moral grounds of the Baker and his right to not violate his conscience when it comes to celebrating either child pornograpy, prostitution or homosexual marriage - and "instead" to focus on "What will the law allow" as if this is our "new moral standard".

in that case any state that legalizes gay marriage has just changed our moral values when we move to that state.

Surely we are beyond that distance form such a dark ages model for morality. In this age of enlightenment - the laws of the state however fickle and varied they may be - are not the standard by which our moral values flicker.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Unless you count murder, theft, prostitution, lying, etc.

No, the State is not concerned about the Biblical issues associated above.

A function of the Stated is to protect its citizens from harm. It is in the name of protecting its citizens that the state prohibits murder, not a Biblical mandate.

The State does not have an absolute prohibition against lying even though the Bible does. The State only prohibits lying under specific conditions where it has determined that wrong may be done to its citizens by that lie.

It is from the standpoint of protection from harm that you have laws against theft.

Prostitution: It is legal. It is regulated. It is illegal. It is allowed under strict conditions even when illegal. I do not see much of the Biblical mandate here. NOTE: Adultery is generally not illegal.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

So, then, whether the state calls it "gay marriage" or not, it will never really be "marriage"-- at least not in the eyes of God, the One who created marriage and therefore has the sole right to define it.

O.K. God has defined "marriage" from the Biblical stand point. I agree.

However, the State defines marriage from the civil standpoint. l That is why in some countries a male can be married to several wives at the same time.

The Bible is clear. There is a civil realm.lk That realm exists whether or not it is in compliance with the Biblical realm.

I am reminded of a SDA military member who while on a family separated tour in Asia, divorced his wife in the U.S and married a local woman. HIs justification: His marriage to the woman in the U.S. was only a civil marriage. Therefore, in the eyes of God, he was not married and was living in adultery. So, he fixed it by throwing her out the window and getting married to another person.

[debbym]

Quote:

in that case any state that legalizes gay marriage has just changed our moral values when we move to that state.

absolutely right Bob,

what happens outside of you, does not happen inside of you, unless you have no boundaries. laws of the land, whatever their content, are whatever the majority of society has agreed on.

it is legal in my state to drink alcohol. this does not in any way cause me to participate in drinking. i walk by a bar people are drinking and partying and carousing. I walk on, my morals have not slipped because i witnessed this. i suddenly do not have less regard for those people, nor am i compelled to join them. this is something happening outside of me, regardless of how aware or not aware i am of it.

I am not in any way polluted or contaminated by what others are doing.

whatever is happening in the gay world, whether it gets involved in civil laws or not, my morality is within, and that is without.

the state has Sunday laws does this make me a commandment breaker? no it does not.

should a minister be required to participate in a gay marriage? i don't think they should be required to do so.

if i am a judge should i be required to sign off on a gay marriage? will the judge lose his morals if he does?

does a judge lose his morals if he sends a guilty man to a state prison where the likely hood that the prisoner will be sodomized in prison is 90%. or is he just following the law, and doing what he public position requires of him, even though he disagrees with the wrong things other's do.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

So, then, whether the state calls it "gay marriage" or not, it will never really be "marriage"-- at least not in the eyes of God, the One who created marriage and therefore has the sole right to define it.

O.K. God has defined "marriage" from the Biblical stand point. I agree.

However, the State defines marriage from the civil standpoint.

True. And most states do not allow gay marriage - so then you conclude that 'gay marriage is mostly wrong'??

Or do we just use the Bible in that regard?

As A.T Jones reminded Senator Blair in 1888 - it is ok for the state to legislate in areas dealing with the last six commandments.

That is the position of this denomination.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Unless you count murder, theft, prostitution, lying, etc.

No, the State is not concerned about the Biblical issues associated above.

That would have been "news" to Senator Blair in 1888.

That would have been "news" to our own A.T. Jones and R.L Department in 1888.

As Jones pointed out to Senator Blair - "polygamy is adultery" and as such the state can legislate against it.

And most people today would agree that it is more than "coincidence" that these laws are the same in both the Bible and the state.

And of course we can all see the Ten Commandments plastered all over the Supreme Court building in D.C. on the doors to the courtroom AND on the wall above the supreme court justice' chair.

And we can all see the huge Matthew 5 display in the stair well between the two houses of congress as well as the depiction of Moses on the wall of the senate. So the text of the discussion between Blair and Jones regarding Matt 22 and Romans 13 is not all that surprising. (as it turns out).

The fact that we meandered farther from the Bible in recent times - is not a sign that our history in that regard 'does not exist' or that the state is not in fact legislating in areas dealing with the last 6 commandments all the time.

Hence the support by Adventists of prohibition and anti-slavery (value of human life) when it came to government actions in the 19th century.

in Christ,

Bob