Gay Marriage

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

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.

You keep quoting from 1888.

Times have changed. The world of 1888 is not the world of 2013.

[Ted Oplinger]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to address my points, Greg.

With respect to the authority to revoke licenses belonging solely to the church - thanks for the clarification. I will revisit that point later.

With respect to the Boy Scouts - I am involved in the Scouts, and know of no federal funding (grants and the like) the Scouts receive. There are points of recognition our government has formed, and there are points where our government offers help where the Scouts did not originally ask for it - but has become now mutually beneficial. However, the Boy Scouts could - and in today's polarized society, probably should - drop that help, if reception of said help comes with such strings as you note.

Yet, I cannot help but think this point - "a private organization which accepts governmental support may become liable to intervention in its affairs by that government" - is the very precise point of what is so wrong in civil society today. Our Founding Fathers would NEVER have countenanced this thought as valid to our society to adopt. Yet, we have quietly accepted that our government should poke its authoritarian nose in wherever some sees any form of aid given.

My commentary aside - the Scouts have had these issues reviewed ad nauseum at every court level to this point, and it now goes to the Supreme Court. I'd like to think that these lower and appellate courts - so apparently quick to justify the gay marriage issue - cannot find that the relationship our government has with the Boy Scouts constitutes one where the government can tell the Scouts they have to admit the homosexual based on the discrimination laws the federal government uses on every agency accepting federal funding.

The courts are very, very quick to place people, corporations, and agencies under the federal umbrella when it comes to federal aid - and yet have not done so to this point on the issue of the Scouts.

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

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.

Here, the cat has been let out of the bag. Not that advocate or oppose the case I reference, but it will loom large:

The equal protection clause states unequivocally constitutional law must be accorded equally over all parties. With the point of political contributions being ruled by the Supreme Court as "speech", both unions and corporations are recognized as having First Amendment rights.

Yes, I know - certain peoples like to differentiate between the union and the corporation on technical issues, but in truth. they really are functionally equivalent: groups of people collectively using their resources for a specific purpose: political speech.

Now then, how can one have the right to free speech, but no right to assemble peacefully according to the manner they propose? The First Amendment covers both of these.

Likewise - every corporation - if it wants to make a point on morality/religion - can do so if it so chooses, as such should be the natural extension of the same First Amendment to cover the freedom of conscience. Here, the Boy Scouts are covered as an organization and as a collection of freely associating peoples.

As I said before - I am not advocating one way or the other - simply pointing out we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. The same first Amendment which covers our religious rights covers our speech, our press and our freedom to associate with people we want to.

Now then - if people are wanting to pick and choose which part of the Constitution they want to apply to certain people, based on the criteria of the social justice (discrimination) or that of federal aid - then it can be very safely said that this will eventually turn every point we regard as legitimate on its head.

That would necessarily include the gay marriage issue, as this issue will put Church and State on a collision course like no other issue since the 1888 Sunday Law did.

If we regard on section of the First Amendment as sacrosanct (say, religion and the press), but play fast and loose with other parts (say, freedom of assembly and speech) - it is only a matter of time before that house of cards falls.

The commerce clause has been so twisted into a pretzel, it now means the government can now tell farmers what they plant for their own private use, and tell bakers and landlords they MUST do business with people they don't wish to.

With regards to the hospital point above - they are in a business which impinges directly upon the God-given right to life. Withholding services here is tantamount to a death sentence - declaring a person to die when by mercy they can be returned to a quality of sustainable life...putting them in the place of God.

That places the health profession in its entirety in a precarious position with government today....hence, the Obamacare issue is front and center - government is taking the issue over from the hospitals and professionals. Hence also certain areas declaring severe restrictions on hospitals as to where and how they can do business. Not saying I agree or disagree - but it is a natural extension to the argument I have laid out as to how State proceeds in its power acquisition.

Our rights are not something we may hold dear, unless someone else is inconvenienced (aka, a lesbian couple having to drive elsewhere - even up to 200 miles away - to buy a cake). They are our God-given rights, whether people, corporations, and/or governments want to recognize them or not. That is the point which drives my thoughts, Greg. Where I see one area being declared "okay" to overstep (in the name of the public good) means one day it will all be stepped on (again, in the name of the public good).

One day, it will be us. If we play fast and loose now with other groups we don't agree with (like, say a fully private Catholic landlord not wishing to let out to a non-Christian - most would disagree with the discrimination seen there), we will have nothing to say when they turn those tables on us (when others see us as contrary to what ought to be right in the world) - and they will one day. The gay marriage issue is precisely one such point where Christendom is being painted evil on a moral issue...in the name of civil rights.

We both know this, Greg.

Nothing happens in a vaccuum. What is being done today has its roots in what was laid over 100 years ago, "in the name of the public good".

A current secular government having no problem today defining morality in terms of social justice (and it does) will also one day soon have no problem telling churches what "legitimate" credentialing criteria are to be defined as - regardless of what SCOTUS rulings have been in the past.

Just as one day public pressure will mount, forcing government to declare a Sunday law...that government will also have no problem telling agencies what they can and cannot do with respect to religious activity.

Both of the above - "in the name of the public good".

I'd love to think court decision precedence would hold - but today, we are entering an era where precedence soon will have little to do with the decisions to be made.

I tend to think it is only a matter of time before the State oversteps it province irreversibly - and Church responds by overstepping theirs. I simply posit that the gay marriage issue may be just what precipitates it.

You might think me a bit extreme in my perspective...but this is precisely how the "rights" issues have unfolded over the last 20 years - and have polarized the people.

Blessings, Greg

[Ted Oplinger]

Bob - with respect to 1888:

Our government in no way, shape, or form would be swayed by the arguments used against the Blair Amendment, were that to take place today.

Our government today would take those passages in the Bible defining what homosexual behavior is, as evidence Christendom is a hate group targeting a specific group of people.

Our day in 2013 is a far, far different world than 1888.

Blessings,

[phkrause]

Bob - with respect to 1888:

Our government in no way, shape, or form would be swayed by the arguments used against the Blair Amendment, were that to take place today.

Our government today would take those passages in the Bible defining what homosexual behavior is, as evidence Christendom is a hate group targeting a specific group of people.

Our day in 2013 is a far, far different world than 1888.

Blessings,

Couldn't agree more, we will be considered a hate group, I see that already.

[HopefulOne]

Yes i also agree.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

With respect to the Boy Scouts - I am involved in the Scouts, and know of no federal funding (grants and the like) the Scouts receive. There are points of recognition our government has formed, and there are points where our government offers help where the Scouts did not originally ask for it - but has become now mutually beneficial. However, the Boy Scouts could - and in today's polarized society, probably should - drop that help, if reception of said help comes with such strings as you note.

I do not challenge you on the issue of Federal support. I think that you are probably correct.

As I understand it, the Scouts have gotten into trouble when a local government, or agency, has provided some level of support to the Scouts.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The equal protection clause states unequivocally constitutional law must be accorded equally over all parties. With the point of political contributions being ruled by the Supreme Court as "speech", both unions and corporations are recognized as having First Amendment rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are specific rights accorded to corporations have specific Constitutional rights, to include the right of speech.

If you are suggesting that corporations, under the rulings of the Court have all rights that are accorded to individuals, I do not believe that you are correct. Can you cite a ruling of the Court that accords a public business religious rights? Yes, I am aware that there may be specific corporations, such as incorporated denominations which have religious rights under the Constitution.

I am not aware that a public corporation, owned by the stockholders, which makes toilets, has a religious right under the Constitution.

I remind you of a publisher of written material once claimed it had a right to pay women less than men under the Constitution. That position was not upheld by the courts.

In my personal position, if denomination

X engages in providing services to the public that are essentially the same as the services provided by others, and in that business, 75% of the employees are not members of the denomination, the owners of the business should not be given a religious exemption from the labor laws that apply to everyone else. Just my opinion.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The commerce clause has been so twisted into a pretzel, .. .

Probably few who understand your comment would disagree.

However, the case law you object to is the law of the land.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

With regards to the hospital point above - they are in a business which impinges directly upon the God-given right to life. Withholding services here is tantamount to a death sentence - declaring a person to die when by mercy they can be returned to a quality of sustainable life...putting them in the place of God.

Have you ever sat on a hospital ethics committee and grappled with the decisions that must be made?

I regularly sit on such. I have been a member of both of such

Federal and private committees.

Real case: A private, non-religious hospital.

1) Elderly male admitted a substance in an amount that is likely to kill him.

2) No written instructions as to what to do under this situation & treatment team ahs never seen him before.

3) Four relatives and spouses demand that no attempt be made to save his life and to only allow him to die free of pain.

4) Clinical team states that they believes that he can be restored to his prior level of functioning.

5) The united family states that they will file a lawsuit against both the hospital and the clinical team.

6) The treatment team treats the man. He is restored to prior level of functioning and walks unaided out of the hospital.

Do you have actual experience of sitting on the committees where such decisions are made?

NOTE: I came from an Ethics Committee meeting today.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

You might think me a bit extreme in my perspective...

Actually I think that you are more rational than some who discuses these issues. Does not mean that I agree with you, however.

[olger]

This just in:

"Disestablishing the Family: The Adventist Case for Legalizing Same-sex Civil Marriage"

http://spectrummagazine.org/node/5145#disqus_thread

It represents one leg in the three-legged stool of liberal Adventistism's war on Genesis 1:27-28. The three legs are: Feminism, Darwinism, and the normalization of Homosexuality.

in Him,

G

[kailooa]

What a great article. I don't have time to read it as thoroughly as I would like right now, but on first glance I believe that I agree with the whole thing. It also addresses some of the questions that I put to this thread several pages ago.

So olger, feminism is an attack on Genesis 1:27-28? Please tell me how! Am I to understand that you don't believe in equal rights for women either?

[HopefulOne]

I think we are losing our perspective here.

This is an attack on God and His established order.

This world is doomed because of liberal views found

even in our own church.People leave God out of it and

pursue their own intellectualism thinking they know

better.

Kailooa ,debate debate debate.Your fighting against Jesus.

Anyone who does this is on their own.

[kailooa]

Well, HopefulOne, I respect that that is your opinion, but I do not agree that I am fighting against Jesus--the same Jesus who hung out with prostitutes, thieves and tax collectors, the same Jesus who exhorts me to love others, the same Jesus who chose not to articulate a position on homosexuality, much less the entanglement of legal and religious marriage contracts. I do not agree that the laws of our country, or any country, are God's established order. That is partly why I agree with the article; why do we feel that clergy should be authorized by the state to enforce the legal obligation of state-sponsored marriage? As a lifelong Adventist it is a fascinating question to me and I am interested to see that there it at least some examination of this issue somewhere under the umbrella of Adventism.

You say "debate, debate, debate" as if discussion of the issue of gay marriage is not the point of this thread. I have not until this time gotten involved in such a discussion, but I'm curious as to why you are here if you do not want to discuss (or "debate") with people who have opinions different than yours. I am not disagreeing with you or anyone else just to be contrary. I am stating my opinions and asking questions in order to understand positions that I do not understand.

[olger]

What a great article. I don't have time to read it as thoroughly as I would like right now, but on first glance I believe that I agree with the whole thing. It also addresses some of the questions that I put to this thread several pages ago.

So olger, feminism is an attack on Genesis 1:27-28? Please tell me how! Am I to understand that you don't believe in equal rights for women either?

Feel free to email me @

gcwagoner@earthlink.net

Gerry

[olger]

I think we are losing our perspective here.

This is an attack on God and His established order.

This world is doomed because of liberal views found

even in our own church.

I agree with this sentiment.

[HopefulOne]

... the same Jesus who chose not to articulate a position on homosexuality,

If you know your Bible ,and i think you must,if you are

a follower of Christ ? The Bible has many references to the effeminate,unnatural acts of men and women.And also the consequences that goes along with those choices.

So i do believe God,s position is clear enough not to

try to intellectually debate this controversy into the ground.

Freedom of choice is not a stake here.Lucifer in a perfect heavenly environment made some really bad career choices and now all of God,s creation is suffering for it.

Even thou gays have the same right to choose ,we as Christians, can only try to show them the error of their ways. I mean fully meeting them were they are ,but eventually there must be a recognition at some point of their sins,all sins,not just this one or that one,but the whole lifestyle.

The gay agenda is ,not to repent,but by force of law, using the government as a weapon, to give them some legitimacy.

Deviating from Gods way has consequences!

Buy the way my opinions are shaped by the "SOP" and the Bible.

Just because i paraphrase and put into my own words does not make it my opinion.

[kailooa]

Yes, I am aware of the few references in the Bible, but I am also aware that Jesus Himself is not quoted in the Bible as talking about homosexuality at all. I apologize for digressing from the marriage equality question with that point, though, because:

The question on marriage equality is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It is about whether the rights of state-sanctioned marriage should be legally available to all citizens, and whether the majority Christian position on homosexuality should be the deciding factor in the law.

I take issue with your characterization of the "gay agenda" because it sounds like fear that the gays want to "take over" somehow. The gay people I know who want the legal right to marry want it for the conferral of benefits afforded to straight married couples, including the protection of the legal rights of their children. Yes, of course they see their lifelong love relationships as partners and coparents as "legitimate." They are people, they love and commit and even reproduce with a little help of the same varieties straight people use when they have trouble conceiving a child. You can judge them unworthy of salvation all you want, but that's not the question before us. The question is, should they have the legal right of marriage. If you say NO and your reason is because the Bible says it's wrong, then in my opinion you are advocating the legislation of Biblical truth because it's Biblical. So then should we legislate Sabbathkeeping? Should we make it illegal to bear false witness? Of course it's illegal to lie if you cause someone material harm; there are laws against that already, but not because of the Bible. Similarly, there is a law against killing another person, but not because of the Bible. As others noted, the law is primarily concerned with maintaining societal order, not with enforcing God's law from the Bible. So why should marriage equality be decided based on Bible verses? Please help me understand your position on this specific point, if you wish. I am truly baffled at how an SDA can hold that position, given our fears about Sunday laws and other such persecution.

[HopefulOne]

I believe in separation of church and state.But you need

to understand that most moral laws of today that are enforced

by the police or lawmakers are based on the ten commandments

by the founding fathers of the united states of america.

I understand the argument about equality and fully agree

we should not discriminate against anyone.

But you should see by now that this is a no win situation.

Once the state starts legislating laws pertaining

to religious ceremonies such as Sabbath keeping or marriage

then consequences follow.Yes marriage was created by God,and will always

be a religious institution.

I am sure the gays will get what they want,but because of our governments choice in legislating religious laws,there will be consequences for us all.

No matter what our position is.

Also i will not debate you any more about this so please direct your questions to someone else. It is not my desire to make you understand my position after i have already stated in numerous posts what my position is.

I think we are just going in circles now.

[kailooa]

OK, well, thank you for engaging me on the topic. I very much appreciate it.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

With respect to the Boy Scouts - I am involved in the Scouts, and know of no federal funding (grants and the like) the Scouts receive. There are points of recognition our government has formed, and there are points where our government offers help where the Scouts did not originally ask for it - but has become now mutually beneficial. However, the Boy Scouts could - and in today's polarized society, probably should - drop that help, if reception of said help comes with such strings as you note.

I do not challenge you on the issue of Federal support. I think that you are probably correct.

As I understand it, the Scouts have gotten into trouble when a local government, or agency, has provided some level of support to the Scouts.

Agreed....

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

The equal protection clause states unequivocally constitutional law must be accorded equally over all parties. With the point of political contributions being ruled by the Supreme Court as "speech", both unions and corporations are recognized as having First Amendment rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are specific rights accorded to corporations have specific Constitutional rights, to include the right of speech.

If you are suggesting that corporations, under the rulings of the Court have all rights that are accorded to individuals, I do not believe that you are correct. Can you cite a ruling of the Court that accords a public business religious rights? Yes, I am aware that there may be specific corporations, such as incorporated denominations which have religious rights under the Constitution.

I am not aware that a public corporation, owned by the stockholders, which makes toilets, has a religious right under the Constitution.

I remind you of a publisher of written material once claimed it had a right to pay women less than men under the Constitution. That position was not upheld by the courts.

In my personal position, if denomination

X engages in providing services to the public that are essentially the same as the services provided by others, and in that business, 75% of the employees are not members of the denomination, the owners of the business should not be given a religious exemption from the labor laws that apply to everyone else. Just my opinion.

I am not suggesting that at all, Greg. What I am proposing is consistency in application - something we both know our system just will not have.

My complaint is that our courts and politicians are picking and choosing on the Bill of Rights - first on whether they will recognize people having those rights, then in trying to confer the same definitions that apply to people, as applying to corporations.

As I read the Declaration of Independence, it says all men (read: people in general) are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable rights - not corporations or unions. As I understand it, corporations and unions are expressions of the free assembly clause - and not recipients of any other "rights". People already have rights - it is simply up to the movers and shakers of every nation, people, tribe, and tongue whether they recognize this fact or not.

All that said...if the government is willing to declare corporations and unions as having collective free speech "rights" (as they already have), then by consistency of their logic, what is there to hinder the application of the rest of the First Amendment clauses as "rights", even as whittle away the recognition of people's rights in general?

I do remember the case of the publisher...it seemed their logic failed on the equal protection clause of same Constitution...

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

The commerce clause has been so twisted into a pretzel, .. .

Probably few who understand your comment would disagree.

However, the case law you object to is the law of the land.

Unfortunately so.

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

With regards to the hospital point above - they are in a business which impinges directly upon the God-given right to life. Withholding services here is tantamount to a death sentence - declaring a person to die when by mercy they can be returned to a quality of sustainable life...putting them in the place of God.

Have you ever sat on a hospital ethics committee and grappled with the decisions that must be made?

I regularly sit on such. I have been a member of both of such

Federal and private committees.

Real case: A private, non-religious hospital.

1) Elderly male admitted a substance in an amount that is likely to kill him.

2) No written instructions as to what to do under this situation & treatment team ahs never seen him before.

3) Four relatives and spouses demand that no attempt be made to save his life and to only allow him to die free of pain.

4) Clinical team states that they believes that he can be restored to his prior level of functioning.

5) The united family states that they will file a lawsuit against both the hospital and the clinical team.

6) The treatment team treats the man. He is restored to prior level of functioning and walks unaided out of the hospital.

Do you have actual experience of sitting on the committees where such decisions are made?

NOTE: I came from an Ethics Committee meeting today.

And I do not envy you one single bit, Greg.

No, I do not sit on such boards/committees - but I do realize the decisions made there are much greater in scope and magnitude than many would realize. Taking into consideration complex matters weighing directly upon the right to life cannot be easy.

I very much hope you did not take my comment there as an affront - it was not meant to be.

My comments above did not relate to any case are people were trying to prevent care from being given by health professionals. I was not even thinking of that perspective when I wrote my response.

I was referring to the point where care is administered from a choice of morals/ethics, or the accountant's bottom line - from the aspect of people wanting the care, but it may not be forthcoming because someone else decides. I believe the nod to the accountant is much rarer than is believed, but popular opinion to the contrary led to Obamacare being passed...where treatments WILL be decided based on the bottom lines of cost and productivity.

I know - it is a very tangled web between health care and the various aspects of insurances involved. I should have been a bit more clarified in my response.

Blessings,