Proposition 8 (California)

[BobRyan]

As for Ellen White and religious liberty when it comes to voting on moral issues that do not deal with aspects of worship --

Quote:

DF 274, "The Des Moines, Iowa, Temperance Experience." {3BIO 159.5}

"'Shall we vote for prohibition?' she asked. 'Yes, to a man,

everywhere,' she replied, 'and perhaps I shall shock some of you if I say, If necessary, vote on the Sabbath day for prohibition if you cannot at any other time."'--Ibid. {3BIO 160.1}

Writing of the experience--in an account Ellen White endorsed--Starr

declared: {3BIO 160.2}

I can testify that the effect of the relation of that dream was

electrical upon the whole conference. A convincing power

attended it, and I saw for the first time the unifying power of the

gift of prophecy in the church.--Ibid. {3BIO 160.3}

Before the Whites came onto the grounds in Iowa, an action had been

taken at the business meeting, leaving out the words "by vote." Apparently

Ellen White's Sunday afternoon address-- which, if it ran true to form, was

on temperance--led to a reopening of the question, and the call upon Ellen

White for counsel.

Quote:

The action, passed after she gave counsel, read:

{3BIO160.4}

Resolved, That we express our deep interest in the

temperance movement now going forward in this State; and that we

instruct all our ministers to use their influence among our

churches and with the people at large to induce them to put forth

every consistent effort, by personal labor, and at the ballot box,

in favor of the prohibitory amendment of the Constitution, which the

friends of temperance are seeking to secure.--RH, July 5, 1881.

{3BIO 160.5}

[carolaa]

Quote:

a vast variety of thought among members

So, if there is a vast variety of thought among members, the church should take no position?

Yup. Leave it alone. No comment. Preach God's word from the pulpit, and let people decide for themselves how to vote on issues. Churches that take positions like that should lose their tax exemptions.

[CyberGuy]

No Can do. I will vote YES for Prop 8. My conscience will not allow any other vote.

[carolaa]

Of course, you should vote, and you should vote according to your conscience. That's exactly my point.

[rush4hire]

Yes, Ellen White has encouraged people to vote for certain things.

If the state will not recognize gay marriages, that's not the same thing as making homosexuality illegal. People have the right to be homosexual, but not to just spread it everywhere.

It's the same with alcohol. People have the right to drink, but minors can't buy it, and grown ups can't buy liquor for minors. It's also heavily taxed, so it's not dirt cheap. And there are other laws, like hard liquor can't be sold in grocery stores, etc. These regulations do not infringe upon our rights, it's just so alcohol doesn't get out of control. And it's what the people want.

Why do gays need to have their partnership recognized? Why do they need to flaunt it, and encourage our children to be gay and everything else? Why can't they keep it to themselves, just like we ask the alcoholics to keep their alcoholism to themselves and not push it on our children?

We have rights, too.

And homosexuality can be seen as a religious belief. It should not be forced upon us.

[Taylor]

Something to be considered: I have never been for legistlating religion. I just think that the following needs to be considered.

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is no more "religious" than saying that "obstaining from stealing" is religious. There can still be "domestic unions" but it isn't "marriage". Marriage can be defined by "tradition" or by "general consensus" just like "stealing" can be viewed as being "wrong" even by completely non-christian societies. People never say "Oh someone stole from him but that is ok and if he complains he is being a biggotted christian." Just because something agrees or disagrees with the Bible doesn't mean that words can't be defined by a society.

However, there have been cases where ministers or churches haven't wanted to marry gay couples and they are suddenly in trouble. Pastors or churches have a right to not marry gay couples if it is against their beliefs.

We must be careful, or everything will so be dubed as a hate crime that pretty soon we can't even preach any distinctive doctrine (that has nothing to do with the gay agenda) or it will be considered "too devisive and a hate crime".

I think society can define words without hating individuals. There are people who are in a "domestic union" and although I don't agree with the "gay lifestyle" they are truely in a "domestic union" but it isn't marriage by definition.

I just don't see why, simply because it happens to agree with God's word...that the traditional definition of marriage ends up being a religious thing. It is only a "religious thing" when those who have an agenda to push suddenly want to force it on someone else and when it isn't accepted then it is "religious descrimination."

[Stan]

So what happened with Prop 8? Any changes in the wind?

[Taylor]

Prop 8 was passed which defines marriage as that between a man and a woman.

Gays can have unions and get benefits but they aren't "married".

[Bravus]

Although the difference in votes on it was around half a million and there are over 3 million postal and absentee votes still to be counted, so if they skewed strongly the other way it's still remotely possible Prop 8 could be defeated.

[Taylor]

That would be sad, in my opinion. But I am sure you could be right.

[Stan]

I still do not understand if this is a

Moral Issue

or a

Religious Liberty Issue..

[Taylor]

To many christians it is both.

To the general population it is simply a definition which doesn't need to change.

[Dr. Shane]

Some Adventists want to make it into a religious liberty issue but I think that is really stretching it.

Personally, I believe homosexuality should be tolerated but not promoted. Marriage, on the other hand, should be promoted. Good marriages and strong families make for good communities. Our country is now if rough shape due to the high divorce rate and teenage pregnancy. Redefining marriage to include gays is not going to help marriage and may actually help to promote an unhealthy lifestyle.

[Bravus]

I disagree, just in that I think heterosexual marriage has lots of problems of its own, to which homosexual marriage is completely irrelevant. Better that Christians put all their energy into fixing their own marriages rather than fighting against other people's.

[Dr. Shane]

So if a nation has four boarders (North, South, East and West) and it is being attacked by three different nations on three of its borders, then suddenly a fourth nation comes and attacks it on its fourth boarder, should the nation not defend itself against the fourth enemy since it already has three other wars going on?

[CyberGuy]

Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent.

Now the DA of San Francisco says he will file a lawsuit against the proposition to the state supreme court saying the proposition is unconstitutional. Seems he feels it was a revision and not an addition therefore needs to go through the state legislature which we all know would get NOWHERE as that body is pro gay.

[Bravus]

I just 100% do not understand the concept that gay marriage damages straight marriage, at all. Don't understand it. It's completely irrelevant. The straight couple down the road getting married (or for that matter, divorced) doesn't effect my marriage, and neither would the gay couple. If people just attended to their own gardens instead of other people's, we'd be a lot better off. Please explain to me clearly in small words how gay marriage is an attack on straight marriage.

[Amelia]

It isn't. Period. And it isn't a threat to our churches either. If you think about it. A gay couple isn't going to come into a church that doesn't favor them and ask to be married. And even if they did I'm sure the pastor would handle matters behind closed doors.

Im inclined to deal with gay marriage the way Jesus told us to deal with taxes. It's a government thing, not a religious thing. After that, it's up to God to deal with the individuals, not us.

[Pockey]

Just saw the website re: SDAs against prop 8. I was pretty surprised.

In the youtube videos that they showed, the issue that those SDAs seem to have is regarding religious liberty. But, I really don't feel like Prop 8 was a religious liberty issue.

Let's take the 10 commandments. If the gov wanted to post the 10 commandments in a courtroom, I'd object to that. The reason is, commandments 1-4 deal with God and man. However, commandments 5-10 deal with man to man. I think when man deals with man, then yes, the government should regulate commandments 5-10 (don't steal, don't kill etc.) However I don't believe the gov should regulate commandments 1-4 (what day to worship etc.). Those are between God and man.

So let's take Prop 8. Where in the spirit of the 10 commandments would this fall? Probably a man to man issue. So Prop 8 is the government trying to regulate a man to man issue. If we don't have a problem with the gov saying "don't kill" or "don't steal", then why would we have a problem with them saying "don't marry someone that's not of the opposite sex"?

[Reddogs]

FOR

www.adventists4prop8.com

AGAINST

http://adventistsagainstprop8.org/

Thoughts?

There are some Adventist churches in California that turn a blind eye to gays and lesbians or are supported and influenced by them, so I am not surprised.

[Reddogs]

I just 100% do not understand the concept that gay marriage damages straight marriage, at all. Don't understand it. It's completely irrelevant. The straight couple down the road getting married (or for that matter, divorced) doesn't effect my marriage, and neither would the gay couple. If people just attended to their own gardens instead of other people's, we'd be a lot better off. Please explain to me clearly in small words how gay marriage is an attack on straight marriage.

Marriage is a divine institution from God and should not be profaned by what is clearly a abomination to Him. If they want a government or civil document that is up to the powers that run it, but marriage is a total different matter.

[Dr. Shane]

Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent.

Now the DA of San Francisco says he will file a lawsuit against the proposition to the state supreme court saying the proposition is unconstitutional. Seems he feels it was a revision and not an addition therefore needs to go through the state legislature which we all know would get NOWHERE as that body is pro gay.

The people of California voted and passed a ban on gay marriage in 2000. This year the California Supreme Court ruled that the 2000 ban violated the California constitution. So the people of California have now amended that same California constitution so that their constitution itself bans gay marriage. So now the Supreme Court cannot rule that the ban is unconstitutional when the ban is itself part of the constitution.

However the amendment can be challenged in federal court and go all the way to the US Supreme Court. If the US Supreme Court ruled the amendment was unconstitutional it would impact many others states that have already amended their constitution as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton. However if that were to happen it would likely be a short-lived victory for gay rights as it would put enormous amount of pressure on Congress to amend the US Constitution to ban gay marriage.

[Jeannieb43]

What bothers me about this whole thing is that the PRO Prop 8 people wanted to legislate AGAINST a minority. Take away the rights of a minority.

Well, as part of a religious minority myself, this bothers me tremendously.

If I don't stand up for the rights of a minority [of which I'm not a member, nor do I even really understand their viewpoint] -- who then will be left to stand up for ME when my rights are being legislated out of existence??

I think Prop 8 is totally WRONG, both under the U.S.Constitution and under the Bible. Every person should have the right to make choices for him/herself, regardless of whether s/he is in the minority or the majority.

[Taylor]

They can make a choice....they can be gay, they can be in a union but it isn't marriage. That doesn't take any right away from them. They are still recognized as in a Union. If we gave them a "right" to call it "marriage" then we are saying that Pastors don't have any "right' to not do a wedding of those people. That also "infringes" on those rights. We are not descriminating against them. They are free to be open and gay, and safe, and loved by Christians, and in unions, and welcomed in churches but just don't call it marriage.

So far as the Bible is concerned...it is clear that the gay lifstyle is absolutely wrong in God's eyes. However, thankfuly we live in a country that doens't legislate morality. We are not telling them they will be killed for being gay, or even treated badly. They can live their lives any way they choose, even if it is "wrong" according to "scripture". But we also should not be forced to say that that union is the same as "marriage" becuase it is not.

[carolaa]

Yesterday a lawsuit was filed in California to challenge the overturning of the gay marriage law on grounds it is not constitutional to ban gay marriage.