SDA Congressman Votes For SAME-SEX Marriage!

[Tammy]

Jun. 20, 20113:22 am

Thin Line Between Church And State

By Laura Nahmias

The fate of same-sex marriage in New York hinges on the fate of negotiations between Senate Republicans and Gov. Andrew Cuomo over protections for religious institutions – after similar changes were able to win three “yes” votes from former opponents in the Assembly.

Assemblyman Nelson Castro was one of three religious Democrats who changed their position last week as the Assembly passed a gay marriage bill 80-63 and sent it to the Senate, where it remains one vote shy of approval.

“I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I don’t have the right to prohibit others to have the right to get married,” said Castro, 39.

Negotiations on the marriage bill continued through the weekend, as opponents talked with the Cuomo administration about what religious exemptions would make them not feel compelled to assist marriages they cannot support. Advocates indicated they would not oppose those changes, and several wavering Senate Republicans have said religious concerns are their main objection to the bill.

Castro, who represents a western Bronx district, is the only Seventh-Day Adventist in the state’s legislature. Raised Catholic in the Dominican Republic, Castro voted “no” on a same-sex marriage bill in 2009 for religious reasons, but talks with gay activists, constituents and his pastor changed his mind this year, he said.

With his pastor, Castro “spoke about the fact that I thought it was the right thing to do. But religiously I was definitely torn. He said to me, ‘Look, civically, you have a responsibility to represent your community. That has nothing to do with God.’”

The bill’s language makes some exemptions for religious institutions – they aren’t required to officiate the vows of same-sex couples. Those exemptions allowed two other former Assembly “no” votes, Karim Camara and Nick Perry, to vote for the bill, Castro said.

Camara is a senior pastor at Abundant Life Church in Brooklyn, and Perry, who was born in Jamaica, is a Catholic. Neither could be reached for comment.

“They’re not asking religious institutions to marry them,” Castro said. “That made a big difference.”

Another big difference, Castro said, is that marriage-equality activists were more organized this year. In 2009, “the LGBT community never showed up to lobby me,” he said.

Late Friday Cuomo said he was open to changing the language in the bill passed by the Assembly to include more religious protections, similar to a bill that narrowly passed the New Hampshire state legislature in 2009.

“The issue here is literally of religious freedom,” Cuomo said to reporters Friday afternoon. “This is not about marriage in a religious term. This is a civil law issue, and we want to make sure we keep it separate.”

He added, “I happen to be a Catholic, and that’s my business. That’s my religion. This is about marriage as defined by government not by religion.”

Changes to the bill would probably come in the form of a chapter amendment, Cuomo said.

New Yorkers United for Marriage organizer and Empire State Pride Agenda executive director Ross Levi said his advocates had no problem with strengthening the religious carve-outs, if it would help the Republicans agree to pass the bill.

“I remain confident,” Levi said, “that an appropriate balance can be struck.”

Read All About It Here....

[ClubV12]

In spite of the apparent protections offered religious bodies in this legal arena, I won't be surprised when the gay movement sets out to change that. By suing or harrasing or intimidating churches who refuse to marry them. It's only a matter of time...

It's already started. The Southern Baptist web site was hacked by gay activists as a response to that churches recent public stand against gay marriage. The gays won't stop, they will be coming for any and all that oppose them.

[Tammy]

Yep, and it won't surprise me at all when the SDA Pastors start marrying them, either. What is it going to take to wake people up? Abortions being done in SDA hospitals doesn't seem to upset people, so I doubt that homosexual weddings will bother many, either....

[phkrause]

In spite of the apparent protections offered religious bodies in this legal arena, I won't be surprised when the gay movement sets out to change that. By suing or harrasing or intimidating churches who refuse to marry them. It's only a matter of time...

It's already started. The Southern Baptist web site was hacked by gay activists as a response to that churches recent public stand against gay marriage. The gays won't stop, they will be coming for any and all that oppose them.

Excellent point.

[abelisle]

This "thin line" is the one we should respect as Adventists.

I personally agree with this decision and do not think that having a knee-jerk reaction of fear that borders on homophobia does us any good.

Cuomo was right when he aserted that this was a "civil law issue" and "marriage defined by government not religion."

Alex

[ClubV12]

"...knee-jerk reaction of fear that borders on homophobia."

Thats a response I would expect to hear from the gay community. Nothing personal, but thats a fact. When ever someone voices their opinion toward a gay lifestyle or being against gay marriage out come the "homophobia" claims. The most recent move along those lines is to equate those who oppose gay marriage in the same manner as a "racist" (homoracist). Thats part and parcel of the intimidation tactics. I oppose civil marriage laws for gays based on my personal moral beliefs. As a christian I believe we have a right, a calling, to oppose sin in all it's forms. While Sister White does not condone voting, let every man be convinced in his own heart on that matter, she DOES state we SHOULD vote as it concerns issues of morality and temperance. I see that as a personal call to become actively involved, even to the point of voting against, gay marriage.

Homophobia indeed, this is hardly a knee jerk reaction. A studied and looked at carefully decision based on what I feel is the counsel of the Lords messenger.

We cannot embrace those who are living in sin, offer forgiveness in the name of love and maintain christian values at the same time. At some point, you have to draw a line and call sin by it's right name.

[CoAspen]

Alex is correct...you need to understand law a bit better. We have two separate systems. Render unto Cesare that which is Cesare's and unto God that which is God's. Like it or not, civil law is for everyone.

God embraces us everyday while we are living in sin, until He comes again...thank goodness!!!!

[John317]

Jun. 20, 20113:22 am

Thin Line Between Church And State

By Laura Nahmias

....With his pastor, Castro spoke about the fact that I thought it was the right thing to do. But religiously I was definitely torn. He said to me, Look, civically, you have a responsibility to represent your community. That has nothing to do with God.;

I believe somewhat the same, only I could not vote for something that clearly violates God's moral law.

I could vote for people to be free to smoke cigarettes and eat pork, but I think there's a difference between those things and voting to make it possible for men to marry men and women to marry women.

In 1972, I wanted to marry my male "room-mate." In those days, however, it would only have been a formal ceremony, without any legal binding.

So, clearly, I am not the same person that I once was. But I do know from experience what it is like to have a desire to marry outside of God's will.

[Dr. Shane]

It was good that some language got into the bill to protect some aspects of religious liberty. I would have like to see that part of the bill expanded on.

[ClubV12]

I understand God's law. In some cases civil law cannot be supported as a result of Gods law.

The early SDA founders (civil war era) opposed slavery, to the point where they were willing to break the law (civil and criminal) to oppose it. This was a moral issue.

As it regards temperance, Ellen White places virtue in the same arena.

"Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and vote be on the side of temperance and virtue?"

"The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence, by precept and example, by voice and pen and vote, in behalf of prohibition and total abstinence. We need not expect that God will work a miracle to bring about this reform, and thus remove the necessity for our exertion. We ourselves must grapple this giant foe, our motto, ’No compromise,’ and no cessation of our efforts till victory is gained." {PH093 8.4}

The Temperance Work. Southern Publishing Association, 1908; 2002, S. 8

From this I conclude we have a DUTY to oppose gay marriage, as it is an issue of "virtue". Indeed, we are told by the SPO that Seventh-day Adventists should be leading the charge on these issues, not bringing up the rear.

Our motto on the gay marriage issue should be:

’No compromise’, no cessation of our efforts till victory is gained.

John, I hate to say it, but Sister White also includes tobacco in these issues. So, I could not, with clear conscience, "vote" to allow smoking in any form.

[ClubV12]

For a balanced view on voting:

"Whatever the opinions you may entertain in regard to casting your vote in political questions, you are not to proclaim it by pen or voice. Our people need to be silent upon questions which have no relation to the third angel’s message. If ever a people needed to draw nigh to God, it is Seventh-day Adventists. There have been wonderful devices and plans made. A burning desire has taken hold of men or women to proclaim something, or bind up with something; they do not know what. But the silence of Christ upon many subjects was true eloquence. . . . "{2SM 336.1}

Let every man consider the counsel for himself and determine what is a political question and what is a moral question.

[John317]

It was good that some language got into the bill to protect some aspects of religious liberty. I would have like to see that part of the bill expanded on.

Yes, I agree. I was very glad, and relieved, to see those mentioned in the article. I definitely could not vote for it without those guarantees.

[John317]

I do agree with your entire post, with the exception, that is, of your last line. I think that we don't need to make laws prohibiting everything we consider sinful or wrong. Don't other people need to be able to decide on their own whether to do wrong?

The Sabbath is also a moral issue, yet we believe people must be able to make that moral decision on their own. The same with fornication and adultery.

But having said that, what would you do about smoking, if you were a member of the legislator?

Are you saying you would make laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco and make people into criminals for smoking a cigarette?

[ClubV12]

I like the current trend toward tobacco, which is restricting it's use in public places. I'd vote for more of that because I think it's a balanced approach. I was surprised to come across a statement by Ellen White where she talks about smokers polluting the air of those around them, essentially, "second hand smoke". On alcohol she promoted a TOTAL prohibition with a legal and civil law application, but I don't see that for tobacco use. Frankly, I was shocked to see her very strong position on alcohol as we all know how prohibition worked out when it did come to pass.

As it concerns the third angels message we have to find a way to deliver some very unpopular sayings in the spirit of righteouness by faith. In other words, plain and pointed speech. Delivered with a tone of love and forgiveness, mercy mixed with the harsh reality of the hour of His judgment is come.

I am not yet prepared to do this in the right spirit, but I am moving toward that goal. Right now, in my life, I feel like I'm to much like Peter, ready to draw my sword. I need to draw closer to Him to find a heavenly balance in delivering the third angels message.

[Dr. Shane]

we all know how prohibition worked out when it did come to pass.

Prohibition worked. After prohibition, it took a generation, or about 30 years, for alcohol consumption in the US to return to what it was before prohibition. Domestic abuse and crimes committed while intoxicated both dropped because of prohibition.

What didn't work was repealing it. We were told that if we repealed prohibition it would break the back of organized crime. We see how well that worked out.

[ClubV12]

There was a time, a few years ago, that it was impossible to register my custom car on Ohau, Hawaii. I'm not a politically involved person, but this was personal and I felt very strongly the law needed to be changed. A few of us, all in the same boat, started writing letters, meeting with the legislators, attending political rallies, golfing with the powers that be. It took a couple of years but we actually got a law passed to allow for our cars to be legally registered.

If I felt so strongly about a car, perhaps I should have the same passion toward temperance? It's NOT something I look forward to or desire, but, I have a clue how the system works and know it can be done. It kind of puts me in a tight spot now, how can I refuse to get involved? :)

[Gordon1]

how can I refuse to get involved?

Many of these moral issues are co-opted for purely political reasons, by those who have no allegiance to Christ or righteousness, but are working to enforce the mark of the beast.

If one reads the inspired counsel, it's evident that our political action should be weighed in the balance with a view to emulating Christ. Joining forces with others may dishonour God and work against Him. (Both old & new testaments offer many warnings.)

Christ knew perfectly the workings of both the Jewish and Roman legal systems. He knew exactly what was in man. He could have launched a perfect grass roots revolution, as his followers expected. Nor did he do the golfing circuit.

For many of us, looking back we may see things that worked for us, but they did not glorify God. It's a Roman Catholic mantra that "the end justifies the means."

And we may wish that our efforts had led more golfing partners to follow the cross - this was Christ's motivation for every interaction, high or low.

[Gordon1]

If there's a temperance issue to be addressed, it should first be personal.

Are we following the light given from heaven in regards to eating & sleeping? Do we treat our bodies as the temple of God? If not, we may be deceived in our actions. Hypocritical, even jeopardizing our relation with Christ.

Those at the front need to be strict reformers themselves, just as was Daniel.

We all need the prayer attitude of Daniel 9.

[ClubV12]

Gordon, for the record, I was far from being a chrisitian when I was dealing with the car/political issues.

Your point is well taken, as per the counsel of the SOP we should not waste our time on mere "politics", such as car registration. As it concerns certain moral issues, perhaps we do have a responsibility to get politically involved? By "voice and pen" and vote is the counsel. I testified before the Hawaii Senate on car registration issues. How much more important are some of the moral issues this country faces. What is our responsibility for some of us to get "politically invovlved" in the process?

OK, the coffee and doughnuts meetings are out. Scratch golf. The PAC meetings can be problematic as well. I'm not sure how one does grass root "politics" from a christian stand point. :)

[Gordon1]

Yes V12, I understand this was in former times.

For the record, I believe Christ could have attended many of these functions, even a golf round. But His purpose is not to rally support for a cause, not even to make friends. His purpose is to convict men of sin & lead them to repentance and a new life, a changed life with completely different aspirations - To look for His second coming and faith to witness for God's immutable law though the heavens fall.

The duty of Christians is to do justice and to love mercy. This is the expression of agape love, the Ten Commandments in action. If you're seeking SOP guidance, make a broad study. Individual quotations can be misleading. I've already posted evidence that her works were tampered with. Seek the weight of evidence.

"Voice & pen" may simply be the education of the public, and the politicians of all stripes. "Vote" may be for an issue (referendum), not for a person. Look at A.T. Jones' example. He was not political but testified in committee before Senator Blair for the purpose of explaining God's Word & Law. Very few understand the Law of God - instead they study other fields. True Christians are compelled to study and will be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within them. We can explain our faith without coercing others. If they are properly informed, they should be left to make their own decision. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Romans 14:5) This is Religious Liberty.

[Gordon1]

Grass roots Christianity is simply following the Bible instruction. There is no better blueprint.

No hierarchy. "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." Matt. 23:8.

[ClubV12]

"Vote" may be for an issue (referendum), not for a person."

I think it totally applies to a referendum as additional counsel points out we don't know who these men running for office really are. Unless we personally know them, I wouldn't vote for a candidate.

I think it is good to consider real world applications of how to apply biblical standards in the arena of legislation issues. "Pen and voice" may be where I started with the car thing, writing letters, talking to fellow enthusiasts about what action to take, testifying before the legislature. The sole purpose in all of this is to promote the third angels message, as I understand the prophets views on the matter.

Beyond that, "we" are a leavening agent to the community around us. I recently gave a Signs of the Times to a neighbor lady. I have no goal in that other than to help her live a better lifestyle. If it helps her cut down on her drinking, smoking, cursing, it's a good thing, it's enough, that alone will help elevate my local community. Beyond that, God may speak to her heart in a more profound way.

[Dr. Rich]

Hey, the guy is in politics. As such he is a liar just as all of them are. Makes no difference what church memeber ship they are in, they are all evil in my opinion!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

~Mark Twain~

[CoAspen]

In your world, everything you consider sin should be legislated against....is that correct?

That is what I get from your comments.

We have been down this road many times before and no clear answer is ever given to they question, Who is going to decide the 'sin' is and who is going to choose the definition to be enforced. Who is going to draw the line? Is that the world you want to live in! It has been tried many times in the past and we have it today in different religions.

Those that want their 'pet' sin legislated against are heading down a very slippery slope and more likely to erode our freedom of choice in all things.

(Let the sun shine, no more feeding)