Adventist Leaders Respond to U.S. Supreme Court Decision Legalizing Same-sex Marriage
By AT News Team, June 27, 2015: Late yesterday the Adventist denomination responded to a decision announced earlier in the day by the United States Supreme Court that found laws against same-sex marriage to be a violation of human rights guaranteed by the constitution. A statement released by the official Adventist News Network (ANN) made two points:
(1) The denomination “maintains its fundamental belief that marriage was divinely established in Eden and affirmed by Jesus to be a lifelong union between a man and a woman [and] while [it] respects the opinions of those who may differ, it will continue to teach and promote its biblically based belief …
(2) “The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that all people, regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation are God’s children and should be treated with civility, compassion, and Christ-like love.”
The Adventist denomination prohibits its clergy from conducting same-sex weddings, but unlike some other Evangelical denominations and congregations, it has not issued any rules or admonitions regarding the behavior of lay members in regards to their occupation or business, etc. For example, there is no rule prohibiting an Adventist who makes her living as a photographer from taking pictures for clients who have a same-sex wedding.
Adventists have an historic concern about religious liberty and some Catholic and Evangelical leaders have raised that concern in statements yesterday and earlier. Michael D. Peabody, an Adventist attorney in California who publishes the online newsletter Religious Liberty.TV addressed these concerns in his bulletin yesterday. In the Supreme Court ruling, in addition to requiring state governments to license and recognize same-sex marriages, “the Court also found that the First Amendment protects the right of religious organizations and ‘persons’ to ‘continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned,'” Peabody wrote.
He continued, quoting the court decision: “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.” (p. 27)
The decision addressed religious concerns, stating: “Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.”
Peabody’s analysis of the decision: “While the Court has determined that same-sex marriage is a national right, and simultaneously upheld the First Amendment right of religious or non-religious “persons” to speak (and even advocate) against same-sex marriage, the issue remains as to whether businesses, which now have First Amendment rights (see Burwell v. Hobby Lobby), and individuals have a right to discriminate against same-sex couples by refusing to provide services or other benefits that they provide to opposite-sex couples.
“The right not to participate in same-sex marriages has been a subject of intense debate in recent months as some state legislatures have rushed to enact Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) in an effort to provide statutory protections for the rights of conscience of those who oppose same-sex marriage. The constitutionality of some state RFRAs and the rights of wedding service providers will be the subject of legal battles.
“The concept that religious institutions are exempt from following generally applicable laws on grounds of conscience would also seem to be supported by the Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (2012).
“But while the dicta of the Supreme Court’s decision seems to provide some recognition of religious schools to teach against same-sex marriage, it does not address whether they could lose their tax exempt status if they enact policies that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriage in terms of student housing, hiring practices, and employment benefits. It is anticipated that the more religious an institution, the more likely it is to retain the right to discriminate against same-sex couples, but if tax-exempt status is considered a privilege and the schools receive governmental funding, the issues could become murky.”
Adventists in several other nations have already dealt with this development as same-sex marriage was legally recognized. The official teaching of the Adventist denomination on marriage is stated in a document voted by the officers of the General Conference on April 23, 1996. The entire document can be read here.
Has the official church considered that the tax exempt status of the schools and hospitals and other facilities may not be able to discriminate against same sex marriages in the future?
As many students and employees are not church members will this jeopardize funding that is given to these institutions?
The implications for tax and employment and all kinds of other details are huge with this decision. It is a real problem with an Activist court. I saw one site note that using the logic of this case that people with concealed carry permits could not be denied their guns in states where they would now not be able to carry concealed guns. When the Federal Government over rides the states more problems are caused than solved. Anyway the polygamists are already excited about the possibilities, and unless the supreme court defined what marriage actually is then the polygamists have a good case. Though who knows with the new SCOTUScare where they rewrite a statute it would not surprise me if the SCOTUS thought that they had the authority to define marriage!
An “Activist” court is one that rules against my beliefs. Federal law will always be the highest court of the land; state courts must yield to the federal court when in disgreement
An activist court is one that attempts to define or redefine the constitution to suit their political agenda. The constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government and reserves all other powers to the states or the people. One of the enumerated powers is ” to lay and collect taxes…” which was the excuse the court gave to allow the ACA to stand. Clearly, the ACA is not a tax bill. It is a health insurance bill. The (Activist) court decided (wrongly) that it is permissible due to the individual mandate and penalty. The (Activist) court has redefined marriage which is a power reserved by the people.
I have just finished reading Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion on King v. Burwell, the recent Activist court opinion on the ACA. To understand what an Activist court is, read Section V of his opinion.
So that makes you a subscriber to the United State of America.
It is absurd the church is so much relaxed when the world is perishing. The church would be preaching the THREE ANGELS’ MESSAGES as per now. To awaken it from the coming doom aheaf. May HE bless day by day always as we wait for him.
I agree that the church has become “relaxed” as you put it. But preaching the Three Angels’ Messages? Now that’s absurd! How long have we been doing that in North America and other places and producing only meager results, yet you propose that doing more of what doesn’t produce results will will suddenly work if we do more of it? Instead, we need to be ministering God’s redeeming love so they will want to listen to our teaching.
No, you are mistaken unfortunately. God’s truth cannot change with the times just because the masses reject the warning that should be given which sadly SDA has gone chicken in doing. Look at Noah, he preschool d the warning message for 120 years and he was only able to convince 7 people besides himself to get in the ark before all the rest were destroyed by the flood. Narrow is the way that leads to eternal life and FEW (a remnant) be they that find it” the majority are to in love with world rather than Christ and no matter the cost trusting and being obedient to Him to endure unto the end to be saved. Hard is the way says the Bible but great will be the reward for those who really love Him and who are called according to His purpose and “love not their own lives unto death!” All this love and grace, grace, grace preaching is what all the mainstream churchianity outfits are doing today too. How’s thst working out for you? Most all of them have presumption not real faith which is why they focus on the grace and obeying God’s law is the least of their concern. Please read Romans 2:13 which is rarely ever heard from SDA preachers anymore underscoring the backslidden state of the SDA church. Don’t get fixated on numbers, leave that part to God. Our job is to cup the wood and let the chips fall where they may. Earl
There was more outrage when Civil Rights Laws were enacted than on the recent court ruling on gay marriage. Public schools and universities could no longer discriminate on the basis of race. This will mean that a school that discriminates on both race or same sex marriage may jeopardize the government grants and funding, which some are dependent on them for operation.
Recall that Bob Jones University in South Carolina was refused funding because they discriminated on the basis of race. Adventist schools, hospitals and other institutions receiving major government funding from programs may be faced with the choice of admitting same sex students or housing provided opposite gender couples or lose federal subsidies.
Individuals are free to believe and practice their religion; but not free to ask government funding and continue to practice what is in violation of the Constitution. SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not individual citizens.
Elaine,
You have put your finger on exactly why this ruling is so insidious. On religious the principle of separation of church and state, I am not opposed to the ruling; but am opposed to its clear and present religious liberty dangers.
I don’t have the right to impose my theological beliefs on others in society. By the same token, this ruling has the potential to put at jeopardy religious and religiously-operated charitable and non-profit institutions which do not recognize same-sex couples as married.
This is of course why I am also opposed to vouchers to parochial schools. Once religion becomes dependent on the government, then government begins to call the shots.
Correction: According to the principles of separation of church and state, I am not…
For years religious non-profit hospitals and religious schools have received government funding. The government has every right to impose restrictions on those whom it bestows gifts.
While I support the recent Supreme court ruling on same sex marriage, I do not support taking away a church’s tax exempt status if they oppose same sex marriage. The right to religious belief and conscience are of the highest order, but also are the individual rights of gays.
I think it is time for people on both sides of this great debate to just cool their jets and try and move forward without malice. I believe that christians should take the higher road, since we profess such a high calling, and get to know more gay people and maybe their resistance to us will soften.
I think on issues of government dollars like Medicare and Medical, these are a fee for service and not a direct subsidy. Student loans and grants from the government are a subsidy for the student not the college. So I see no need to take away the tax exempt status of a college if they are not on board with same sex marriage.
Here is the rub though and why I was so opposed to a court ruling a few decades ago that was filed by CUC in Maryland suing for equal access to direct government grants. CUC, now Washington Adventist University sued under the mantra it was not a primarily sectarian college. The college. At the time I wrote a letter to the Editor of the World Review, not only warning of the church state entanglement of taking such subisides and grants, but I flatly stated that if CUC was claiming it was not a primarily sectarian college it should be severed from the denomination.
Part 2
It was printed in a bold offset in the Review. It can still be accessed in the archives of the Review.
The point is, the church has been feeding at the public trough of various government grants for years and selling its religious liberty birthright.
A recent addition to Loma Linda hospital was funded in part with government grants. ADRA has been a pass through for disaster aid from the government. St. Helena hospital where i had heart surgery one week ago today, has expanded to many times the size of the old sanitarium, and a lot of it has been done with government grants.
I was treated very well aT St. helena hospital, but I found most of the nurses and the doctor who operated on me were not SDA’s. So it is SDA hospital in name only. Employment discrimination in California is illegal based on sexual orientation.
Somewhere down the line I expect a lawsuit over an employment dispute by someone who is gay. with this kind of duplicious background ther church is going to have all kinds of egg on its face if it tries to argue for a religious liberty exemption.
In the final analysis, I think the burning question judges will be asked to address is when is freddom of conscience really freedom of conscience or when is it just an excuse to discriminate???????????????????//////////////////
We are pro life and by this model man and woman we all give credit and exalt because if it weren’t in place many of us wouldn’t be born. Life comes from the combination of a male and female for female and female and males with males cannot produce life. Hence it is automatically going against nature’s design, and this surpasses every amandment, every law, every opinion. This is 1+1=1 life basic system. True love can only be full when these 2 come together and a child is the fruit of that law. As a member i will never ever marry same sex couples. I would rather die. Because your infringing on my liberty to choose for pro life. So government get out!
So childless couples cannot experience “full true love”?
No one if forcing you to marry a same sex couple, nor would I ever support the strong arm of the state forcing you. I believe God’s ideal in the beginning was for one man and one women to be joined to multiply and inherit the earth. But even the biblical track record after the Fall shows that God allowed and even blessed many things not in his original plan. The twelve sons of Jacob were born of one man and four women. Abraham not only had Ishmael by Sarah’s maid, but he also has a cuncubine. Now I’m not advocating for a return of anything like that today. Abraham is listed in the great Faith chapter of Hebrews 11.
Marriage is a sacred institution, that should not be entered into lightly. Today it should be entered into based on true love and not just for procreation or legal convenience. I certainly realize that same sex couples cannot procreate. But they can adopt. Gays make up about 5% of the population. There are countless children out there needing a home. Look into the eyes of an adopted child who has found warmth and love in a same sex home, and then tell me they would be better off homeless in an ophanage. Sure the ideal home is that captured by ‘Leave it to Beaver” tv serries of yesteryear. But how many christian homes fall short of even that? Also consider that there will be no unwanted pregnancies and no abortions in a same sex marriage. So cheer up dude, there are a few positives.
God create 2 gender male and female there is not another way to populate earth. Even her bodies are designed to fit. Same sex marriage male and male and female and female It is not Bible based Leviticus 18:22, Romans is 1:27 we need to better be careful
When you were preaching three angel’s massage, you forgot one thing God is responsible for season to change and trees to bear fruits. No matter how many times you water or you may take a plain and fly to the sky spraying chemical to change the season it won’t change only to damage. There for its always time to preach any massage go the church of God to work up and pick the broken pieces.the Lord is coming are read
Children of God can we do change for God sternly not I’m not worried about the preaching of women but worried about the changes on structures ,why did not God do that when he ages ago moreover we don’t find women in the bible as priest so are you going to fit them in and call them what, are the women the ones who are complaining of not doing enough job in the house of the Lord , they must understand the bible and if they do God wil revealed him self as he did to ellen G white
The SCOTUS decision on same sex unions (how can such aberrant behavior be called marriage?) is the result of activism and, in the opinion of not a few, outside the Constitutional jurisdiction of SCOTUS.
I wonder how the decision may impinge on the future of SDA colleges and universities which accept government funds.
Strange how many straight couples just live together and the gay and lesbian want to get married? Now I hear someone filed a court case for legalizing polygamy.What is going on with this rock we live on.
I heard a radio preacher say if all your pigs were gay it would not be long till you were out of pork.
Seems like I remember a quote saying (the last movements will be rapid)
Perhaps we are closer to the end than we realize.(As it was in the days of Noah)
Now if run out of pork that would be good, wouldn’t it. I mean we are against pork as an unclean food. think of the health benefits of now more pigs. They are filthy animals, flies, vermin, yuck.
God is not obligated to the separation of Church and State rules of engagement as we are and those nations that openly choose to disobey God and accept perverted immorality as a norm will receive the curse of God – period. How can Homosexual marriage be a right when such a thing as homosexual “marriage” does not and never did exist in the first place. It is an absurdity: even by redefining what does not exist or making a law by accepting this non-existent concept in no reasonable way can make it legit. It even goes against evolution’s non-existent construct of the arrival of the fittest.
The Adventist Church should avoid using the term ‘sexual orientation’ in our statements as it is not a biblical concept, term or condition but one that is of a secular construct primarily used to justify such perverse behaviour as normal. By adopting such terms as a part of normal human sexuality only makes matters worse and will only lead to further compromise. Being politically correct in a number of instances isn’t in harmony with being biblically correct. If they insist using the term it will more biblically sound to say ‘perverse sexual orientation’ or ‘abnormal sexual orientation’ and so forth.
The enactment of the Federal on same sex marriage is one of the fulfillment of the end time prophecy of mark of the beast. The church has compromised for too long and what it I’d witnessing today is the result of its look warm attitude to serious religious issues. Government had for lond adopted the carrot and stick principle and for long we’ve enjoyed the carrot but now avoiding the stick. There is no doubt that the church has benefited a lot from Federal grants especially in achieving its educational and medical mission.I think this is the time to call off the shot by rejecting what the state is offering and let the mission of the church go at the pace God had originally design it to go. This is the hour of decision. Are we for the mark of the beast or are we getting out of Babylon?
The enactment of the Federal law on same sex marriage is one of the fulfillment of the end time prophecy of mark of the beast. The church has compromised for too long and what she is witnessing today is the result of its look warm attitude to serious religious issues. Government had for lond adopted the carrot and stick principle and for long we’ve enjoyed the carrot but now avoiding the stick. There is no doubt that the church has benefited a lot from Federal grants especially in achieving its educational and medical mission. I think this is the time to call off the shot by rejecting what the state is offering and let the mission of the church go at the pace God had originally design it to go. This is the hour of decision. Are we for the mark of the beast or are we getting out of Babylon?
I vehemently disagree with the PC malarkey of the Adventist leadership that is rebelliously against scripture glossing over the sin of homosexuality. Their statements such as the one from NAD following SCOTUS recent ruling allowing marriage in all 50 states has to be utter stench in Holy God’s nostrils. NAD says if it that “we are ALL God’s children so we should treat all people with love and with civility.” I’ll agree with treating others with love and civility, however, they are in error Biblically to call all people “God’s children.” Thst’s pure Universalism thinking which is one reason Baptist leaders recently disinvited Doc Ben Carson to speak at their gathering because of his universal salvation sounding language! The Bible says the reason people need to be converted from sin including homosexuality and any other deviancy and perversion is because otherwise we are all separated from Yahweh and Christ and lost without hope as Jesus says we are all naturally “children of the Devil” says the Word. We have to be adopted into Christ through faith and repentance unto God to be one of His children, unequivocally! Please get it right NAD by abandoning that false doctrine regarding homosexuality. Tons of verses in both the first and second testaments adamantly condemn homosexual acts and lifestyle no matter what the Satanically lead PC movement says about it. Wake up everybody because a sword is coming to this earth from Jesus when he comes to all those who hold onto…
Closing out previous comment: The Lord is coming with a sword iat His coming to rule the wicked with a rod of iron, says the Word of God. All of this grace, grace, grace only teaching and preaching prevalent today in SDA is utterly sickening and abominable. The true 3 angel’s messages are supposed to be warning messages to a world in rebellion that is about to be judged standing on its feet! Scant few SDA are preaching this urgent truth for this hour. If we don’t warn the breakers if God’s law then their blood is going to be on our hands. Homosexuality is no worse than any other sin but it is certainly no less a sin and the Bible calls it filthy and perverted and an abomination against God and nature! Start warning the people of executive judgment coming to this earth ye supposed sky pilots or preachers. Soft soap from the pulpit cleanses no sinners in the pews. Earl
Cheer up folks, if all the women and girls in the world lived and slept together and all the men and boys in the world lived and slept together, this would naturally solve the problem in one generation!! And none of us would be around to be concerned about it!! It would solve itself…
Same sex marriage is totally abomination and evil. Unnatural
desire of fleshly lust is to be restricted and to be put under
control. It has not to be legalized to let go free without control. Doing that is against moral principle. The apostasy of US obviously could be a curse to the world.
The Bible is so very clear about woman’s position. Trying to
legalize woman ordination first of all is a wrong step toward
apostasy. Why should Should SDA Church get into trouble with
questionable thing such as woman ordination? Where is man who
in the first place God designed to be leader in the home and in the church?
God both love man and woman equally. Even our physifal matter is not shame. We are made for different role.
Until then.
Rual Chhina V.. Rtd Pr of Burma
(Washington Resident)
Thank you for your response. Is there such a problem in Burma? Are there no problems with sexuality in your area?