Court Decision in Conflict with Adventist Position
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, October 6, 2014
Monday the United States Supreme Court announced a decision to turn down appeals from five states where lower courts have cleared the way for same-sex marriage. A total of 30 of the 50 states now allow same sex marriage, placing the position of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in conflict with what is fast becoming the norm for Americans.
The top court for the country has decided not to review rulings against laws prohibiting same-sex marriage in Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin, a surprising decision that shows the court is comfortable with the expansion of such unions throughout the nation. Canada and many countries in Europe have already legalized same-gender marriages while some African nations have recently strengthened laws against homosexuality.
The American court’s decision came without explanation and puts off a decision about the constitutionality of same-gender marriage that would apply to the entire nation. But it sent a clear signal that a majority of the justices do not feel the need to overturn lower court decisions that found state prohibitions were unconstitutional. Marriages had been on hold in the five states and can begin immediately.
Because freedom of religion is protected by the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, the decision does nothing to impinge the position of the Adventist denomination. It continues to be entirely legal for Adventist pastors to refuse to conduct same-sex marriages as required by denominational policy. And local churches continue to have the right to refuse to allow their facilities to be used for same-gender weddings in compliance with Adventist standards.
The decision will likely expand same-sex marriages to other states covered by the appeals courts that already have ruled that the bans are unconstitutional, including Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. “It is a watershed moment for the entire country,” said James Esseks, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Cultural liberals believe that the tipping point has been passed and "the battle is won" to permit same-sex marriage, but cultural conservatives point to a blip in a recent poll as evidence that the majority of Americans are not ready for this. Opponents of same-sex marriage said the fight is not over. “The court’s decision not to take up this issue now means that the marriage battle will continue,” said Byron Babione, a lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been active in defending marriage prohibitions. “The people should decide this issue, not the courts.” Some of the laws against same-gender marriage that have been struck down by the courts were voted by a majority in general elections in some states.
There are cases on this subject in every state in the country. The Supreme Court could still take up the issue later this year after more states weigh in. The court in June 2013 struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states where it was legal. Although that decision did not touch on whether state bans were unconstitutional, a long line of federal court decisions have ruled since that the reasoning in the decision demands such a finding.
It takes only four votes to grant a review of lower court decisions. So that means at least one of the justices who previously voted against the concept was unwilling to force the court to take up the issue in these cases or at this time. Some of the justices who favor the concept that prohibitions of same-sex marriage are unconstitutional have said that the courts should move incrementally on such controversial social issues.
Adventist tradition has long had the notion of "testing truths," doctrines that are different from the social norms such as keeping the Sabbath by not working from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday when most of the Christian population only takes a couple of hours for church on Sunday. If this decision is the social marker that liberal commentators think it is, then Adventists in the United States will have a new "testing truth" in terms of how to relate to same-gender marriages.
Adventist Today has previously reported on an Adventist minister who participated in his daughter's same-sex wedding and was disciplined for it. Increasingly, American Adventists will be faced with decisions about whether to attend similar occasions involving their own adult children or other close relatives.
No major Adventist spokesperson has commented on this development so far. At least one independent ministry has announced an event where the featured speakers are "former homosexuals" who offer training in how to "lead gays to Christ." Heartland Institute has been at odds with the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in the past, both publishing condemnations of the denomination and being the subject of critiques published by the denomination. It represents a Fundamentalist alternative for Adventists.
Some information in this story was found in the Washington Post, the major news operation in the capital of the United States.
While there seems to be an effort to demean Hartland Institute it is my understanding that it is a member now of ASI. Isn't AToday independent? How would you charaterize your position? Liberal maybe?
And the AToday writers believe that gays cannot be led to Christ??
Maranatha
This is but the latest milestone in the continuing efforts of Liberal-Socialism to constrain, control, marginalize and demonize religion in America. A little lady Adventists respect predicted that the day would come when America would turn it's back on constitutional principles and in so doing would open the door for religious persecution. This ruling is a triple blow. First, because of the difficulties that it will permit to be inflicted on people of faith and the church when the advocates of same-sex marriage begin charging church institutions with discrimination for not wanting to recognize them. Second, because the church has become so marginalized that few know how to minister the redeeming and transforming power of God to those who insist on inflicting their homosexuality on others. Third, because a considerable number of Adventists have supported the political movement that has given America this court ruling.
TS,
It remains unclear what you are proposing with respect to homosexuals and transsexuals and hermaphrodites and other non-traditional gender expressions.
Do you see gender expression as unmistakably defined by genitalia, with the possible exception of hermaphrodites who are born with both mail and femal genitalia?
Or do you see gender expression as in some cases independent of genitalia but possibly DNA influences like genitalia?
Or do you see gender expression as simply a choice the person makes totally independent of genitalia?
Indeed perhaps there is another way of clarifying how you understand people to be who are attracted to people sharing their own genitalia or who are born hermaphrodites.
Finally, assuming all humans are God's creation, do you see the Gospel applying differently to those exhibiting non-traditional gender expression?
Making these clarifications will go a long way to understanding how we ought to respond to the Supreme Court's decision, I'm thinking. You?
God creating the world in six days———Evolution
Man and Women given roles in a sinless garden———-genderbread person same sex unions
God rested on the Seventh-day———-Sunday
Another created being 6000 years ago didn't like the role he was given and ever after has tried to erase God's handiwork.
I'm glad GOD is the head judge of the SUPREME courts
All4Him
As the Devil's advocate, a question: Does God love all of His creation, including the Devil?
Another question, Since our salvation was secured while we were enemies of God, was Lucifer's salvation secured at the same time for the same reason?
And one more, Background: you and I have a look at ourselves and confirm for ourselves that we are in no way on a par with God, yet we irresistably try to refashion ourselves using the power of our own free will to become worthy to live in God's eternity. Meanwhile, God appears to have created Lucifer so amazingly like Himself, that when Lucifer caught a glimpse of himself with God looking over his shoulder in the mirror, he thought the two of them were twins.
Now the question, Is it a bigger mistake to fail to see the difference between one and God, or to see the difference and believe one can refashion one's self to become in our heart, at least, like God?
As you can see, I'm caught up in seeing God's grace as being a confirmation of God's omnipotence and omnipresence. My sense is that I just feel better believing that God is the Potter and I am the clay, that God is the Shepherd and I am His sheep, and that God is the Creator and I am His creature. How do you sense yourself and God?
Brothers and Sisters in Christ, it is not that God does not love all of His creations. The question is if he condones homosexuality. After reading scripture from the Holy Bible, the answer is He does not. Scripture teaches that it is an abomination. Also, scripture teaches us that God will not be mocked. Homosexuality says this: I know that God created me to be a male or female, but I want to be this way. Therefore, I am going to be who I feel that I am. Again, God says I will not be mocked. I say to the homosexuals. Your time and days are doomed AND that you will not find the bliss and happiness that you seek. It is only a matter of a short time when Woe will visit you. Infact, much sooner than you could possibly believe. The Supreme Court can disregard, ignore, leave the problem to individual states etc. But this will not change what God has said in His Word.
Rose,
I'm going to disagree with your statement that "The question is if he condones homosexuality." God condemns sin. All forms of sin. Homosexuality is just one form of sin. The greater question is not whether God condemns sin, but whether you have learned the redeeming power of God in your own life so that you will be equipped to share that power with others, including homosexuals, so they can be redeemed.
There are people who tell you that homosexuals cannot be redeemed. They only say that because they haven't allowed the redemptive power of God to work in them. I count redeemed homosexuals among my circle of friends.
Homosexuality is a sin, just like lying, cheating, stealing, adultry, and it is an open sin. Not a "worse" sin, because any unconfessed sin will keep us out of heaven; including the sin of judgment. Jesus invites all to come to him as we are, and so homosexuals should be welcomed in the church. After all, the church IS a hospital for sin-sick people. But the church should not place our mark of approval on a lifestyle that God prohibits and calls an abomination just because it has become popular. If they marry, let them have a civil marriage. Being married in the church allows them to feel that what they are doing is not sin, but it is and the church should not coutenance a lie.
From time to time the Atoday News teamd covers stories under the rubric of news, seemingly oblvious to the editorial biases reflected in the coverage. This is such a story.
"A total of 30 of the 50 states now allow same sex marriage, placing the position of the Seventh Day Adventist denomination in conflict with what is fast becoming the norm for Americans."
It is patently false and absurd to suggest that, when a few unelected federal judges impose their moral will aganst that of the citizenry, their will suddenly becomes the norm for Americans. Just because something becomes the law doesn't mean it is the norm for Americans, morally or behaviorally. Such framing of the ruling makes it appear that the writer(s) of this article believe that judicial vindication of the News Team's political preferences makes those values normatives for Americans.
"Because freedom of religion is protected by the Bill of Rights of the U. S. Constitution, the decision does nothing to impinge the position of the Denomination."
Are you kidding?!!! This is just a bald-faced lie. Is the writer(s) just ignorant – or wilfully deceptive? No one who is following the courts' engagement in the culture wars, even at a distance, can deny that the Left-leaning federal judicial and executive branches, as well as many so-called "Blue" states, view religious freedom/freedom of conscience as restricted to the private sphere of religious worship and clerical activities.
The position of the Adventist denomination is not simply that the First Amendment protects its institutional prerogatives (non-establishment). Rather, the Church takes the position that individual believers should have their religious convictions and activities protected when they speak and act in the community/public square ( free expression). Freshly minted positive Constitutional rights like GLBT rights and "reproductive" rights are increasingly being used to negate and weaken negative Constitutional rights, like government paws-off provisions like freedom of expression, non-establishment of religion, and the enumeration of powers clause.
The Adventist denomination, in my opinion, has no business taking political sides in the culture wars. Officially trying to differentiate between "testing truths" – whatever that means – and "social norms" is a specious distinction. Adventist convictions do not qualitatively distinguish between theological convictions and the social/behavioral implications of those convictions. The Church legitimately has no desire, qua church, to politically impose its notion of God's will for its faith communities on others.
But what the Church does do, and should continue to do, is read the signs, and see that the culture wars being waged by federal and state courts, as well as some legislatures, are eroding the ability of Seventh Day Adventists to freely exercise their religious convictions in their civic activities beyond the walls of churches.
The Atoday News Team, in this article, seems wilfully deaf and blind to the reality that this decision is a very real and tangible, if only indirect, threat to the traditional Adventism's view of the Constitution and the First Amendment.
I think that you’re right in suggesting that the church shouldn’t take political sides in the so-called culture wars being waged. Given our institutional vigilance regarding civil and religious liberties, I’m not sure that concurrence or disagreement with any particular court decision necessarily constitutes taking one side or another.
Where we may also differ is how freedom of speech, the (non-)establishment clause, and the free exercise clause, are closely related—as I see it, as in juggling.
We have freedom of speech only to the extent that we have religious non-establishment. Lowering the barrier of non-establishment is effectively lowering the protection of freedom of speech; and lowering either jeopardizes “the free exercise.”
So when the AT news team or the SDA denomination conclude that”…the decision does nothing to impinge the position of the Denomination" relative to the free exercise clause, they would seem to have good reason (and it would appear that this decision if anything reinforces the barrier to establishment).
Our individual abilities to express civic displeasure with this or other such rulings are simply not compromised/imperiled by this particular decision—or if they have been, how so?
I disagree, Stephen, with your implicit assertion that "high wall" First Amendment protection equals strong protection for free exercise. Most First Amendment legal scholars recognize very the tension that is found in the interstices of these clauses. More often than not, decisions which equate the "Wall of Separation" with the "non-establishment" clause, and seek to strengthen and move that "Wall" do so at the expense of free exercise/freedom of speech (as speech activity has been defined by the courts).
The gay rights cases follow a different jurisprudential path, and end up making the State the arbitor of what religious expressions and activities can legitimately be protected if they discriminate against themoral agenda of the State which is superimposed on the Constitution as as fundamental rights. Thus, Christians who hold religious beliefs that consicientiously preclude them from providing services to gay couples (in vitro fertilization, wedding cakes, flowers, photography), or abortifacients to women are being told by courts throughout the country that they cannot keep their jobs or businesses if they insist on providing services in accord with the dictates of conscience.
If the denomination is concerned about preserving Sabbath keeping rights for Adventist employees, don't you think it might be concerned that the direction of the courts on gay marriage and gay rights has great potential to "impinge the position of the Denomination" on other matters of religious conscience? When Scalia wrote his horrible decision in the Smith case, abrogating the "compelling" state interest test, the Denomination was understandably alarmed. It has no less reason for alarm right now. That is why, I believe, the Church filed an amicus brief in the Hobby Lobby case. I think the denomination recognizes very well that judicial endorsement and enforcement of the gay rights agendas poses a very real threat to its institutional religious exemptions, as well as to the ability of its members to conduct business in accord with their religious beliefs.
Two points: I understand your point about a slippery slope as you might appreciate. In fact, I am gratified that you apparently perceive the slippery slope dangers on one side of the culture war’s agenda. We differ in that I perceive both sides of the hill to be slippery.
But I don’t understand what it is about my point with regard to the judicial juggling act of keeping the free exercise, (non-) establishment, and free speech balls in the air that you don’t appreciate. Or maybe you’re actually saying you do. (If so, why is there any disagreement?)
I wasn't really intending to address your "judicial juggling" metaphor, Stephen. I wasn't sure what you meant by it. My point was that, even if one assumes the decision does not impinge on the non-establishment clause (a dubious assumption), the Denomination is still vitally interested in the free exercise clause, on which the decision most certainly impinges.
Reading your last two paragraphs, you seem to feel that if individuals are free, as individuals, to criticize a court ruling which prevents them, or is likely to prevent them, from discriminating in the provision of goods and services, according to the dictates of conscience, then that ruling cannot be said to impinge on matters of faith protected by the First Amendment. If that is your position, I strongly disagree.
The AToday news article did not conclude that the decision does nothing to impinge the position of the Denomination "relative to the free exercise clause." You inserted that qualifier. I think you meant the non-establishment clause. But the point is that the article simply said it does nothing to impinge the position of the Denomination – PERIOD. And I think the denomination – certainly the editors of Liberty – might take strong issue with that rosy assessment.
What I wonder is, why does our God continue to create among us gay people and others who do not fit the "straight" mold (as Bill mentions above)? It's God's responsibility. It's not the case that any of the rest of us chose to be straight any more than non-straight people get to choose their situation. Maybe God has a purpose for them.
Blaming God for our problems is a very old ploy.
On could also ask why God creates people with a propensity towards alcoholism or rebellion or any other human frailty.
The Bible teaches that creation has been seriously marred by sin. A consequence is that we are all born with sinful desires and passions. We are not born guilty of sin. Guilt develops as we grow and practice our own particular sins.
Fred,
Blaming God for causing the results of sin is a ploy by Satan to make it difficult for us to believe in God's ability, desire and power to redeem us. He is either our redeemer, or the one condemning us, but not both. I used to ask why God made me the way I am. Then I discovered that he was so loving, so dedicated to my redemption, that causing us problems is totally contrary to His character. God is able to look past my weaknesses and sinful desires and still love me. It is Satan who wants us to attribute the results of his works to God so we won't detect his deceptions or fear him.
Don't blame God. Give Him credit for what He has done.