Contents:
- WHO OPPOSE OR STRONGLY OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE WHO ARE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST
- WHAT U.S. SAME-SEX RULG MEANS FOR ADVENTISTSBY TODD MCFARLAND, ASSOCIATE GENERAL UNSEL, GENERAL CONFERENCE,AND ORLAN JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND RELIG LIBERTY PARTMENT, NORTH AMERIN DIVISNTHE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S CISN THAT FDS A NSTUTNAL RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RAIS A LOT OF QUTNS FOR THE CHURCH.THIS CISN, REACHED ON JUNE 26, 2015, OBERGEFELL V. HODG, IS ONE THAT MANY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST MEMBERS GREETED WH APPREHENSN. IN PARTICULAR, MANY CHURCH MEMBERS WONR WHAT, IF ANY, IMPACT THIS CISN WILL HAVE ON THE CHURCH’S ABILY TO NDUCT MISSN NSISTENT WH BIBLIL PRCIPL.THE SUPREME COURT’S CISN IS UNLIKELY TO HAVE A DIRECT, IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON THE CHURCH. RATHER, THE NCERN IS WHAT LLATERAL EFFECTS WILL APPEAR DOWN THE ROAD AFTER A LEGAL STCTURE ENDORSED A DIFFERENT FN OF MARRIAGE THAN THE CHURCH AFFIRMS. FURTHER, AND PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS CISN WILL IMPACT ALREADY CHANGG SOCIETAL ATTUS AND TH WILL REQUIRE THE CHURCH TO FD A PATH TO OPERATE A CHANGED SOCIETY.WHILE IS IMPORTANT THAT WE BE VIGILANT ON THIS ISSUE — AND SOME LEVEL OF NCERN IS WARRANTED — WE SHOULD NOT VIEW THIS CISN OR EVEN THIS ENTIRE ISSUE WH DISPROPORTNATE NCERN. THIS IS HARDLY THE FIRST TIME SOCIETY HAS VIATED OM GOD’S IAL. WE ARE LLED TO BE SALT AND LIGHT TO THIS WORLD AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL. UNDUE ATTENTN TO THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LG, OR ANY OTHER ISSUE THAT DISTRACTS OM THAT MISSN, IS AS HARMFUL AS ANY LAW OR URT CISN. GOD HAS ASKED TO DO HIS WORK. HE IS NOT GOG TO GIVE A SOCIETY WHICH WE NNOT DO .READ “ADVENTIST CHURCH RPONDS TO U.S. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULG”AS SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS WE SHOULD BE PARTICULARLY EQUIPPED TO AL WH ANY CHALLENG THIS SE MAY LEAD TO. WHILE MAY BE EASY TO FET, WE AS GOD’S “PECULIAR PEOPLE” ARE NOT FULLY PART OF MORN SOCIETY. IN EVERYTHG OM THE SABBATH, OUR DIET, TO OUR ABSTENCE OM ALHOL, WE HAVE BEEN MOVG AWAY OM MASTREAM SOCIETY ON OUR OWN PATH. STILL WE HAVE FOUND A WAY TO NTUE OUR MISSN OF SPREADG THE GOSPEL WHILE STILL BEG PART OF A SFUL WORLD.WE DO, HOWEVER, FACE SOME SPECIFIC CHALLENG AS A RULT OF THIS SHIFT SOCIETY, AND WE MT LEARN TO AL WH THEM. IT IS AS IMPORTANT TO UNRSTAND WHERE THE POTENTIAL NFLICT BETWEEN THE CHURCH’S BELIEFS AND ERNMENT REGULATNS WILL NOT E OM AS IS WHERE THEY WILL. THE NFLICT WILL NOT LIKELY E ADVENTIST PASTORS BEG REQUIRED TO PERFORM SAME-SEX WEDDGS. ADVENTIST CHURCH ARE NOT GOG TO BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW WEDDG SERVIC FOR ANY UPLE THAT THE CHURCH BELIEV HAVE NO BIBLIL RIGHT TO MARRY. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTNS THE UNED STAT ARE STRONG ENOUGH THAT ANY LAW THAT TRIED TO IMPOSE SUCH REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE STCK DOWN BY ANY FERAL JUDGE.IN FACT, RAISG THIS PARA OF HORRIBL — PASTORS THROWN JAIL FOR PREACHG THE GOSPEL, OR CHURCH BEG SHUT DOWN FOR NOT PERFORMG SAME-SEX WEDDGS — IS NOT ONLY NONFACTUAL BUT UNTERPRODUCTIVE. UNRMED AND ALARMIST CLAIMS HAVE ALLOWED THOSE ADVOTG FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TO SET UP STRAW-MAN ARGUMENTS THAT N BE EASILY KNOCKED DOWN AND THEN CLAIM ALL RELIG LIBERTY NCERNS ARE TAKEN RE OF. AN UNSUPPORTED CLAIM OF RELIG PERSECUTN OR RELIG LIBERTY GEMENT DON’T ADVANCE THE E.THE NFLICT IS UNLIKELY TO BE THE FOUR RNERS OF THE CHURCH SANCTUARY OR WH THE PASTOR. THE FIRST CHALLENG WILL BE WH THE CHURCH’S RELATED MISTRI. OUR SCHOOLS, HOSPALS, MUNY SERVICE PROGRAMS, RELIEF AGENCI, AND ANY PLACE THAT THE CHURCH TO NTACT WH THE LARGER SOCIETY ARE THE LOTNS WHERE ERNMENT REGULATNS AND CHURCH BELIEFS WILL FIRST LLI. IF NON-ADVENTISTS ARE BEG HIRED, IF SERVIC ARE BEG PROVID TO NON-MEMBERS, OR IF ERNMENT MONEY IS VOLVED (CLUDG THE FORM OF A TAX EXEMPTN), THE CHURCH WILL BE AT VARYG GRE OF RISK.EXACTLY HOW AND WHERE THE CHURCH AND S MEMBERS WILL EXPERIENCE LEGAL PRSURE IS UNCERTA. ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO KNOW WHERE THE LE BETWEEN RELIG EEDOM AND GAY AND LBIAN RIGHTS WILL END UP IS EHER CLAIMG THE GIFT OF PROPHECY OR LNAL. FURTHER, THE UNED STAT, DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNTRY WILL FACE DIFFERENT ISSU. MISSISSIPPI IS NOT CALIFORNIA, AND WHILE THERE WILL BE ISSU ON THE FERAL LEVEL, MUCH OF THIS BATE WILL REVOLVE AROUND STATE AND EVEN LOL CY ORDANC.THE ISSUE OF RELIG EEDOM ME UP BOTH DURG ORAL ARGUMENTS AND THE SUPREME COURT’S CISN. IT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE CHURCH’S IEND-OF-THE URT BRIEF FILED THE SE, WHICH WAS CED A DISSENTG OPN. JTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY HIS MAJORY OPN MA SOME ASSURANC, SAYG THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIV “PROPER PROTECTN” TO THOSE WHO DISAGREE WH THE URT’S CISN. BUT EXACTLY WHAT NSTUT PROPER PROTECTN IS UNKNOWN, MUCH LIKE MOST OTHER ISSU THIS ARENA.KENNEDY’S SCRIPTN OF THE PROTECTNS WAS LS THAN REASSURG. HE WROTE THAT DIVIDUALS WOULD BE ABLE “TO NTUE THE FAY STCTURE THEY HAVE LONG REVERED.” WHILE IS REASSURG TO KNOW THAT NO ONE WILL BE FORCED TO A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, THAT WAS HARDLY A DANGER. MORE IMPORTANTLY, KENNEDY ALSO SAID PEOPLE OF FAH WOULD BE ABLE TO “TO TEACH THE PRCIPL THAT ARE SO FULFILLG AND SO CENTRAL TO THEIR LIV AND FAHS.“WHAT WAS MISSG OM THE OPN, AS JTICE JOHN ROBERTS POTED OUT HIS DISSENT, WAS ANY ASSURANCE ABOUT BEG ABLE TO ACTUALLY PRACTICE THAT FAH. IT IS NO ACCINT THAT THE OPN ONLY TALKED ABOUT TEACHG — AND NOT EXERCISG — ONE’S RELIGN. THE SUPREME COURT HAS LONG HELD THAT YOU ARE EE TO BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT. BUT, AS SAID UNED STAT V. REYNOLDS WHEN UPHELD A BAN ON POLYGAMY, YOU AREN’T ALWAYS EE TO PRACTICE THAT BELIEF.IN A MORE RECENT SE, THE URT SAID THE U.S. TAX SERVICE, THE IRS, ULD REVOKE THE TAX-EXEMPT STAT OF A RELIG SCHOOL LLED BOB JON UNIVERSY BEE S POLICY OF NOT ALLOWG TERRACIAL DATG VLATED PUBLIC POLICY. WHEN ASKED IF THE SAME PUBLIC POLICY NSIRATNS WOULD EXTEND TO SEXUAL ORIENTATN DISCRIMATN, THE ERNMENT LAWYER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THAT WAS A POSSIBILY.MUCH OF HOW THE NFLICT OF RIGHTS BETWEEN RELIG RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF GAYS AND LBIANS UNFOLDS WILL PEND UPON THE ABILY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT RELIG RIGHTS ARE BASED ON MORE THAN PERCEIVED ANIM TOWARD GAYS AND LBIANS AND THAT THE TERT OF GAYS AND LBIANS ARE STILL GOG TO BE PROTECTED. LONG GONE IS THE ERA OF SIMPLY MAKG A CLAIM OF RELIG EEDOM AND EXPECTG THE LEGISLATURE OR URTS TO ACCEPT .AS ADVENTISTS WE MT REGNIZE THAT THE ERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE CISNS THAT FEELS ARE BT FOR S CIZENS, EVEN WHEN THOSE CISNS NFLICT WH OUR EPLY HELD BIBLIL VIEWS. WHAT WE N ASK OM THE ERNMENT, THOUGH, IS THAT TAK THE TERTS OF ALL CIZENS TO ACUNT, CLUDG THOSE WHO VIEW MARRIAGE AS EXCLIVELY A RELATNSHIP BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.THE CHALLENGE OF ACMODATG THE NEEDS OF THEOLOGILLY AND MORALLY DIVERGENT GROUPS IS ONE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS SHOULD BE UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO LEAD. SCE OUR FOUNDG, WE HAVE HELD BELIEFS UNIQUE AMONG OTHER CHRISTIAN NOMATNS. WHETHER BE KEEPG SATURDAY STEAD OF SUNDAY AS THE SABBATH, NOT G ALHOL OR TOBAC, OR EVEN OUR CHOIC ENTERTAMENT, WE HAVE LONG FOUND A WAY TO RVE OUT A SPACE TO LIVE AND DO MISSN A LS-THAN-WELG SOCIETY. THE MORE RECENT CHALLENGE IS A LTLE DIFFERENT, BUT IS ONE WE SHOULD BE UP TO.THE LEGAL ISSU RAISED BY THIS SUPREME COURT ARE NOT THE ONLY NCERNS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PRENT AND POTENTIALLY NOT THE LARGT. THE RAPID CHANGE ATTUS REGARDG GAYS AND LBIANS SURPRISED PEOPLE ON BOTH SIS OF THE BATE. NO OTHER ISSUE HAS SEEN SUCH A SEISMIC CHANGE SO QUICKLY U.S. HISTORY. THE RAPID SHIFT PUBLIC OPN HAS LEFT THE CHURCH A CHALLENGG POSN OF HOW BT TO MISTER TO GAY AND LBIAN DIVIDUALS WHILE MATAG S BIBLIL TEACHGS ON MARRIAGE AND HUMAN SEXUALY.CHRISTIANS GENERAL AND NSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS PARTICULAR HAVEN’T ALWAYS GOTTEN THIS BALANCE RIGHT. FAIRLY OR NOT, MANY GAYS AND LBIANS AND MANY SOCIETY HAVE E TO VIEW CHRISTIANS AND PEOPLE OF FAH AS THE ENEMY. THIS IS A DANGERO VIEW TO ALLOW TO GO UNCHALLENGED BOTH LEGALLY AND SOCIETALLY.THE LAW ISN’T FORMED A VACUUM. THOSE WHO MAKE AND TERPRET THE LAW ARE FLUENCED BY SOCIETY AND S VIEWS. IF THOSE WHO DON’T REGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ARE VIEWED AS BIGOTS OR MOTIVATED BY ANIM, THE LAW IS SIMPLY NOT GOG TO PROVI ANY MEANGFUL PROTECTN. WHILE ’S NOT EXPLICLY SAID THE OPN, THERE IS LTLE DOUBT THAT ONE SIGNIFINT REASON BOB JON UNIVERSY LOST S SE WAS BEE WAS VIEWED BY MANY AS BEG RACIST AND BIGOTED AND NOT SIMPLY TRYG TO FOLLOW S UNRSTANDG OF THE BIBLE.THOSE HOLDG TO A VIEW OF MARRIAGE AS ONLY BEG BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN N’T ALLOW THEMSELV TO BE PUT THE TEGORY OF BIGOT. IF CHRISTIANS ARE PERCEIVED AS BIGOTS, WE N EXPECT THE MOST MIMALIST LEVEL OF LEGAL PROTECTN AND NO SYMPATHY OM SOCIETY. WE WILL BE BARELY TOLERATED.THIS NCERN ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT POTENTIALLY LABELG OUR BELIEF AS BEG BIGOTED — SOMETHG THE URT EXPLICLY DID NOT DO — WAS A PRCIPAL REASON THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FILED THE BRIEF DID THIS MATTER. DPE KENNEDY’S LANGUAGE ABOUT “CENT AND HONORABLE” RELIG BELIEFS, THERE IS A VERY REAL THREAT OF SOCIETY APPLYG THIS LABEL.IF THE CHURCH’S BIBLIL POSN ON MARRIAGE AND HUMAN SEXUALY IS LABELED BY SOCIETY AS BIGOTED OR HATEFUL, THE THREATS ARE NOT JT TO S LEGAL STRATEGY. SUCH A LABEL WOULD ALSO TERFERE WH— IF NOT ACTUALLY STROY — OUR ABILY TO WNS TO GAYS AND LBIANS AND TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. ANY CHURCH THAT IS VIEWED AS BEG BIGOTED WILL HAVE A HARD TIME EVEN BEG HEARD, LET ALONE NVCG ANYONE TO ACCEPT S MSAGE.THIS PROBLEM IS NOT ONE THAT N BE SOLVED BY LAWYERS. IT HAS TO BE ADDRSED BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. THE ADVENTIST CHURCH’S POSN ON HUMAN SEXUALY AND HOW TO RELATE TO GAYS AND LBIANS IS BOTH BALANCED AND FIRMLY ROOTED SCRIPTURE. COMMTED TO THE BIBLIL TTH THAT EXPRSNS OF SEXUALY SHOULD BE LIMED TO MONOGAMO HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAG, THE CHURCH ALSO LLS FOR TREATG ALL WH CHRIST-LIKE LOVE AND PASSN. IT FURTHER MAK CLEAR THAT NO ONE IS TO BE SGLED OUT FOR SRN, RISN, OR ABE.AS CHRIST’S MISTRY ON THE EARTH MONSTRATED, TO REACH PEOPLE WE MT FIRST MAKE THEM FEEL THAT THEY ARE LOVED AND RPECTED. IT’S NOT ENOUGH SIMPLY TO SAY THAT WE LOVE SOMEONE OR SOME GROUP. WE HAVE TO MONSTRATE . CONGREGATNS — CLUDG ADVENTIST ON — HAVEN’T ALWAYS BEEN THE BT REFLECTN OF CHRIST’S LOVE TO GAY AND LBIAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS. RHETORIC AND EDS HAVE SOMETIM BEEN UNNECSARILY HARSH AND CRIL. WE’VE ALSO MISSED OPPORTUNI TO MISTER TO SAME-SEX ATTRACTED DIVIDUALS. WHEN THE HIV/AIDS CRISIS FIRST H THE UNED STAT THE 1980S, THOSE AFFLICTED WH WHAT WAS THEN A FATAL AND HORRIFIC DISEASE FOUND THEMSELV CUT OFF OM MOST TRADNAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS. THE GAY MEN WHO WERE PREDOMANTLY AFFECTED BY THE DISEASE S EARLY YEARS WERE OFTEN ALIENATED OM FAY OR ANY OF THE UAL SOURC OF SUPPORT. GAY MEN EVENTUALLY CREATED AN ENTIRE HOST OF SOCIAL SERVICE ANIZATNS TO MEET THE NEEDS, BUT TOOK TIME, AND MANY MEN DIED ALONE AND WHOUT ANYONE BEFORE THAT HAPPENED.IN THE GOSPEL STORI OF J’ ENUNTERS WH LEPERS, CHRISTIANS HAVE A POWERFUL EXAMPLE OF HOW CHRIST RELATED TO PEOPLE SUFFERG OM A FATAL DISEASE WH SIGNIFINT SOCIAL STIGMA THAT MOST BELIEVED WAS THE RULT OF PERSONAL S. WHILE MANY DIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS AND SOME NGREGATNS MA A NCERTED EFFORT TO MISTER TO THOSE DYG OF AIDS, THAT WASN’T THE UAL RPONSE. HAD THE RPONSE OF THE CHRISTIAN MUNY BEEN TO FILL THIS GAP, THE WNS WOULD HAVE BEEN UNIMAGABLE, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, LOL CHURCH HAD BROUGHT MEALS TO THOSE DYG AT HOME, HELPED TO BATHE THEM, OR HELD THEIR HANDS AS THEY DIED TERRIBLE ATHS UNIMAGABLE NUMBERS. THE ADVENTIST CHURCH AND MANY OTHER CHRISTIAN GROUPS HAVE EFFECTIVE AND ROBT HIV MISTRI TODAY, BUT WE MISSED A CHANCE BY NOT DOG MUCH EARLIER.OUR CHALLENGE TODAY IS TO FD A WAY TO NOT ONLY OBTA THE LEGAL EXEMPTNS AND ACMODATNS WE NEED TO RRY ON OUR MISTRY AND MATA OUR BIBLIL FAH. WE NEED TO TLY MISTER TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE WE HAVEN’T TYPILLY BEEN FORTABLE AROUND. THERE IS NO BIBLIL RERD OF CHRIST NOT ASSOCIATG WH ANY CLASS OF SNERS. AS ADVENTISTS WE MT PUT OUR WORDS OF LOVE AND PASSN FOR ALL TO ACTN A WAY THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO FEEL LOVE AND PASSNATE. THIS NO MORE REQUIR PROMISG OUR BELIEFS THAN CHRIST PROMISED HIS DURG HIS MISTRY. BUT IS GOG TO REQUIRE A LOT OF PRAYERFUL SOUL-SEARCHG AND EFFORT. MAY WE POT OURSELV AND ALL OTHERS TO CHRIST WHO N BRG FULL RTORATN TO HIS IMAGE WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF CHRIST’S SAVG MISSN AND MISTRY CULMATG WH HIS SOON RETURN WHEN ALL THGS WILL BE MA NEW.ADVERTISEMENT VAR DISQ_TLE="WHAT U.S. SAME-SEX RULG MEANS FOR ADVENTISTS";VAR DISQ_URL=";VAR DISQ_INTIFIER="ADVENTISTREVIEW-4219"ADVERTISEMENTRELATED STORIES
WHO OPPOSE OR STRONGLY OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE WHO ARE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST
Homosexuals also fell to the send tegory: jt as an unmarried pregnant member was seen as shamg the church, when a gay or lbian was disvered among s members — and those days disvery was ually the rult of the publitn the prs of the nam of those arrted followg a police raid on a gay meetg place — this was seen as embarrassg, and that person was purged immediately. This quickly garnered support om key anizatns: the Amerin Bar Associatn issued a ll for the crimalizatn of homosexual behavr between nsentg adults 1973, and the Amerin Psychiatric Associatn voted to remove homosexualy om s official list of mental disorrs the same year.
WHAT U.S. SAME-SEX RULG MEANS FOR ADVENTISTSBY TODD MCFARLAND, ASSOCIATE GENERAL UNSEL, GENERAL CONFERENCE,AND ORLAN JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND RELIG LIBERTY PARTMENT, NORTH AMERIN DIVISNTHE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S CISN THAT FDS A NSTUTNAL RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RAIS A LOT OF QUTNS FOR THE CHURCH.THIS CISN, REACHED ON JUNE 26, 2015, OBERGEFELL V. HODG, IS ONE THAT MANY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST MEMBERS GREETED WH APPREHENSN. IN PARTICULAR, MANY CHURCH MEMBERS WONR WHAT, IF ANY, IMPACT THIS CISN WILL HAVE ON THE CHURCH’S ABILY TO NDUCT MISSN NSISTENT WH BIBLIL PRCIPL.THE SUPREME COURT’S CISN IS UNLIKELY TO HAVE A DIRECT, IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON THE CHURCH. RATHER, THE NCERN IS WHAT LLATERAL EFFECTS WILL APPEAR DOWN THE ROAD AFTER A LEGAL STCTURE ENDORSED A DIFFERENT FN OF MARRIAGE THAN THE CHURCH AFFIRMS. FURTHER, AND PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS CISN WILL IMPACT ALREADY CHANGG SOCIETAL ATTUS AND TH WILL REQUIRE THE CHURCH TO FD A PATH TO OPERATE A CHANGED SOCIETY.WHILE IS IMPORTANT THAT WE BE VIGILANT ON THIS ISSUE — AND SOME LEVEL OF NCERN IS WARRANTED — WE SHOULD NOT VIEW THIS CISN OR EVEN THIS ENTIRE ISSUE WH DISPROPORTNATE NCERN. THIS IS HARDLY THE FIRST TIME SOCIETY HAS VIATED OM GOD’S IAL. WE ARE LLED TO BE SALT AND LIGHT TO THIS WORLD AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL. UNDUE ATTENTN TO THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LG, OR ANY OTHER ISSUE THAT DISTRACTS OM THAT MISSN, IS AS HARMFUL AS ANY LAW OR URT CISN. GOD HAS ASKED TO DO HIS WORK. HE IS NOT GOG TO GIVE A SOCIETY WHICH WE NNOT DO .READ “ADVENTIST CHURCH RPONDS TO U.S. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULG”AS SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS WE SHOULD BE PARTICULARLY EQUIPPED TO AL WH ANY CHALLENG THIS SE MAY LEAD TO. WHILE MAY BE EASY TO FET, WE AS GOD’S “PECULIAR PEOPLE” ARE NOT FULLY PART OF MORN SOCIETY. IN EVERYTHG OM THE SABBATH, OUR DIET, TO OUR ABSTENCE OM ALHOL, WE HAVE BEEN MOVG AWAY OM MASTREAM SOCIETY ON OUR OWN PATH. STILL WE HAVE FOUND A WAY TO NTUE OUR MISSN OF SPREADG THE GOSPEL WHILE STILL BEG PART OF A SFUL WORLD.WE DO, HOWEVER, FACE SOME SPECIFIC CHALLENG AS A RULT OF THIS SHIFT SOCIETY, AND WE MT LEARN TO AL WH THEM. IT IS AS IMPORTANT TO UNRSTAND WHERE THE POTENTIAL NFLICT BETWEEN THE CHURCH’S BELIEFS AND ERNMENT REGULATNS WILL NOT E OM AS IS WHERE THEY WILL. THE NFLICT WILL NOT LIKELY E ADVENTIST PASTORS BEG REQUIRED TO PERFORM SAME-SEX WEDDGS. ADVENTIST CHURCH ARE NOT GOG TO BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW WEDDG SERVIC FOR ANY UPLE THAT THE CHURCH BELIEV HAVE NO BIBLIL RIGHT TO MARRY. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTNS THE UNED STAT ARE STRONG ENOUGH THAT ANY LAW THAT TRIED TO IMPOSE SUCH REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE STCK DOWN BY ANY FERAL JUDGE.IN FACT, RAISG THIS PARA OF HORRIBL — PASTORS THROWN JAIL FOR PREACHG THE GOSPEL, OR CHURCH BEG SHUT DOWN FOR NOT PERFORMG SAME-SEX WEDDGS — IS NOT ONLY NONFACTUAL BUT UNTERPRODUCTIVE. UNRMED AND ALARMIST CLAIMS HAVE ALLOWED THOSE ADVOTG FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TO SET UP STRAW-MAN ARGUMENTS THAT N BE EASILY KNOCKED DOWN AND THEN CLAIM ALL RELIG LIBERTY NCERNS ARE TAKEN RE OF. AN UNSUPPORTED CLAIM OF RELIG PERSECUTN OR RELIG LIBERTY GEMENT DON’T ADVANCE THE E.THE NFLICT IS UNLIKELY TO BE THE FOUR RNERS OF THE CHURCH SANCTUARY OR WH THE PASTOR. THE FIRST CHALLENG WILL BE WH THE CHURCH’S RELATED MISTRI. OUR SCHOOLS, HOSPALS, MUNY SERVICE PROGRAMS, RELIEF AGENCI, AND ANY PLACE THAT THE CHURCH TO NTACT WH THE LARGER SOCIETY ARE THE LOTNS WHERE ERNMENT REGULATNS AND CHURCH BELIEFS WILL FIRST LLI. IF NON-ADVENTISTS ARE BEG HIRED, IF SERVIC ARE BEG PROVID TO NON-MEMBERS, OR IF ERNMENT MONEY IS VOLVED (CLUDG THE FORM OF A TAX EXEMPTN), THE CHURCH WILL BE AT VARYG GRE OF RISK.EXACTLY HOW AND WHERE THE CHURCH AND S MEMBERS WILL EXPERIENCE LEGAL PRSURE IS UNCERTA. ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO KNOW WHERE THE LE BETWEEN RELIG EEDOM AND GAY AND LBIAN RIGHTS WILL END UP IS EHER CLAIMG THE GIFT OF PROPHECY OR LNAL. FURTHER, THE UNED STAT, DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNTRY WILL FACE DIFFERENT ISSU. MISSISSIPPI IS NOT CALIFORNIA, AND WHILE THERE WILL BE ISSU ON THE FERAL LEVEL, MUCH OF THIS BATE WILL REVOLVE AROUND STATE AND EVEN LOL CY ORDANC.THE ISSUE OF RELIG EEDOM ME UP BOTH DURG ORAL ARGUMENTS AND THE SUPREME COURT’S CISN. IT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE CHURCH’S IEND-OF-THE URT BRIEF FILED THE SE, WHICH WAS CED A DISSENTG OPN. JTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY HIS MAJORY OPN MA SOME ASSURANC, SAYG THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIV “PROPER PROTECTN” TO THOSE WHO DISAGREE WH THE URT’S CISN. BUT EXACTLY WHAT NSTUT PROPER PROTECTN IS UNKNOWN, MUCH LIKE MOST OTHER ISSU THIS ARENA.KENNEDY’S SCRIPTN OF THE PROTECTNS WAS LS THAN REASSURG. HE WROTE THAT DIVIDUALS WOULD BE ABLE “TO NTUE THE FAY STCTURE THEY HAVE LONG REVERED.” WHILE IS REASSURG TO KNOW THAT NO ONE WILL BE FORCED TO A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, THAT WAS HARDLY A DANGER. MORE IMPORTANTLY, KENNEDY ALSO SAID PEOPLE OF FAH WOULD BE ABLE TO “TO TEACH THE PRCIPL THAT ARE SO FULFILLG AND SO CENTRAL TO THEIR LIV AND FAHS.“WHAT WAS MISSG OM THE OPN, AS JTICE JOHN ROBERTS POTED OUT HIS DISSENT, WAS ANY ASSURANCE ABOUT BEG ABLE TO ACTUALLY PRACTICE THAT FAH. IT IS NO ACCINT THAT THE OPN ONLY TALKED ABOUT TEACHG — AND NOT EXERCISG — ONE’S RELIGN. THE SUPREME COURT HAS LONG HELD THAT YOU ARE EE TO BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT. BUT, AS SAID UNED STAT V. REYNOLDS WHEN UPHELD A BAN ON POLYGAMY, YOU AREN’T ALWAYS EE TO PRACTICE THAT BELIEF.IN A MORE RECENT SE, THE URT SAID THE U.S. TAX SERVICE, THE IRS, ULD REVOKE THE TAX-EXEMPT STAT OF A RELIG SCHOOL LLED BOB JON UNIVERSY BEE S POLICY OF NOT ALLOWG TERRACIAL DATG VLATED PUBLIC POLICY. WHEN ASKED IF THE SAME PUBLIC POLICY NSIRATNS WOULD EXTEND TO SEXUAL ORIENTATN DISCRIMATN, THE ERNMENT LAWYER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THAT WAS A POSSIBILY.MUCH OF HOW THE NFLICT OF RIGHTS BETWEEN RELIG RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF GAYS AND LBIANS UNFOLDS WILL PEND UPON THE ABILY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT RELIG RIGHTS ARE BASED ON MORE THAN PERCEIVED ANIM TOWARD GAYS AND LBIANS AND THAT THE TERT OF GAYS AND LBIANS ARE STILL GOG TO BE PROTECTED. LONG GONE IS THE ERA OF SIMPLY MAKG A CLAIM OF RELIG EEDOM AND EXPECTG THE LEGISLATURE OR URTS TO ACCEPT .AS ADVENTISTS WE MT REGNIZE THAT THE ERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE CISNS THAT FEELS ARE BT FOR S CIZENS, EVEN WHEN THOSE CISNS NFLICT WH OUR EPLY HELD BIBLIL VIEWS. WHAT WE N ASK OM THE ERNMENT, THOUGH, IS THAT TAK THE TERTS OF ALL CIZENS TO ACUNT, CLUDG THOSE WHO VIEW MARRIAGE AS EXCLIVELY A RELATNSHIP BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.THE CHALLENGE OF ACMODATG THE NEEDS OF THEOLOGILLY AND MORALLY DIVERGENT GROUPS IS ONE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS SHOULD BE UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO LEAD. SCE OUR FOUNDG, WE HAVE HELD BELIEFS UNIQUE AMONG OTHER CHRISTIAN NOMATNS. WHETHER BE KEEPG SATURDAY STEAD OF SUNDAY AS THE SABBATH, NOT G ALHOL OR TOBAC, OR EVEN OUR CHOIC ENTERTAMENT, WE HAVE LONG FOUND A WAY TO RVE OUT A SPACE TO LIVE AND DO MISSN A LS-THAN-WELG SOCIETY. THE MORE RECENT CHALLENGE IS A LTLE DIFFERENT, BUT IS ONE WE SHOULD BE UP TO.THE LEGAL ISSU RAISED BY THIS SUPREME COURT ARE NOT THE ONLY NCERNS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PRENT AND POTENTIALLY NOT THE LARGT. THE RAPID CHANGE ATTUS REGARDG GAYS AND LBIANS SURPRISED PEOPLE ON BOTH SIS OF THE BATE. NO OTHER ISSUE HAS SEEN SUCH A SEISMIC CHANGE SO QUICKLY U.S. HISTORY. THE RAPID SHIFT PUBLIC OPN HAS LEFT THE CHURCH A CHALLENGG POSN OF HOW BT TO MISTER TO GAY AND LBIAN DIVIDUALS WHILE MATAG S BIBLIL TEACHGS ON MARRIAGE AND HUMAN SEXUALY.CHRISTIANS GENERAL AND NSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS PARTICULAR HAVEN’T ALWAYS GOTTEN THIS BALANCE RIGHT. FAIRLY OR NOT, MANY GAYS AND LBIANS AND MANY SOCIETY HAVE E TO VIEW CHRISTIANS AND PEOPLE OF FAH AS THE ENEMY. THIS IS A DANGERO VIEW TO ALLOW TO GO UNCHALLENGED BOTH LEGALLY AND SOCIETALLY.THE LAW ISN’T FORMED A VACUUM. THOSE WHO MAKE AND TERPRET THE LAW ARE FLUENCED BY SOCIETY AND S VIEWS. IF THOSE WHO DON’T REGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ARE VIEWED AS BIGOTS OR MOTIVATED BY ANIM, THE LAW IS SIMPLY NOT GOG TO PROVI ANY MEANGFUL PROTECTN. WHILE ’S NOT EXPLICLY SAID THE OPN, THERE IS LTLE DOUBT THAT ONE SIGNIFINT REASON BOB JON UNIVERSY LOST S SE WAS BEE WAS VIEWED BY MANY AS BEG RACIST AND BIGOTED AND NOT SIMPLY TRYG TO FOLLOW S UNRSTANDG OF THE BIBLE.THOSE HOLDG TO A VIEW OF MARRIAGE AS ONLY BEG BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN N’T ALLOW THEMSELV TO BE PUT THE TEGORY OF BIGOT. IF CHRISTIANS ARE PERCEIVED AS BIGOTS, WE N EXPECT THE MOST MIMALIST LEVEL OF LEGAL PROTECTN AND NO SYMPATHY OM SOCIETY. WE WILL BE BARELY TOLERATED.THIS NCERN ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT POTENTIALLY LABELG OUR BELIEF AS BEG BIGOTED — SOMETHG THE URT EXPLICLY DID NOT DO — WAS A PRCIPAL REASON THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FILED THE BRIEF DID THIS MATTER. DPE KENNEDY’S LANGUAGE ABOUT “CENT AND HONORABLE” RELIG BELIEFS, THERE IS A VERY REAL THREAT OF SOCIETY APPLYG THIS LABEL.IF THE CHURCH’S BIBLIL POSN ON MARRIAGE AND HUMAN SEXUALY IS LABELED BY SOCIETY AS BIGOTED OR HATEFUL, THE THREATS ARE NOT JT TO S LEGAL STRATEGY. SUCH A LABEL WOULD ALSO TERFERE WH— IF NOT ACTUALLY STROY — OUR ABILY TO WNS TO GAYS AND LBIANS AND TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. ANY CHURCH THAT IS VIEWED AS BEG BIGOTED WILL HAVE A HARD TIME EVEN BEG HEARD, LET ALONE NVCG ANYONE TO ACCEPT S MSAGE.THIS PROBLEM IS NOT ONE THAT N BE SOLVED BY LAWYERS. IT HAS TO BE ADDRSED BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. THE ADVENTIST CHURCH’S POSN ON HUMAN SEXUALY AND HOW TO RELATE TO GAYS AND LBIANS IS BOTH BALANCED AND FIRMLY ROOTED SCRIPTURE. COMMTED TO THE BIBLIL TTH THAT EXPRSNS OF SEXUALY SHOULD BE LIMED TO MONOGAMO HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAG, THE CHURCH ALSO LLS FOR TREATG ALL WH CHRIST-LIKE LOVE AND PASSN. IT FURTHER MAK CLEAR THAT NO ONE IS TO BE SGLED OUT FOR SRN, RISN, OR ABE.AS CHRIST’S MISTRY ON THE EARTH MONSTRATED, TO REACH PEOPLE WE MT FIRST MAKE THEM FEEL THAT THEY ARE LOVED AND RPECTED. IT’S NOT ENOUGH SIMPLY TO SAY THAT WE LOVE SOMEONE OR SOME GROUP. WE HAVE TO MONSTRATE . CONGREGATNS — CLUDG ADVENTIST ON — HAVEN’T ALWAYS BEEN THE BT REFLECTN OF CHRIST’S LOVE TO GAY AND LBIAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS. RHETORIC AND EDS HAVE SOMETIM BEEN UNNECSARILY HARSH AND CRIL. WE’VE ALSO MISSED OPPORTUNI TO MISTER TO SAME-SEX ATTRACTED DIVIDUALS. WHEN THE HIV/AIDS CRISIS FIRST H THE UNED STAT THE 1980S, THOSE AFFLICTED WH WHAT WAS THEN A FATAL AND HORRIFIC DISEASE FOUND THEMSELV CUT OFF OM MOST TRADNAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS. THE GAY MEN WHO WERE PREDOMANTLY AFFECTED BY THE DISEASE S EARLY YEARS WERE OFTEN ALIENATED OM FAY OR ANY OF THE UAL SOURC OF SUPPORT. GAY MEN EVENTUALLY CREATED AN ENTIRE HOST OF SOCIAL SERVICE ANIZATNS TO MEET THE NEEDS, BUT TOOK TIME, AND MANY MEN DIED ALONE AND WHOUT ANYONE BEFORE THAT HAPPENED.IN THE GOSPEL STORI OF J’ ENUNTERS WH LEPERS, CHRISTIANS HAVE A POWERFUL EXAMPLE OF HOW CHRIST RELATED TO PEOPLE SUFFERG OM A FATAL DISEASE WH SIGNIFINT SOCIAL STIGMA THAT MOST BELIEVED WAS THE RULT OF PERSONAL S. WHILE MANY DIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS AND SOME NGREGATNS MA A NCERTED EFFORT TO MISTER TO THOSE DYG OF AIDS, THAT WASN’T THE UAL RPONSE. HAD THE RPONSE OF THE CHRISTIAN MUNY BEEN TO FILL THIS GAP, THE WNS WOULD HAVE BEEN UNIMAGABLE, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, LOL CHURCH HAD BROUGHT MEALS TO THOSE DYG AT HOME, HELPED TO BATHE THEM, OR HELD THEIR HANDS AS THEY DIED TERRIBLE ATHS UNIMAGABLE NUMBERS. THE ADVENTIST CHURCH AND MANY OTHER CHRISTIAN GROUPS HAVE EFFECTIVE AND ROBT HIV MISTRI TODAY, BUT WE MISSED A CHANCE BY NOT DOG MUCH EARLIER.OUR CHALLENGE TODAY IS TO FD A WAY TO NOT ONLY OBTA THE LEGAL EXEMPTNS AND ACMODATNS WE NEED TO RRY ON OUR MISTRY AND MATA OUR BIBLIL FAH. WE NEED TO TLY MISTER TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE WE HAVEN’T TYPILLY BEEN FORTABLE AROUND. THERE IS NO BIBLIL RERD OF CHRIST NOT ASSOCIATG WH ANY CLASS OF SNERS. AS ADVENTISTS WE MT PUT OUR WORDS OF LOVE AND PASSN FOR ALL TO ACTN A WAY THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO FEEL LOVE AND PASSNATE. THIS NO MORE REQUIR PROMISG OUR BELIEFS THAN CHRIST PROMISED HIS DURG HIS MISTRY. BUT IS GOG TO REQUIRE A LOT OF PRAYERFUL SOUL-SEARCHG AND EFFORT. MAY WE POT OURSELV AND ALL OTHERS TO CHRIST WHO N BRG FULL RTORATN TO HIS IMAGE WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF CHRIST’S SAVG MISSN AND MISTRY CULMATG WH HIS SOON RETURN WHEN ALL THGS WILL BE MA NEW.ADVERTISEMENT VAR DISQ_TLE="WHAT U.S. SAME-SEX RULG MEANS FOR ADVENTISTS";VAR DISQ_URL=";VAR DISQ_INTIFIER="ADVENTISTREVIEW-4219"ADVERTISEMENTRELATED STORIES
The more liberal nomatns also rpond: the Uned Church of Christ and the Unarian-Universalist Church, emphasizg that God loved all his children, voted to orda openly gay and lbian pastors. For example, when, 1977, Ana Bryant succsfully took the lead the mpaign to reverse a civil rights ordance that had helped protect homosexuals agast discrimatn employment and hog Da County, Florida, her mpaign spawned bumper stickers that urged people to “Kill a gay for Christ.
However, the relig right, ma up of fundamentalists, Mormons, and many Catholics and Evangelils, is strivg to unrme same-sex marriage, and their ngregatns rarely wele people known to be homosexual. Vernon Henrshot, who was print of the Adventist Semary when was loted at the General Conference plex Washgton, DC, disappeared sudnly after beg arrted durg a police raid on a gay meetg place 1952.