Awesome work. Many thanks to everyone involved.

Wow! We should defend the rights of a perverse world because we're a minority too?! Truly we are living at the very end of the world!

If we defend only those who agree with us, who will be left to defend us when we become the minority?

JB: they used to say the same thing about inter-racial marriage, even the last little zinger about the "end of the world." Of course, that didn't happen and as we look upon race segregationists from 40 years ago, is the same we will look back on sexuality segregationists in a few years.

They can't hav

Why do we suddenly need the state to define Biblical (traditional except all the polygamy parts) unions?

Not that the issue is not the binary between same-sex unions for them, marriages for us Christians, but instead state marriages for anyone the state deems worthy and Christian marriages as determined by each church.

I believe that there are a lot of things listed as perverse in the Bible - lying, adultery, making idols, mixing fabrics - why single out homosexuals to get the "perverse" treatment by the state?

I'm noticing a growing bifurcation among Sac-Central Prop. 8 supporters and the Church State Council. Note JB's use of "perverse," this moral judgment statement rooted in a theological understanding of the issue reveals the true thinking behind the rhetoric of "traditional" marriage. Most of these people have some sort of internal disgust at the thought of same-sex sex. Of course Alan Reinach doesn't say this, instead he has been arguing incredible falsely that equal marriage will threaten religious liberty, a point refuted here, and here:

This is a quote from the Reagan-appointed Republican California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George who wrote the decision:

"Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

But of course the false Church State Council argument is really just to give folks who like to use the "perverse" word a thin patina of social grace. But they are not practicing grace, they are practicing the bigotry that Jesus rejected, the idea that who one is or how one was born makes them more a sinner than the rest of us. Going even farther, these Adventist Donatists now want the State to separate the sheep from the goats.

From the official California Supreme Court's majority ruling:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples. . . . Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children . . . . Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.

[R]etaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

Alexander Carpenter - Obviously you don't believe gay marriage is wrong or that allowing it affects what is taught to our kids in public schools. Why do the AAP8 group hide behind religious liberty when presenting this issue to Adventists but then when you discuss the issue it has nothing to do with religious liberty. Instead it is them wanting you to accept gay marriage and them upset that you might think there is something wrong with gay marriage. Sorry to say it but it is a sign of the end - the moral decay of society (whether it's gay marriage or straight marriages ending in divorce).

JB,

It is not an either-or proposition for Alexander and many others. He is allowed to have religious liberty and personal moral grounds for supporting marriage rights for all couples. It is less likely that he can convince others on based on personal, fairness and moral grounds, so he joins in a campaign that focuses on the religious liberty issues. In this forum he has ample opportunity to explore the many other reasons why proposition 8 is bad for GLBT people.

Also, I am a Lesbian in a permanent partnership that wishes to get married. Earlier, in essence, you called me perverse. I would appreciate an appology for that, thanks.

Carlitas,

Did you happen to see the news show on brothers and sisters that have married or are living together as man and wife?
They had a dozen couples on the show from young to over 75 I'd say.

Just curious because I saw an add on TV.
These brothers and sisters all were in committed monogamas relationships that didnt affect any one elses buisness.Their may be 2 brothers or 2 sisters though not in the show I was refering too.

Should they have the same liberties Gay's seek too?

From an interested observer:

At the website “Adventists For Proposition 8” (www.adventistsfor8.com), the sponsors argue that a vote for California’s Proposition 8 (adding a provision banning same-sex marriage to the State Constitution) promotes religious liberty as traditionally advocated by Seventh-day Adventists. Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that the argument is one huge non sequitur, I found a particular irony in one of the newly-added sponsors, Bruce J. Cameron, J.D. The site lists Mr. Cameron as a professor of labor law at Regent University School of Law.

If the name of the law school sounds familiar, there is a reason. Regent University School of Law was founded by televangelist Pat Robertson; its mission is to integrate the Bible with public policy. (See “Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school”, Boston Globe, 4/8/07, www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_sp...).

One of its graduates is Monica Goodling, once a top aide to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and one of a handful of officials overseeing the scandalous hirings--and firings—of U. S. Attorneys. Ms. Goodling has admitted that in recommending applicants for U.S. Attorney’s Office positions, she illegally used the applicants’ religious orthodoxy as a significant basis for her recommendations. Note that Ms. Goodling’s actions comported with the law school’s mission (see above Boston Globe article).

So here’s the irony: We are being told that a vote for Proposition 8 is a vote for religious liberty as traditionally understood by Seventh-day Adventists, even though it is virtually impossible to find anything in that traditional S.D.A. understanding which supports this connection. And we are being told this by a professor at a law school which teaches that public policy decisions should be primarily based on one’s understanding of Biblical doctrine—a proposition that flatly contradicts the very core of the traditional S.D.A. understanding of religious liberty!

No I didn't Michael, I only get PBS on my TV.

I don't know of any widespread sexual or emotional orientation to someone of the same family, so I think the comparison is a bit flimsy.

Having said that, I don't know exactly how I feel about the idea. In generally I would oppose a procreative union of sibblings because of the higher chances of negative recessive genetic mutations with closely related people. But again, I think the comparison is a bit weak.

Elaine Nelson - You can learn more about Bruce Cameron here:

http://www.sabbathschoollessons.com

There it states:

"Bruce N. Cameron, J.D. is the author of these Sabbath School lesson study outlines. He is the Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law at Regent University School of Law. Professor Cameron has devoted his life to promoting the Gospel and defending believers. In addition to teaching at an overtly Christian law school, he continues his 32 year practice of law which is limited to the litigation of constitutional rights and religious freedom cases for employees. He holds an undergraduate degree from Andrews University and a Doctor of Law from Emory University School of Law."

Carlitas - I have a friend who's a gay Adventist young adult. He's out there looking for a mate. He doesn't live in CA but in WI but anyway he knows I'm against gay marriage and he's doing his best to figure how how he can be "gay" and still believe in the Adventist message. If you're offended by me calling gay marriage a perversion then that is something I can't help you with. My comment about gay marriage still stands.

This is one of the things that parents are afraid of with gay marriage being legalized:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.D...

It's hard to know where to start.

JB, How can you call same-sex marriage "perverse" and not see how that reaction and worldview is shaped by your religious assumptions? You are, of course, welcome to your opinion (but you are not welcome to attack people or groups of people on this site), but the very essence of religious freedom is that we all should have the same rights simply because we're human beings--not because someone deems us "not perverse." Alex and others can absolutely discuss their discomfort with Prop 8 in a both/and context--both because they object to this blatant disregard for the church's historic opposition to state-sponsored religious movements, and because they believe that homosexuality is a legitimate expression of human identity.

Michael, Much of the fear associated with Prop 8 is based on the slippery slope argument--if they allow this, then what? This is where you get ridiculous notions that people will be able to marry their goldfish soon. You don't have to look at same-sex marriage, just look at marriage as we currently define it in this society: it is a commitment between two consenting adults, and, we've added in modern times, that does not harm other parties. Marriage, like all social and cultural institutions, is a constantly changing target. At one point not so long ago (and in other parts of the world), girls as young as 10--or sometimes younger--were given in marriage and nobody thought anything of it. Concubinage and polygamy were common (and still are practiced). An incestuous relationship, which is what your example was, would not be defensible because of the harm that would be done to any potential children. And, as Carlitas pointed out, there is no evidence that this is a widespread, biologically based attraction, so it really is very flimsy comparison.

I've seen that story about kids going to watch their teacher get married (a parent's idea--the teacher had no idea they'd be there). Did you watch the video that's posted here? Dr. Nam addresses this fear that public schools will be teaching kids about same-sex marriage. I don't know what the issue is. First, schools actually teach very little about marriage. But, would we expect them to teach kids should discriminate? I wonder what the argument was about "what the kids will be taught in school" when inter-racial marriages were first allowed. And, most importantly, if parents disagree with something taught in public schools (like many do over evolution), they do their own values/priorities/beliefs lessons at home and at church. That's the way it should be.

Thanks for posting that section from the Supreme Court ruling, Elaine. I don't see enough talk about how Prop 8 would actually amend the constitution. I'm surprised more people aren't upset by writing discrimination (not to mention a religious liberty incursion) right into our state constitution, the document that is supposed to protect all of our rights.

It just gets tiring to fact-check these Prop. 8 ideologues. Right in the middle of the article JB links to, about a Creative Arts Charter school in San Francisco in which a least on six year old has two mommies (how many Adventists fit that criteria?) there is this sentence.

"Parents can excuse their child from all or part of the instruction."

There is nothing being forced with same-sex marriage. Stop fear-mongering.

The article ends:

Marriage, 6-year-old Nolan Alexander said Friday, is "people falling in love."

It means, he added, "You stay with someone the rest of your life."

As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did.

In this, very rare case, the kids learned that marriage is a serious commitment and parents had all the rights to prohibit their child's attendance.

The sky is falling. . .

Elaine, thanks for sharing about Bruce. It is telling that he's listed on the front page of the "for Prop 8" site, and works at Pat Robertson's institution which is predicated on the Religious Right idea that America should translate Christian doctrine into federal and state law.

The real assumptions of the Prop. 8 folks comes out the more we discuss this. Interesting that they say this on their blog:

"All comments require the approval of the site owner before being displayed."

Of course they have a right to approve everyone's comment, but it does reveal how they get to truth. . .

Because many promote Prop 8 on the grounds that it will protect religious liberty, I think it acceptable for others to contend that it will have exactly the opposite outcome.

It is too soon to know which stance is more prescient; however, either supporting or opposing Prop 8 for strictly religious liberty reasons, without regard to the moral merits or demerits of gay marriage, is not false faith.

It is to engage the argument precisely where the supporters of Prop 8 have lodged it.

Thanks!
Dave

Carlitas
Thanks for your opinion on the news show I refered too.
Daneen,
I was interested in the comparison because it seemed to fit the talking points of those that champion the courts decision.

I look at the arguements themselves as well as how the arguements affect the debate.

For example when you refer to the fact that,"there is no evidence that this is a widespread, biologically based attraction".

Are we for whatever marital combination can be shown to be a widespread, biologically based attraction?

I was interested to peruse this website from Mormons who oppose Prop 8.

http://mormonsformarriage.com/

They share enough similarities with Adventists to help us learn about ourselves as we listen to them.

-- Tim

I am Adventist and I am ashamed of this people and their video.