Print
An Analysis of the Results of the Federal Prop 8 Same-Sex Marriage Trial
This is an analysis of the courtroom proceedings in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the August 4, 2010 decision by Judge Vaughn Walker upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry and not an analysis of the moral reasoning behind either position.
Summary
In short, Judge Walker ruled based on the evidence presented, as any trial judge should, and regardless of his own personal sexual orientation or biases, Prop 8 supporters simply did not make a viable case for themselves. Sloganeering may have won the election but did not win a trial where real evidence was required. Prop 8 supporters may later look at the ruling and claim it was wrongly decided but as this essay points out, the reality is that they did a poor job presenting their evidence and only put two witnesses on the stand, both of whom had previously written statements that contradicted their testimony in favor of Prop 8. When both of these witnesses were neutralized, Prop 8 advocates had nothing left with which to prove their case and any effort by any judge to add in facts to uphold Prop 8 would have been the very definition of judicial activism.
How Prop 8 Became Law
In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state constitution and thousands of same-sex couples were married. In November 2008, by a vote of 52% to 48% California voters passed Proposition 8 (Prop 8) a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
This constitutional amendment was argued before the California Supreme Court. At oral argument in March 2009, the court asked Ken Starr, lead counsel in favor of Prop 8, whether there was any limitation to what the people could do.
Speaking of the state constitution, Starr replied, “The right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process. The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle.”
Despite the vast implications of Starr’s statement, the court found itself powerless to overturn Prop 8.
The Question Before the Court
When David Boies and Theodore Olson brought suit against Prop 8 in Federal Court alleging that the equality principle of the Federal Constitution was violated when the people of California took away the existing right to marry, the argument focused on a simple question, “Is there a compelling state reason, or even a rational basis, for California to prohibit same-sex marriage?”
During the run-up to the November 2008, Prop 8 supporters were free to say anything to get votes. They took full advantage of this by portraying a parade of horrors that same-sex marriage would bring and played to gut-level anti-homosexual feelings. They argued that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages. They argued that it would lead to increases in child molestation. They argued that the Bible said homosexuality was wrong and that the state law should mirror the Bible.
But in Federal court, Prop 8 supporters needed to present legal, secular empirical evidence to support the idea that same-sex marriage was such a threat that the government was compelled to put a stop to it. This argument was made more difficult by the fact that a handful of states already approved same-sex marriage.
In this context, personal or religious convictions and moral arguments needed to be backed up with objective facts. Unlike the California Supreme Court, Judge Walker was not beholden to the simple fact that the California constitution had been amended. He was charged with examining the evidence for and against Prop 8 in light of the U.S. Constitution.
The Evidence Presented
As in any trial, the judge would have to make a decision based on the evidence presented. He did not have the luxury of filling in the gaps in the testimony in order to reach a decision in line with his own feelings, which is the hallmark of being an “activist judge.” Rather, he had to rule based on the facts presented, and this is what he did in his lengthy ruling which is available online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling
To challenge Prop 8, same-sex marriage advocates brought forward eight lay-witnesses, including two same-sex couples, and nine expert witnesses. The lay-witnesses described their feelings of being discriminated against and the idea that the law was not fair. Expert witnesses testified to various facts and statistics that they said demonstrated that same-sex marriage was not socially harmful. These were the standard arguments that same-sex marriage proponents have been making for years and there really was nothing new or novel.
Same-sex marriage advocates even called Hak-Shing William Tam on the stand in order to demonstrate that voters had been given incorrect information and voted based on anti-homosexual prejudice. Tam’s name had appeared next to the ballot arguments in the voter information pamphlets in the run-up to the November 2008 election. Tam had helped craft many of the arguments for Prop 8 and he testified that, as he stated on his website promoting Prop 8, he believed that homosexuals were 12 times more likely to be pedophiles, but could not state where he got this information.
Tam also admitted he had stated that incest and polygamy had been legalized in the Netherlands soon after the country legalized same-sex marriage in 2001. This was factually untrue. The questioning went like this:
David Boies: “You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized same incest and polygamy?”
Tam: “Yeah, look at the date, Polygamy happened afterward.”
Boies: “Who told you that? Where did you get that idea?”
Tam: “It’s the Internet. Another person in the organization found it and he showed it to me. . . . I looked at the document and I thought it was true.”
Prop 8 Advocates Presented Only Two Witnesses And Neither Was Consistent Or Credible
Prop 8 supporters cross-examined these pro-same-sex marriage witnesses extensively but despite the large number of people who had promoted Prop 8, Prop supporters only put up two witnesses to defend the Proposition. With so few, Prop 8 defenders should have realized that they needed to put their best foot forward and present overwhelming evidence. Instead, Prop 8 supporters presented weak witnesses who had previously contradicted the pro-Prop 8 position.
David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values think tank, was anticipated to be Prop 8’s star witness. Normally expert witnesses need to “qualify” to testify in that capacity, as the court relies on them heavily when making decisions. In this case, Judge Walker allowed Blankenhorn’s testimony to be heard as an expert despite his lack of academic credentials or research and reserved the right to determine later whether he really qualified as an expert.
Blankenhorn gave contradictory testimony that marriage is a “socially-approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman” with a primary purpose to “regulate filiation”; but he also said that it was a “private adult commitment” between a man and a woman.
Blankenhorn wilted when Boies brought forward evidence that Blankenhorn had previously made written statements that Blankenhorn believed that marriage was important and could even benefit gays and lesbians, their children, and society at large. He also admitted a previous statement that same-sex marriage could lead to less sexual promiscuity. Then Blakenhorn shot Prop 8 advocates in the foot when he said that he still believed his previous statement that, “We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before.”
In his decision, Judge Walker found Blakenhorn’s testimony was not credible due to his inconsistent statements. After all, which Blankenhorn was he to believe? Judge Walker spends several pages defending his decision not to give Blankenhorn expert status and to dismiss his testimony as not credible.
Prop 8 proponents’ last best hope was Professor Kenneth P. Miller, an expert in American and California politics at Claremont McKenna College. Miller was expected to testify as an expert that gays and lesbians were not really a downtrodden minority and were not harmed by Prop 8’s disparate treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
Although same-sex marriage advocates objected to his lack of qualifications in the area of same-sex marriage, the court allowed him to testify.
At the trial level, an expert is expected to have a knowledge of materials listed he or she relies on and lists in an “expert report.” Miller testified that his “expertise” in the area was based on materials given to him by the Prop 8 attorneys and that he had only read “most of the materials” and had “tried to review all of them.”
When Miller took the stand, like Blankenhorn, he was trapped by his previous writings that ultimately undermined his argument. In 2001, Miller had written an article in the Santa Clara Law review entitled “Constraining Populism: The Real Challenge of Initiative Reform” in which he wrote that gays and lesbians, like other minorities, are vulnerable and powerless in the initiative process. He also admitted that at least some of those who voted for Prop 8 did so purely out of anti-gay sentiment.
The Decision And Its Aftermath
Given the fact that Judge Walker was dealt this hand, focused same-sex marriage advocates and two scattered Prop 8 witnesses this outcome was inevitable. Had they presented a solid case, some element of bias might be taken into account, but they presented such a sad defense of Prop 8 that a ruling in their favor would have required the judge to admit objective facts that they did not bring forward.
Predictably, despite the inexcusably poor showing by Prop 8, the religious right is painting Judge Walker as an “activist judge” who “ruled from the bench.” We are even seeing arguments that Prop 8 should have never been brought to trial and that the “will of the voters” should have prevailed.
The Prop 8 defense was fundamentally ineffective and was unable to explain why in any way it was necessary to take away same-sex marriage rights in order to protect a compelling state interest. They even failed to demonstrate that there was a rational basis for Prop 8.
Despite the deficit in Prop 8 advocacy, Judge Walker clearly spent a great deal of time considering the matter and writing an airtight decision that will be incredibly difficult to refute on appeal.
The question remains as to whether Prop 8 supporters will cut their losses now and allow California to join a handful of states where gay marriage is legal or whether they will appeal to the Ninth Circuit and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court which could nationalize same-sex marriage.
Michael D. Peabody is an attorney in Los Angeles and the editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV, a website dedicated to celebrating freedom of conscience.
Some of his previous writings on Prop 8 are available on Spectrum’s website at:
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/03/16/raw_majority_power_why_check...
User login
Recent
- WC Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Of course this makes the big tent SDA people happy. Why not? When we are forced to marry two males in the church, they will celebrate in droves! Cut their losses? I challenge you to cut your losses and go with Ted Wilson!!! Fat chance of that, right? The Supreme Court will rule the right way. That marriage is between a man and woman. No matter how you slice it, a man shall cleave to a women. Not a man to a man. No matter how we toss out the Biblical damnation of homosexuality, it does not make it right. How come the losers of Prop 8 in the election did not cut their losses and go home? What side is the SDA church on? Right or wrong? You will need to rewrite the 10 commandments to accommodate coveting a man's husband! God gave Adam Eve, not Adam II. This is just another attempt to change the Bible and what has stood the test of time for thousands of years.
George: you seem to be conflating civil law and religious doctrine. How do you get to 'When we are forced to marry two males in the church, they will celebrate in droves' from the article?
Forced to marry? This has never been at issue in a case concerning rights of an individual in society as a whole - not something related to the church.
And how is this an attempt to 'change the Bible'? It has to do with what will be law in California.
Frankly your 'arguments', above, seem muddled and way off target.
Mr Jaspers asks "What side is the SDA church on? Right or wrong?"
In the decision published the answer is clear. The church is wrong on the denial of civil marriage rights to GLBT people. It is unconstitutional and has no rational secular basis. The church may act and belive otherwise, but to insist that a religious belief be law in California is wrong.
______________________________________________________________
Carolyn Parsons
This is the only and sad rebuttal the Prop. 8 supporters can garnish: fear of the church being forced to perform same-sex marriages.
Nothing is further from the truth. This has absolutely nothing to do with any church beliefs; it is only civil laws that now license marriages, and anyone can choose to have a religious ceremony which the state does accept as the minister as being licensed by the state to perform marriages.
If this is ever withdrawn, that will be an entirely different legal situation.
The judge could not have ruled otherwise, particularly given the sad representation of the supporters of Prop. 8. Federal law always trumps state laws. No initiative can subvert federal courts, as anyone studying the civil rights law in Kansas Board of Education that ruled that equality before the law is defined in the 14th Amendment:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws."
Prop. 8 initiative denied many equal rights to individuals solely on the basis of the sexual orientation; the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia struck down a state law against interracial marriage which was similar.
Adventists fight long and hard in many parts of the world to keep church and state separate. If people disagree with gay marriage and believe it is against the Bible, that does not entitle them to demand or expect the laws of the state legislate their beliefs.
In this case it is obvious that the anti-gay activists have shot themselves in the foot and seek to blame everyone else!
One day...For the safety, security and survival of the state...it will be ruled to exterminate all ...
Contrary to the suggestions of some I think this ruling will indeed have a profound effect on the church.
We should now decide whether we will baptize a man who is married to another man and is raising two children with him, or do we insist that he leave his partner first.
I hope the Holy Spirit can shout real loud.
Martin,
Sometimes life has a way of making things real doesn't it?
I've argued here on Spectrum (and other places) that if the church wants to insist on breaking up homosexual families before baptism, it should do the same with straight families. The Bible is quite clear that if you do not fit the requirements for divorce (other partner committed adultery and you didn't) then you are living in adultery if you remarry. Not committed adultery when you first remarried but committing ongoing adultery - IOW "living in sin" currently.
Now most of us would recoil at the damage done to a family if we insisted a straight couple split before baptism, especially if children were involved. An acknowledgement that you sinned in the past with the break up of the first marriage usually suffices and the couple can be baptized. That's if the couple is even questioned about the reasons for the first divorce. It is seen as a past problem if a problem at all, not a current one. But that isn't Biblical.
I think many simply don't see gay couples as capable of the same level of devotion and commitment and therefore think it a lesser sin to insist they split rather than continue to "live in sin." They think it is different for those families somehow and see gay sex, even in a committed relationship, as a much worse sin than straight sexual sins. This trial examined some of those views, stripped of their religious burnishings, and what we saw wasn't very pretty IMO.
As you say, children involved mitigates the circumstance of those who have divorced according to non biblical standards. However since homosexuals cannot produce children, their situations cannot be mitigated. That is to say, while in fact some homosexuals may have children from previous marriages, the trauma their children face is not the breakup of their homosexual parents later gay relationships. It is the breakup of their true mothers and fathers relationship. Indeed, they see their Gay parents homosexual relationship as the problem in their wishes to have their parents reunite as would any child see the subsequent parents partner.
Further Beth, the situation you suggest has already been addressed satisfactorily in the mission field where it is quite common a man will have more than one wife. The solution has been that the man selects the wife that will be according to the biblical model and he retains the other wives as dependants and beloved family.
One wrong circumstance does not require making an additional one where the other wives are dumped on the street destitute.
However this is the flavor you wish to give your story on homosexual marriage and apply it the same to heterosexual marriage it seems.
It is a false comparison.
Michael
Martin Schrattenholze presented a dilemma . . . We should now decide whether we will baptize a man who is married to another man and is raising two children with him, or do we insist that he leave his partner first.
One thing Judge Walker's ruling established is that churches/religious entities can do as they please in their own setting. Churches/religious entities just cannot impose their belief's/practices on civil society. And as such, the SDA church has every right, and under SDA law, obligation to NOT baptize anyone in a same-sex relationship, married or not. The Roman Catholic Church will deny the sacrament of communion to a politician that espouses reproductive choice. What is the difference?
However, if that SDA congregation/preacher is in such a need to meet some baptismal quota, I suppose it could be done, and fully comply with SDA law.
Just have this "candidate" lie down in the empty baptistery, and have the members come by, one-by-one, and throw snowballs on him/her until fully "immersed." In this way, they are both stoning and baptizing the candidate. Then pull him/her out and demand that they "sin no more."
And when some busy-body on the church board peeks through the candidate's bedroom window, and horrors, sees them get into bed, naked, together . . . well, the next time communion comes around make a really big stink if that person tries to partake communion "unworthily."
Kenneth James
"They argued that the Bible said homosexuality was wrong and that the state law should mirror the Bible." Setting aside the Bible for just a second... one can argue that homosexuality is a crime against humankind... Read more here...
www.AdventistVoice.com
I went to Adventsit Voice looking for the non-religious argument against homosexuality and found the usual response that nature proves that it needs male and female to reproduce. I guess the writer never heard of asexual reproduction.
While I did not expect to be persuaded against same-sex marriage, I really thought there might be something that showed some intelligent process.
If all people decided to stop reproducing then humanity would die out, if everyone was homosexual, that would not stop reproduction from occuring and if everyone who was homosexual did not reproduce that would have no impact on heterosexual reproduction.
Their non-religious argument made no sense.
We have had same-sex marriage in Canada for 5 years and no religous organization has been forced to endorse, perform or even accept same-sex marriage.
There have, however, been issues around marriage commissioners (those who work at city hall performing civil marriages) having the right to refuse to do ceremonies for same-sex couples. Their office is not religious but a civil so the question is can their personal beliefs be brought to the job. The matter is currently before the courts.
Kenneth James Good Metaphor "Just have this "candidate" lie down in the empty baptistery, and have the members come by, one-by-one, and throw snowballs on him/her until fully "immersed." In this way, they are both stoning and baptizing the candidate. Then pull him/her out and demand that they "sin no more."
There are some who would put more emphasis on the LETTER of the LAW than the spirit of LOVE.
I guess they know who they are?
I thought the church was a place of healing?
I thought Jesus said my house is ahouse of prayer for ALL people? Maybe I misunderstood?
Let him who is without sin cast the first snowball.
Similar questions have arisen regarding the rights of a pharmacist to fill prescriptions for the "morning after pill" but not for birth control pills which violates the Roman Catholic position. Nor, have pharamacists fought to retain the rights to refuse filling prescriptions for Viagra without questioning the marital status of the patient.
Like the majority of physicians, employees must abide their institution's ethical guidelines and if they disagree, they can always resign.
For those pastors who wish to question the personal relationships in great detail of those they baptize, they should also expect to be questioned regarding their own willingness to be questioned: works both ways.
Michael,
I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. Are you saying that gay couples can't biologically reproduce together and therefore any kids in gay families wouldn't be as harmed by their parents splitting as kids in straight families?
There are lots of gay families who have children that were not a product of previous heterosexual marriage - probably most. There are many ways to have a child in our society now, as straight couples who are infertile know.
But even leaving that aside, do you think that if the children were a product of a previous straight marriage, then it would be ok to insist the gay couple split? If they weren't a product of a straight marriage, what then? And if you do think there should be a distinction drawn, what is your reasoning based on?
I also don't understand your polygamy point. How would you suggest applying those principles to a gay family?
Finally, I would point out that not only do we allow straight couples with kids who have remarried under non-biblical terms to be baptized, we also allow those without kids to do it. Kids make it a tougher argument but they aren't even needed if you are straight.
Are you saying that gay couples can't biologically reproduce together and therefore any kids in gay families wouldn't be as harmed by their parents splitting as kids in straight families?
.... do you think that if the children were a product of a previous straight marriage, then it would be ok to insist the gay couple split? If they weren't a product of a straight marriage, what then?
Posted by: Beth | 06 August 2010 at 5:24
To the first question yes. Kids from straight origional marraiges could care less if their parents relationship with their new gay partner falls apart. In fact it is often seen as the reason their family fell apart in the first place.
So what I am saying is that those kids supposed sorrow or trauma at the breakup of their parents gay relaionship cannot be used as rational for allowing baptism of current gay couples.
To the 2nd question, yes if they decided to be baptised. If there were adopted children then it wouldnt be any different than if they divorced which is a 50-50 chance these days anyway. Gays having no better "divorce" statistics than the general population.
Obviously it depends on the age of the children too. Small if any impact if they are infants and greater the older they get, however I have a good friend that is a social worker and as you know, it is common knowledge that the amount of people that want to adopt older children are very small relatively. She told me of instances where older children who have wanted a family for years are given the chance to be adopted by a homosexual couple and declined, choosing in favor of not being adopted. These were 7-10 year olds and up.
Lastly in reference to what you say here.
"Finally, I would point out that not only do we allow straight couples with kids who have remarried under non-biblical terms to be baptized, we also allow those without kids to do it. Kids make it a tougher argument but they aren't even needed if you are straight."
When straight couples who have married where one of them has been divorced on unbiblical grounds, kids hardly enter into it as you state. The kids have already gone through the origional divorce. The new family might only have one of the spouses that was divorced un-biblically
This was were I spoke of marraiges in the mission field.
One does not compound errors. One does not split that marraige because who will the spouse that did nothing wrong marry and will you then force her/him into an unbiblical divorce because your splitting them up when neither of them have been unfaithful?
Even if the marraige of the previously divorced had both partners divorced on unbiblical grounds, there is no assurance that their former spouses are not remarried and that relationship can be repaired. Would you then require that they divorce their new spouses as well on un-biblical grounds so that the origional marraiges could be restored?
Long story short, your trying to equate homosexual and straight marraiges doesnt work for a host of reasons.
Michael
Michael,
We deeply disagree about how most children from gay families feel about their parents apparently. So be it. I think your casual dismissal of the strength of the gay family unit has potential to cause cruelty quite honestly, and I think it is very unfortunate that enough people share that view to have done just that.
As for your point about not compounding the error (which we share as a goal) - the issue isn't whether the original couple can or should get back together, the issue is according to Jesus, you may not have sex with anyone other than your spouse unless your spouse was unfaithful during your marriage. Then you can divorce and remarry. Otherwise, if you have sex with someone else, you are committing adultery. You are not "remarried" in the eyes of God, you are just living in sin. You are not breaking up another marriage by asking an unbiblical couple to split because the marriage was not legitimate to begin with. The expectation is that you would be celibate if you cannot return to the original marriage.
Beth
My opinions are formed from my own experiences and from the insight social workers have given me on the subject.
They are not all knowing.
Generalizations like we have been using do not discount the myriad possible combinations nor the "exceptions" to the rule.
However it is a fact that worldwide Gay adoption is very rare. In the US, to date, there are only 65k kids who are listed as having an adoptive gay parent. There is no accurate data as to how many of those were "out" as gay when the adoption occured. So the number who were granted adoptive children while it was known they were gay is a fraction of that amount and the percentage that were living with a gay partner were even a smaller percentage than that.
Gay adoption has only been legal a short time in the US and in only a few states at that. Even in the bastion of liberal peoples utopia, europe or more specifically france, it wasnt until February 2006, France's Court of Cassation ruled that both partners in a same-sex relationship can have parental rights over one partner's biological child.
So again we cant use children as the definitive currency in the question of baptism of the actively homosexual.
If a gay couple adopted an infant in 2006 it would only be 4 years old. The average person is lucky to have one memory from that age in adulthood so again, long term damage to the child is not as likely as some would suggest.
Michael
Michael,
What I hear you saying is that it is ok for the church to have a policy that gay families must split before baptism because it is very unlikely that any damage could be done to children. Then you gave reasons to support this that seemed to suggest that there are few homosexual families that have either older children or children that aren't from a previous straight marriage (and one could assume would be resentful of their new gay parent anyway.)
But I think gay families are much more common then you suggest, much more likely to have their own biological children that aren't from a previous relationship then you suggest, and are much more tightly bonded then you suggest. Lesbian couples especially for years have been having their own kids.
Children are not the definitive currency (I think it is just as uncaring to insist a gay couple split whether children are involved or not - children just add to the body count.) But they will be more of a factor then you seem willing to admit.
Of course all of this is somewhat circular because as long as SDAs have unwelcoming policies, few homosexual families are going to want to join and thus SDAs will be less likely to have to think carefully through both their policies and their understandings of gays and lesbians.
If SDAs are going to have policies that inflict pain on others, they should at least acknowledge it. They should not flinch from the reality and try and pretend that gay couples are less committed, their children are less bonded, their love for each other is somehow "different" then for straight families. If they insist that their understanding of the Bible does not allow for church membership or baptism without the splitting of couples and families and the resulting pain is worth it, then own up to it. Own up to the fact that they think the pain is not worth inflicting on straight couples who are also living in sin but it is worth inflicting on gay couples.
"Own up to the fact that they think the pain is not worth inflicting on straight couples who are also living in sin but it is worth inflicting on gay couples."
This is the inevitable result of such a flawed policy.
Beth
I believe the churches policy of not baptising active particpating homosexal couples does "own up to" their position on the subject, dont you?
And in the same vein, the position of not compounding errors with straight couples does the same. We already covered that ground. Its not the same.
If the reason they are living in sin is that one of the partners divorced for unbiblical reasons, you cannot then insist that they divorce since the non erroring partner would then be guilty of the very thing you scold the other one for.
The suggestion of treating them the same is not well reasoned.
You have constructed a catch-22 for the purpose of supporting your view of the subject.
Michael
Michael, you're right, we have been over this. There is no "non-erring" spouse because if you are sleeping with someone who divorced unbiblically, *you* are still committing adultery according to Jesus - whether married in the eyes of the state or not. I'm sorry you think it is not well reasoned but maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.
If you believe in the Bible, then I think it's pretty clear that homosexuality is immoral.
But, just because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal. There are numerous instances of immoral behavior (and by immoral, I mean behavior that Adventists regard as such, not anyone else) that I think we could all agree should be kept legal. For example, drinking, smoking, getting tattoos, having pre-marital sex, etc.
So even if you think it's wrong for two men or two women to marry, it doesn't mean you have the right to stop them from performing that act. People should have the freedom to govern their personal lives, even if you don't agree with their actions. To do so is a constitutional and divine right.
As a church, I think we should have the right to decide whether or not we want to perform these marriages for same sex couples, but the issue here is not what the church's rights are, but whether or not the state has the right to interfere in the lives of its citizens and decide whether or not two people should have the right to marry. In no way, shape or form is it the right of the state to legislate community morality. 52% of California's voters deciding against same sex marriage does not justify Prop 8. The constitution recognizes that the rights of individuals should not be limited by majority opinion. That's one of the founding principles of this country: might does not make right.
The court ruled that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1868, requires states to redefine marriage from being between one man and one woman to being between a man and a woman, or between two men, or between two women.
Obviously, the 14th Amendment does no such thing; to argue otherwise to admit that neither the text of the amendment, nor the intent of those who passed it, have any bearing on its legal application. As Justice Clarence Thomas recently pointed out, the Supreme Court's flawed "substantive due process" doctrine is essentially an open invitation to all manner of bizarre judicial activism.
.If you believe in the Bible, then I think it's pretty clear that homosexuality is immoral.
But, just because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal. There are numerous instances of immoral behavior (and by immoral, I mean behavior that Adventists regard as such, not anyone else) that I think we could all agree should be kept legal. For example, drinking, smoking, getting tattoos, having pre-marital sex, etc.
So even if you think it's wrong for two men or two women to marry, it doesn't mean you have the right to stop them from performing that act. Posted by: Sunny (not verified) | 09 August 2010 at 1:29
=========================================================
BobRyan said -
You have wisely noticed that drug abuse such as drinking alcohol and the homosexual life styles are similar in that they are moral issues - condemned by the Bible - and not related to the first 4 commandments - regarding worship.
Both of them deal with the right to privacy and individual rights - but not with issues regarding worship.
Which is why many Adventists think that the Adventist activism in the 1800 pushing for a constitutional ammendment against alcholol - on purely Biblical grounds - is sufficient "example" to actively oppose all such moral sins in our society, be it adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, drug abuse etc.
Note: We have never argued that laws against prostitution, or theft are "a violatoin of the separation between church and state". The same goes for alcohol and homosexuality.
in Christ,
Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
This is entirely off-topic, and almost not worth diverting this already diverted conversation over. HOWEVER...I would just note that it might be slightly misleading to suggest that the first four of the Ten Commandments are about worship. Reading the account in Deuteronomy 4 (the one Adventists routinely ignore), for instance, one gets the sense that commandment number four in particular is primarily concerned with how one treats children, beasts of burden, foreigners, servants, etc. In other words, the commandment seems to have much more to do with social equity and justice than worship.
/Just sayin...
In neither of the accounts of the Ten Commandments is there a mention of worship on the seventh day: It only directs all to observe a day of rest: no work for anyone, including their animals. Ever observe an animal worshiping, especially on a specifid day?
....Um people, I'm lost. Does anyone want to make some sense around here?
"In no way, shape or form is it the right of the state to legislate community morality."
Um, Sunny, you're the one who isn't making any sense around here. The state does hold the general police power, which is the power to regulate health, safety and morals. Just recently, we've largely given up trying to regulate sexual morality as between consenting adults (including criminal bans on homosexual activity) but that is a small segment of "community morality." Marriage is one of the aspects of health, safety and morals that falls under the purview of the state.
As to the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, that has been a given of Western Civilization since its beginning, stemming from both the pagan Greek and Roman streams and from Judeo-Christian religion. It isn't something that California just now decided to foist upon a surprised and unwilling populace. Just the opposite, there is a concerted attempt to force same-sex marriage on the people of California against their will by means of judicial lawlessness.
The idea that any portion of the U.S. Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include not only a man and a woman, but two women or two men, is ridiculous on its face. The idea that this was required by a constitutional amendment passed in 1868, when homosexuality was an unspeakable crime, is particularly ludicrous.
This is entirely off-topic, and almost not worth diverting this already diverted conversation over. HOWEVER...I would just note that it might be slightly misleading to suggest that the first four of the Ten Commandments are about worship. Reading the account in Deuteronomy 4 (the one Adventists routinely ignore), for instance, one gets the sense that commandment number four in particular is primarily concerned with how one treats children, beasts of burden, foreigners, servants, etc. In other words, the commandment seems to have much more to do with social equity and justice than worship.
/Just sayin...
Posted by: Jared Wright | 09 August 2010 at 8:45
==================================================
Is 66 is written "in the context" of the 10 commandments fully accepted as "The Law of God".
"From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to Wosrhip" - is pretty hard to ignore.
In Lev 23 the Sabbath is the FIRST holy day listed as a day of "holy convocation" - this is written 40 years BEFORE Deut 5.
In Deut 5 - 40 years after Sinai - Moses ADDS incentive for Sabbath keeping already made Law for the nation 40 years ago by first saying that they are to REMEMBER what they were told 40 years ago "Observe the Sabbath to keep it holy AS the Lord your God commandED you".
Thus the wild notion that the Sabbath has not worship context does not stand up to a sola-scriptura test.
in Christ,
Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
As to the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, that has been a given of Western Civilization since its beginning, stemming from both the pagan Greek and Roman streams and from Judeo-Christian religion. It isn't something that California just now decided to foist upon a surprised and unwilling populace. Just the opposite, there is a concerted attempt to force same-sex marriage on the people of California against their will by means of judicial lawlessness.
The idea that any portion of the U.S. Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include not only a man and a woman, but two women or two men, is ridiculous on its face. The idea that this was required by a constitutional amendment passed in 1868, when homosexuality was an unspeakable crime, is particularly ludicrous.
Posted by: David Read (not verified) | 10 August 2010 at 2:43
============================================================
BobRyan replies -
Indeed - activist judges devoted to social engineering by seeking to force their own idea of morals on what was otherwise a democratic process, is a travesty of our times.
They show disregard for the constituion, and for democracy when they do it. Though they probably "imagine" that they are only showing contempt for the Bible, for Christianity, and for people that "just so happen to vote".
in Christ,
Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
Okay, so David Read, since you seem to have it in for me, I should clarify: I am actually confused about what people are talking about, as the conversation seems to have taken a turn that lost me. I wasn't being sarcastic.
Are people always so hostile on this website?
Back to topic: I liked the article. Thanks for writing it.
I'd also like to point out that it's been an ongoing debate whether or not the state has the authority to legislate morality, one that's been raging for centuries between the most brilliant political scholars and philosophers. Neither of us can definitively say whether or not the government has the right. I should have said, "In my opinion, the state has no right."
However, it seems the tide is turning in the direction of limiting that power.
As for the traditional definition of marriage being between man and woman, pointing to Western anthropology doesn't prove anything. Saying things have always been this way so it should stay that way doesn't work.
As far as the state goes, everyone, or at least the majority has to agree. Rights come from a mandate from the masses. Not always the best way to define rights IMO.
My Granddad always said on matters of business and international intellectual property rights, all it takes is one drunk bum to cancel out Bill Gates vote.
That was his way of saying that not everyone has the IQ to know the facts on every issue, but they are all going to vote.
The facts on this issue is that there should be some way for homosexuals to get the financial and other benefit qualifications they want without them polluting what the majority of the population sees as a religious institution, hence why does everyone get married in a church or have a Pastor do the ceremony?
In reality it is about as insensitive and tone deaf to the populace as building a mosque at ground zero.
It is an error in logic. If Marriage=Benefits and you want Benefits, advocating for marriage is your most circuitous argument. Why not advocate for the Benefits directly?
Michael
another idiot judge!!
@ Michael
"hence why does everyone get married in a church or have a Pastor do the ceremony?"
------------
Except that they don't. My legal wedding was performed in the Riverside County courthouse by a justice of the peace. We were married in a church six weeks later by a pastor, by choice and not for legal purposes. We would have been just as married without the church ceremony, and no one would have considered us insensitive and tone-deaf the the populace.
Pax,
David Kendall
------------------
David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University
------------------
David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University
Lecturer in Music
University of California, Riverside
I would also strongly recommend anyone interested in the issue (pro, con, or indifferent) to read Judge Walker's decision, linked in the article above. It is a fascinating look into the legal process and the evidence presented in the case. It is quite long (it took me about 3 hours to read), but is required reading for anyone wanting to make an informed comment on the subject, rather than making sweeping assertions and generalizations based on the interpretations of television, radio and internet commentators.
Pax,
David Kendall
------------------
David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University
------------------
David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University
Lecturer in Music
University of California, Riverside
Add your comment