Hindu extremists are being blamed for the death of a Seventh-day Adventist pastor in Orissa, India this past August.
Samuel Nayak, pastor of the Phulwani Adventist Church and his mother
were burned to death during anti-Christian violence sweeping the region
of India, said Gordon Christo, communication director for the Adventist
Church in Southern Asia.
Nayak's family was away from home at the time and escaped alive,
Christo said. The International Herald Tribune reported eight people
confirmed dead as a result of the rioting.
The outbreak came after unidentified attackers killed a Hindu religious
leader and four other individuals, the Tribune reported. According to
the Tribune, Hindus are blaming Christians for the deaths, while the
Indian government cited Maoist rebels.
One Adventist school in Jeypore was attacked last Sunday, and another
school in Khurda was closed for several days. No deaths have been
reported at the schools. Members of the Phulwani church escaped
alive, but all lost their homes to fires set by the mob.
The Orissa state on India's east coast has experienced previous
violence against Christians by Hindus, including the death of a
missionary and his two young sons in 1999.
UPDATE Update on the Tragedy in Orissa, India
Reported by Gordon Christo
The government and the media report that things are quieting down in
Orissa (East India). One of the anti-Christian leaders has been
instructed by the Supreme Court not to organize a funeral for the slain
Swami and his disciples as it would fan flames. The central government
has sent 17 companies of reserve police including 2 Rapid Action Police
and the state has deployed 24 platoons of Special Armed Police besides
other units. The country's Home Minister toured the strife torn area
and witness empty village after village. 200 have been arrested in
connection with the killings. The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has
asked the state's Chief Minister Navin Patnaik to give an account of
what the sate was doing to bring things back to normalcy, and urged the
state to take every possible step, to provide protection to the
Christians and to bring the culprits to book.
However the secretary of the Mission has reported that he has been
instructed not to venture out for relief work yet, as it was not yet
safe. Our people are still holed out in the forest. Hundreds are
in seven government relief camps, but they are a mixed group of
all religions who are afraid to return to their villages. The
anti-Christian leader has vowed to proceed with his mourning march for
the slain Swami despite instructions to refrain from it. He urges as
many as possible to proceed with the letter writing campaign to Navin
Patnaik, the Chief Minister. The government has not shown the necessary
will to restrain the mobs and to help Christians. Elections are around
the corner, and the minority is not as important as the majority.
International pressure is desirable at this point.
Our church leaders in the state are assembling a list of homes and
churches destroyed and the Division this morning voted to send
immediate funds for relief work. We cannot reach the victims yet, but
we hope it will soon be possible. Our latest count is about 15
Adventists killed; perhaps about 13 churches destroyed.
Please continue to pray for our members in Orissa.
Mexico Festival of Religious Freedom
John Graz recently returned from a 13-day trip with Roberto Herrera to
Mexico and Miami. The first Festival of Religious Freedom Tour was
organized by Max Oviedo Calles, PARL Director of the Inter-Oceanic
Mexican Union. From August 17 to 23 they traveled 1,600 kilometers and
participated in three festivals in three cities. In each city the
program began at 4:00 p.m. and churches were full. Non-Adventist
pastors were present, as were state and city religious affairs
directors. The programs were excellent! There were meetings with
those members who were previously expelled from their village and
persecuted for not attending the religious festivals in honor of a
local saint, earlier in 2003. On Sabbath morning 1,000 elders and
pastors attended the Festival. This tour is a first step to a large
public Festival of Religious Freedom.
An IAD PARL Advisory meeting was also organized in Miami. The
outcome was greater than expected, and as a result, several festivals
have been planned. The First Division Congress and Festival will be
held in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic next year. The union
president set a goal of 40,000 participants instead of 15,000.
Venezuela, Jamaica, Guadeloupe, Colombia are also planning Festivals and Congresses.
OMA Fears Intrusion into MD's Beliefs
Source: National Post
The
Ontario Medical Association wants the licensing body for doctors in the
province to change a controversial document that could strip doctors of
their right to exercise freedom of religion when making decisions in
their medical practices... Read full article
CSC SUPPORTS MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
The Right to Destroy Marriage
In
November, voters in California and Arizona will have the responsibility
to decide whether to amend their state constitutions to provide that
only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid and recognized.
This unremarkable proposition has been characterized as an effort to
deprive same sex couples of the right to marry. A series of television
commercials has been airing in California portraying a beautiful bride
prevented by a series of obstacles from getting to the marriage alter.
The message: what if you could not marry the person you loved?
Read More
The Missing Topic in the Marriage Debate
With
all the debate over Proposition 9 in California, Proposition 102 in
Arizona, and whether state constitutions should provide limitations on
what is marriage, we have heard lots of rhetoric about the “right” to
marry, and taking away freedoms, imposing restrictions. As a teenager
and young adult, looking for that special someone that you hoped to
share your life with, I am quite certain you never thought of marriage
as a “right.” How is it that we have lost sight of what marriage is and
have narrowed the discussion to dry legal analysis? Read More
The Real Issue Behind Prop 8 is Who Gets to Decide
Heterosexual marriage amendments, like Prop 8, and various state
supreme court rulings on same-sex marriage are about who gets to decide
the moral dimension of a civil law; society or the courts. The State
Supreme Courts make it appear it is about civil rights, but calling
same-sex unions a “marriage” is not about any specific civil right, but
about who determines the morality of making laws. The answer: you do! Read More
Gay Marriage and the Final Conflict
Seventh-day
Adventists have been given special prophetic insight into the issues in
the conflict between Christ and Satan: “From the very beginning of the
great controversy in heaven it has been Satan's purpose to overthrow
the law of God. It was to accomplish this that he entered upon his
rebellion against the Creator, and though he was cast out of heaven he
has continued the same warfare upon the earth.” GC 582. This is equally
true at the end of human history: “The last great conflict between
truth and error is but the final struggle of the long-standing
controversy concerning the law of God.” Maranatha p. 153 Read More
NRLA Supports Marriage Amendment
The Northwest Religious Liberty Association Executive Board recently
met and considered whether to take an action regarding California
Proposition 8 and the educational and advocacy efforts of the Church
State Council. The Board unanimously voted to support the efforts of
the Church State Council and to direct those interested to its own
statement in support of marriage, entitled: “Declaration and Appeal” at
http://www.nrla.com/article.php?id=51
NARLA-WEST NEWS
United State Commission Welcomes James D. Standish as Executive Director
WASHINGTON
– The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, an
independent, bipartisan federal agency advising the Administration and
Congress, today announced the appointment of James D. Standish as the
new Executive Director. Read More
RESOURCES YOU CAN USE
There are two excellent books on the subject of marriage that many of our readers will find of interest. The Future of Marriage, by David Blankenhorn (New York: Encounter Books, 2007), and Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, Edited by Douglas Laycock, et al. (Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008). Read More
Sunday Law to Take Effect in Croatia
January 1, 2009
Reported by Matt McMearty
Vice President, Church State Council
In mid-July, the Associated Press reported that the Croatian Parliament
passed a law requiring all shops to close on Sundays as a concession to
the Roman Catholic Church. The law becomes effective on January 1,
2009. Croatia is 90% Roman Catholic and yet Croatians have in recent
years become used to shopping in malls on weekends.
The article also reported that the new law resulted from years of
campaigning by the Church to allow citizens to devote Sundays to family
time or attending Mass, however, the law does not require church
attendance. The Sunday closing law is not without exceptions for
services that meet basic human needs. Bus and train stations, gasoline
stores, hospitals, bakeries, newsstands, and flower shops are allowed
to remain open on Sundays all year round. It also allows Sunday
shopping on Sundays during the summer and during the Christmas
holidays. For the article click the following link:
Croatia Sunday Law.
CSC contacted the Croatian Tourist Board and was informed that on the
January 1st, New Year holiday, most shops will be closed and that some
may be open in the morning. The same was true for all public holidays.
They suggested that individuals should contact the regional tourist
boards for local reports on tourist shopping on Sundays. Those planning
to visit Croatia may contact the regional boards via the following
link:
Croatia Tourist Board
A 2003 Catholic World News brief provides some insight into the
governmental and social agencies and their motivations for pursuing
Sunday closing laws in Croatia
Croatia Catholic Leaders Seek Ban on Sunday Shop Openings
According to this report, those calling for Sunday closings laws desire
a total ban. It stated that “[t]he Croatian government is not in favor
of the Sunday shop openings, but would prefer a strategy of
discouragement and disincentives, rather than an outright ban. However,
the prime minister himself admits that more needs to be done.”
Apparently, the “more” has been accomplished through the new Sunday
law.
The problem with Sunday laws, even secular ones with ostensible
religious and secular purposes in Croatia, is human nature in a modern
materialistic context. Smaller measures are incapable of truly
deterring the desire to acquire and be entertained. If the new law aims
to remove the tempting allurement of Sunday shopping by closing down
most businesses, such a law will not insure Croatian citizens, and many
who are Catholic, will use their “civil freedom” for family time, let
alone to attend Mass. The Croatian Parliament will be faced with the
dilemma that Sunday laws will need added measures to insure that
Catholic Croatians, and possibly all non-Catholic citizens, utilize the
civil day of rest for the family and worship purposes evident in the
law’s rationale. If and when that point is reached in Croatian society,
it will be a microcosm of what all societies will face that may attempt
to make secular Sunday laws based on a specific church’s majoritarian
religious premises.
(back to top)
The Right to Destroy Marriage
by Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
Vice President, Church State Council
In
November, voters in California and Arizona will have the responsibility
to decide whether to amend their state constitutions to provide that
only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid and recognized.
This unremarkable proposition has been characterized as an effort to
deprive same sex couples of the right to marry. A series of television
commercials has been airing in California portraying a beautiful bride
prevented by a series of obstacles from getting to the marriage alter.
The message: what if you could not marry the person you loved?
It is well known that whoever frames the issue, wins the debate. Framed
as the right to marry, most Americans would respond enthusiastically
that of course, we should all have the freedom to marry the person we
choose. The problem with this formulation is that it is not only
misleading, it actively conceals the real purpose of the gay marriage
movement.
There is a very significant social reform movement that is intent on
destroying marriage. For this movement, gay marriage is merely a step,
not the end. The first step is to transform marriage from a social
institution into a matter of purely personal choice. Once personal
emotional and sexual gratification becomes the paradigm, there is no
way to limit marriage. This goal has been stated clearly in various
articles and books for many years. Senator Rick Santorum was publicly
criticized for pointing out the obvious: approval of gay marriage leads
inevitably to legalizing polygamy and other forms of multiple
relations. Yet, you can read in the writings of this social reform
movement that this is exactly what they want: the completion of the
sexual revolution, and the end of marriage as a social institution.
The most significant boundary protecting marriage has been the historic
and universal norm that marriage is a man and a woman. This serves a
profoundly important biological and social function: providing for the
rearing of children. Secular scientists of many disciplines recognize
that both biology and social norms serve to include fathers in the
child rearing equation, and that this is vital to the economic, social,
emotional, physical and spiritual well being of children.
One of the primary differences between human child-rearing and that of
the primates and other animals is the active involvement of fathers.
Significantly, when God looks down at the end of time from the
perspective of post-exilic Israel, He expresses through the prophet
Malachi a profound concern for the state of families, and in
particular, the relationship of children and fathers. In the famous
“Elijah message” found in Malachi 4, the work of Elijah is not to
preach judgment, the end of the world, the mark of the beast, or the
law of God and the Sabbath: it is to ”turn the hearts of fathers to
their children, and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I
come and smite the land with a curse.”
The choice that is obscured in this political season is the choice
between marriage, as a socially vital institution that provides
stability and health for children, or for a chaotic anything-goes
sexual free-for-all where the needs of children are subordinated to
emotional and sexual gratification of adults. Gay marriage is simply a
step in the transformation and destruction of marriage.
(back to top)
The Missing Topic in the Marriage Debate
by Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
President, Church State Council
With all the debate over Proposition 9 in California, Proposition 102
in Arizona, and whether state constitutions should provide limitations
on what is marriage, we have heard lots of rhetoric about the “right”
to marry, and taking away freedoms, imposing restrictions. As a
teenager and young adult, looking for that special someone that you
hoped to share your life with, I am quite certain you never thought of
marriage as a “right.” How is it that we have lost sight of what
marriage is, and have narrowed the discussion to dry legal analysis?
In more than 150 pages of legal opinions discussing whether same sex
couples had a constitutional right to marry, the California Supreme
Court did not devote a single word, a single sentence, a single thought
to discussing what it was they were granting to same sex couples. What
is this thing called “marriage?” What is it about marriage that lends
itself to inclusion of same sex couples? Why is it that not including
same sex couples in this venerable institution somehow deprives them of
“rights” and “liberty of conscience?”
It's time for one of those “aha!” moments. You see, when we begin with
a clear understanding of marriage, everything else follows quite
logically and naturally. In his book, The Future of Marriage, lifelong
marriage scholar David Blankenhorn surveys the secular scholarship
regarding marriage, and concludes that marriage is essentially a
child-centered institution. It is about providing a stable and
nurturing environment for children to be reared by both father and
mother. He observes that marriage transcends religion, culture, time
and place, and is the most universal of human institutions.
We lawyers like to speak of “the burden of proof.” It would seem that
when we have an institution that has stood the test of time, and
provided for the stability of society, and the welfare of children from
the beginning of time, that the burden of proof would rest on those who
advocate fundamental change. What sort of fundamental change? According
to Blankenhorn, the desired change is not merely to expand marriage to
include same sex couples, but to weaken and destroy it altogether.
Initially, by including same sex couples, marriage is transformed from
being a child centered institution to being primarily about personal
rights, emotional and sexual fulfillment. Once that paradigm shift is
accomplished legally, everything else flows naturally, albeit over
time.
There are various strains of intellectual thought converging here.
There are feminists who regard marriage as an instrument of male
domination and oppression. There are socialists who attack marriage as
an institution that prevents the state from exercising more influence
over the shaping of future generations. And there are products of the
sexual revolution who simply want to abolish “outmoded” sexual mores.
Blankenhorn cites to the published writings of some of these advocates
of destroying marriage. It makes for very interesting reading.
But let us return to the first premise: marriage has always been a
union between a man and a woman. It is not required that every union
produce children to recognize that marriage has always been a matter of
heterosexual union.
With that starting point, other questions become easier. For example,
how does marriage deny anyone liberty of conscience? Everyone has the
same right to marry, under the same rules and restrictions. No one can
marry their mother or their sister, or two people at a time, or someone
of the same gender. Everyone is treated “equally.” To say that some are
treated unequally or unfairly is simply absurd. Marriage is the same
for everyone.
Same sex couples insist that they deserve to have the same rights as
everyone else. As a result of their successful advocacy, they have
achieved the same rights as married couples under California law, and
Proposition 8 will do nothing to change that. Same sex couples enjoy
the same legal protections and obligations as married couples when they
form domestic partnerships. It does not make them “unequal” or deprive
them of their liberty or their rights when we retain the historic
understanding of marriage.
In the heat of political rhetoric, those who care about preserving
marriage are assumed to be homophobic, and hostile to gays and their
rights. Such assumptions are unwarranted. No doubt there are those who
fit that description. On the other side, it is equally true that many
who oppose Proposition 8 believe in traditional marriage, and do not
believe same sex marriage is morally acceptable. These political
campaigns tend to generate far more heat than light.
Hopefully, shining some light back on the subject itself – what is
marriage, will help some cut through the propaganda and help us
remember what this is all about: it's about the kids!
(back to top)
The Real Issue Behind Prop 8 is Who Gets to Decide
by Matt McMearty
Vice President, Church State Council
(Quick Summary: Heterosexual marriage amendments, like Prop 8 , and
various state supreme court rulings on same-sex marriage are about who
gets to decide the moral dimension of a civil law; society or the
courts. The State Supreme Courts make it appear it is about civil
rights, but calling same-sex unions a “marriage” is not about any
specific civil right, but about who determines the morality of making
laws. The answer: you do!)
Last week, the Connecticut Supreme Court joined California’s Supreme
Court in making same-sex marriage legal. Per a New York Times initial
report—later updated and expanded— on its website by Sharon Otterman,
the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled “that same-sex couples have the
right to marry, reversing a lower court decision that had concluded
that the civil unions legalized in the state three years ago had
offered the same rights and benefits as marriage.“ (emphasis added) The
article then quoted Bennett Klein, senior lawyer at Gay and Lesbian
Advocates and Defenders, which argued the case before the Supreme
Court: "Today's decision really fulfills the hopes and dreams of gay
and lesbian couples in Connecticut to live as full and equal citizens."
(emphasis added) The article also quoted Justice Richard N. Palmer’s
majority opinion “that the ‘segregation of heterosexual and homosexual
couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm,’ in
light of ‘the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and
lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a
status and significance that the newly created classification of civil
unions does not embody.’”
(The original article is no longer available on the website. For the
revised and expanded article under another author with Otterman and
others as contributing authors, see
NY Times Article For another article also reporting on the Connecticut decision along with a review of what states have what laws, see
Infozine Article.)
The above quotes bring into contrast the essential differences between
the Connecticut Supreme Court’s and the lower court’s analyses. On the
one hand, the higher court recognized that heterosexual marriage and
civil unions constituted separate and distinct institutions. It
reasoned that allowing the distinction caused marriage to have “a
status and significance that the newly created civil unions” did not
embody, and thus, ruled that in allowing civil unions to be called
marriage, same-sex unions now obtained the same status and significance
that marriage contained. On the other hand, the lower court reasoned
that though the two institutions were distinct, civil unions
nevertheless “offered the same rights and benefits of marriage,” even
though they were not called “marriage.” Thus, it is easy to conclude
that the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling was based, not on acquiring
or protecting any right or privilege, but to remove any distinction in
what people think or perceive. This ruling is not about rights or
actions, but changing how the issue of marriage is perceived. Since
when is it the role of government to legislate how people think, if the
law already prevents them from acting upon what they think? This is a
form of judicial mind control! Our laws deal with actions, not thoughts
or perceptions. This is political correctness taken to a new level.
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and the right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.” In terms of these fundamental
rights, such as, freedom of speech, those in favor of same-sex marriage
are free to speak against Proposition 8 or for or against any other
propositions concerning marriage. The same is true for their freedoms
to publish and to assemble themselves for religious or nonreligious
reasons. They also enjoy the right to redress their grievances in all
three branches of federal, state, or municipal governments. In terms of
religion, they get to form legal unions based on their religious
convictions with all civil rights and privileges as those who call
their heterosexual commitments “marriage.” Therefore, the only thing
those who favor same-sex unions don’t get to do is to call their legal
domestic partnerships “marriage” in the same way that those who get
married do not get to call their commitments “civil unions.” Thus, for
all practical purposes, what the Massachusetts, California, and
Connecticut Supreme Courts have granted to same-sex unions is the right
to legally call those unions “marriage.” Then what is all the
controversy about?
Historically, marriage as a legal, moral, and religious institution
virtually has been defined as heterosexual in nature, even though some
nations legally permitted polygamy. Therefore, it is true that religion
has had a significant influence on nations in making laws concerning
heterosexual marriage. But it should be recognized that though many
religions have favored marriage in heterosexual terms and that most
nations have accepted this as part of their legal code, nations differ
over including or excluding religious aspects in their laws on
marriage. In the United States, marriage is essentially a secular
heterosexual institution supported by religious and nonreligious
comprehensive views, especially those constituting the Christian
worldview. Until the three state Supreme Courts permitted same-sex
unions, all state laws on marriage were inherently heterosexual.
Prior to the marriage cases decided by the California Supreme
Court, the State of California had two forms of legal personal
commitments; marriage and domestic partnerships. Both institutions
enjoyed the same legal rights and social benefits. Both enjoyed all the
protections of government concerning their rights and liberties and
both had the added layer of civil protection to prevent discrimination
against homosexuals, or vice versa, in employment, housing, hospitals,
etc. So if those with same-sex orientation already possessed all the
rights and privileges of civil society, what is there to gain from
calling same-sex unions “marriage” that they already have not obtained?
If same-sex partners were equal in every respect, except in the
distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships, what is to be
gained by calling their already obtained equal and legal social
position “marriage”?
Some may answer this question by asserting that the only thing
homosexuals want is the right to change marriage from a heterosexual
orientation to embrace any sexual orientation. Thus, same-sex unions
would be more equal if they were called “marriage.” But if marriage has
always been defined as heterosexual in nature, how does redefining the
universal definition of marriage improve the social condition of
homosexuals, if they already have all the legal protections they need?
The fact that same-sex unions are accepted for what they are—same-sex
unions—how are their rights, benefits, or social circumstances improved
by calling such unions “marriage”; a term always referring to
heterosexual unions? So what benefit is there from this improvement or
what more is accomplished from a legal point of view? The answer of
course is: nothing. There is nothing more to gain or to lose concerning
rights and privileges other than to redefine the universal definition
of marriage from a legal perspective. If this is the case, why all the
huff and puff over Proposition 8?
Perhaps it gives homosexuals a psychological sense that they are no
longer second class citizens in terms of having their unions legally
defined as “marriage”. In other words, the need to defeat Prop 8 is to
get rid of the underlying distinction, and thus, the underlying cause
of discrimination. But if people cannot discriminate on the basis of
sexual orientation in California, expanding marriage to embrace any
form of sexual orientation will not change anything. It will not change
religious attitudes. It will not improve government services. It will
not change anything other than making heterosexual and same-sex unions
equal in terminology so that there is no legal distinction between
them. This seems rather shallow when teachers in public schools
currently educate children that the state of California now defines
marriage to embrace both heterosexual and same-sex orientation. But
will not teachers have to make distinctions in order to show what is
distinct is now equal, counterintuitive? So in reality, the tendency to
distinguish between the two does not really add anything to the legal
process other than redefining marriage, which merely leaves us where we
were prior to the marriage cases decided by the California Supreme
Court. So just what is really going on here after all when the
California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22?
Does having two separate, but equal social institutions constitute a
basis for discrimination? An easy way to answer this is by comparing it
to the separate, but equal institutions for blacks from the late
eighteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries. A pervasive attitude among
whites was that blacks were an inferior race believed to be buttressed
by the Bible and/or genetics. Whites developed a system of separate,
but equal institutions in education, health, transportation, and public
facilities to name a few. The two systems not only made distinctions,
but implemented discriminatory treatment of blacks by controlling how
much tax money was assigned to public schools and other government
services for blacks. The federal government, through the leadership of
Congress, outlawed the discriminatory treatment of blacks by forcing
the closure of separate governmentally- or privately-owned public
facilities and implemented laws penalizing discriminatory treatment in
government policies and services.
Compare this to the institutions of marriage and domestic partnerships.
Civil unions were developed, not as an instrument of discrimination,
but as an instrument for obtaining rights and benefits accompanied with
protections to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. The net result was two civil institutions based on the
distinction of differences in sexual orientation that had two
completely different paths to civil legitimacy. This is the exact
opposite of what happened with the separate, but equal institutions
developed to discriminate on the basis of color or race. The civil
rights acts of the mid-nineteenth century did not try to prevent making
distinctions on the basis of race, but to prevent those distinctions
from being used to discriminate against another race. The California
laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation did not
eliminate the distinction between the forms of sexual orientation, but
penalized those using such distinctions for the purpose of
discriminating against gays, heterosexuals, or bisexuals. In this
regard, African Americans and gays obtained ultimate success in
achieving equality of treatment by equality of rights and social
benefits/services. In the case of African Americans, it resulted in the
elimination of social structures designed to discriminate against them,
while in the case of gays and bisexuals, it resulted in the creation of
distinct civil institutions in conjunction with anti-discriminatory
measures and the attainment of equal rights and benefits; two different
paths toward the same results.
But now the state courts are dealing with arguments by gays and
lesbians that they still do not enjoy full and equal citizenship as
long as heterosexuals get to call their unions “marriage” and gays get
to call their commitments only “civil unions” or “domestic
partnerships.” But if they already obtained the same equal rights and
social benefits that heterosexual marriages already possessed, why do
they want to call their civil unions “marriage,” if they are treated
equally as citizens in society? The Connecticut Supreme Court
recognized that the “institution of marriage carries with it a status
and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions
does not embody.” The court failed to state what the nature of that
status and significance was that civil unions did not embody. Perhaps
it was a deftly worded generalization to mask what really is going on
here.
The only possible explanation is that the nature of that status and
significance was a social-moral legitimization, originally sanctioned
in the founding era by an overlapping consensus of Protestant,
Catholic, and Jewish faiths and Deistical systems of philosophical
beliefs. This early consensus was later joined by other multiple
non-Judeo-Christian faiths and philosophical belief systems. Same-sex
unions lack this longstanding social-moral legitimization in the United
States. Gays cannot obtain it democratically, so the only way to get it
is to obtain it by the courts under a guise of insuring greater equal
rights. So when the courts rule that the inherent moral status and
significance of marriage as a legal union between two heterosexuals now
includes same-sex unions, they do so by legal fiat. They do something
by legal fiat that has been developed, not by the courts or any part of
government, but by the society that forms government. Societal mores
formed an overlapping consensus as the basis of constitutional and
civil law. Now the courts bypassed that consensus-forming mechanism in
society and created it by judicial fiat. The courts in this respect
have created the secular version of judicial decrees in civic morality
similar to the religious version of papal decrees in matters of faith.
The courts are now the last say on what civic morality is and will be,
unless Proposition 8 decides the matter differently.
Proposition 8 is probably, for practical purposes, the last opportunity
for a societal consensus in California to be determined, because the
courts have effectively ruled out all the normal channels of forming an
overlapping social consensus on the matter of legal marriage. The
courts have created this dilemma and only society can settle it, and
unfortunately at the constitutional level. If Prop 8 fails, society
will permanently approve that the courts were right in declaring by
judicial fiat that the moral consensus of marriage is no longer two
heterosexuals. The new moral consensus of marriage is limited to two
people while heterosexuality is no longer part of that consensus, even
though it does not improve any person’s rights or social benefits.
But then, if bisexuals are oriented toward both sexes, why should the
law be limited to two people when bisexual orientation is disposed
toward both sexes? Why are bisexuals limited to either a heterosexual
or homosexual marriage? Why is the consensus on civic morality of
marriage limited to one sexual orientation or the other but not both?
The answer: the majority rules. Thus, whether Proposition 8 passes or
fails, a consensus has been determined; but at least it will be society
and not a few justices. The social-moral consensus is not a matter of
rights in this proposition, but a matter of each individual’s moral
values, regardless of how individual moral values are formed within
each person. Therefore, vote your personal moral values, regardless if
formed by religion or something else, and don’t get hoodwinked into
thinking that you cannot vote what you personally think is good for the
social well-being of California whether for or against Prop 8.
Questions or comments about this article should be sent to:
Matt@churchstate.org
Gay Marriage and the Final Conflict
by Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
President, Church State Council
Seventh-day Adventists have been given special prophetic insight into
the issues in the conflict between Christ and Satan: “From the very
beginning of the great controversy in heaven it has been Satan's
purpose to overthrow the law of God. It was to accomplish this that he
entered upon his rebellion against the Creator, and though he was cast
out of heaven he has continued the same warfare upon the earth.” GC
582. This is equally true at the end of human history: “The last great
conflict between truth and error is but the final struggle of the
long-standing controversy concerning the law of God.”
Maranatha p.153
We have been anticipating attacks on the Fourth Commandment so intently
that we are in danger of being apathetic about attacks on other
commandments. Today, it is not the Fourth Commandment that is under
attack in the courts and legislative halls so much as it is the Fifth
Commandment. Gay marriage constitutes a dramatic social experiment with
the Fifth Commandment.
The Fifth Commandment deserves much more careful attention than we may
have given it. The apostle Paul observes that it is “the first
commandment with a promise.” The promise is nothing less than the
health and wellbeing of the entire society. In our globally integrated
world, we may well suggest that the Fifth Commandment implicates the
survival of our civilization. How can it be so important?
Theologians are fond of finding significance in literary structure. One
such common structure is known as a “chiasm.” Think of the Ten
Commandments as a big upside down “V.” In the middle, at the top of the
“V”, are the Fourth and Fifth Commandments. The Fourth is the climax of
God’s instruction regarding the relationship between God and humanity,
while the Fifth Commandment is the foundation for human society.
The Fifth Commandment instruction is elegant in its simplicity. It
emphasizes the obligation of children to show proper honor and respect
for their parents. To honor one’s parents must mean more than respect.
It must include compassion, thoughtfulness, consideration, loyalty and
yes, obedience. Of course, I have always viewed this commandment as
imposing an equally challenging obligation on parents to be worthy of
such honor. As a parent struggling in a society that teaches kids that
disrespect is cool, I can only imagine the healthy implications of a
truly successful implementation of this commandment. It is difficult to
imagine that kids who learn to respect and honor their elders would
ever violate any of the commandments that follow. Surely, such
respectful children would never indulge in murder, theft, perjury,
adultery or even covetousness. The respect and compassion that they
have learned for their parents would carry over into all of their human
relationships.
So the Fourth and Fifth Commandments are placed in the center of the
Ten Commandments, at the heart of the law. But there is something else
they have in common. Marriage and the Sabbath are the twin institutions
that God created in Eden, prior to the entrance of sin. Both are sacred
institutions. Although the attack on the Sabbath remains largely
future, the attack on marriage is in full force. The nature of the
attack is also interesting. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a
series of decisions regarding Sunday laws, and upheld such laws on the
grounds that they had become essentially “secular,” despite their
religious origins. Despite the fact that the court was dealing with a
“Sabbath” of human origin, it took a religious institution and made it
secular. When something sacred is made to lose its sacredness, we say
it has been desecrated or profaned. Marriage, too, is a sacred
institution that has been made to lose its religious character and
turned into something secular. The latest evidence of this is the
California Supreme Court’s decision holding that same sex couples have
a constitutional right to marry. In an admittedly inconclusive query, I
asked my very secular family members how far they would be comfortable
carrying this idea of legal recognition for relationship
choices. Polygamy? Yes, so long as we retained a proper age of
consent – no marrying underage girls. Various other combinations? Why
not? So what does marriage now mean in such a brave new world? It is
morphing into a voluntary legal and intimate association among
virtually any couple or group of consenting adults.
Advocates of gay marriage insist that their unions do not pose any
threat to heterosexual couples who wish to make an enduring commitment
to one another. This appears to be true on the surface, which is why it
is important to dig deeper. Others have written extensively on the
empirical studies of families, and the importance of both a father and
a mother to the healthy raising of children. Here, we need to explore
the theological implications. To alter the definition of marriage, as
the California Supreme Court has done, is to thumb your nose at God’s
authority, and to reject God’s law. It is to substitute human wisdom
for divine insight. Properly understood, God’s law is not simply a list
of moral obligations, and we human children will be punished if we
don’t obey. Rather, it is a revelation of divine insight into the very
nature and condition of humanity. It is a promise of true peace and
prosperity for those who live by its teaching. The owner’s manual on
your car does not suggest that you change the oil regularly simply to
make money for the service provider – your car will not perform
properly without regular oil changes. Fail to change the oil at all,
and your car’s engine will suffer an early demise.
Should Adventists care about the future of marriage? Should we become
publicly engaged on this issue? We must. God’s law is under attack. We
are called to serve as the defenders and champions of God’s law at the
end of time. How dare we limit such a defense to the one commandment
that most directly affects us – the Fourth Commandment! If we are going
to stand up for God’s law, we must do so consistently. Although we
didn’t expect it, Satan’s final assault on the law of God did not begin
with the Sabbath, it will end there. Let us consistently proclaim
publicly that the wisdom of God’s law will bless all societies that
take it seriously, and seek to practice what it teaches.
(back to top)
United State Commission Welcomes James D. Standish as Executive Director
WASHINGTON
– The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, an
independent, bipartisan federal agency advising the Administration and
Congress, today announced the appointment of James D. Standish as the
new Executive Director.
“The Commission warmly
welcomes James Standish,” stated Commission Chair Felice D. Gaer. “Mr.
Standish’s academic and professional background in human rights and
religious freedom advocacy has made him a respected leader, both on
Capitol Hill and among the widely varying constituencies whose causes
he has represented.”
Prior to his arrival at the Commission, Mr. Standish served as Director
of Legislative Affairs at the Seventh-day Adventist Church World
Headquarters for seven years. During that time, Mr. Standish
represented fifteen million Church members on Capitol Hill and on
official visits to Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and
Australia.
“It is an honor to join the Commission, particularly as we approach the
tenth anniversary of the creation of the International Religious
Freedom Act, legislation that affirmed the importance of religious
freedom promotion in U.S. foreign policy,” said Mr. Standish. “The
magnitude and severity of violations of the universal right to freedom
of thought, conscience, and religion worldwide cannot be understated. I
am honored to join the Commission as it addresses some of world’s most
pressing human rights crises.”
The Commission, established by the International Religious Freedom Act
of 1998 (IRFA), monitors violations of the right to freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion or belief abroad, as defined in IRFA and set
forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related
international instruments. It provides independent policy
recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress, and
is the first government commission in the world with the sole mission
of reviewing and making policy recommendations on the facts and
circumstances of violations of religious freedom globally.
The Commission is comprised of nine Congressional and Presidential
appointees: Felice D. Gaer, Chair; Michael Cromartie, Vice Chair; Dr.
Elizabeth H. Prodromou, Vice Chair; Dr. Don Argue; Preeta D. Bansal;
Imam Talal Y. Eid; Dr. Richard D. Land; Leonard A. Leo; and Nina Shea.
John V. Hanford III is the Ambassador-at-Large for International
Religious Freedom.
(back to top)
Resources You Can Use
There are two excellent books on the subject of marriage that many of our readers will find of interest.
The Future of Marriage, by David Blankenhorn (New York: Encounter Books, 2007), and
Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, Edited by Douglas Laycock, et al. (Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008).
You can read a review of the book, The Future of Marriage, by our
friend and colleague, Nicholas P. Miller, Esq., at the following
Church State Council link:
http://www.churchstate.org/article.php?id=331
Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts is a
collection of articles by legal scholars across the spectrum, liberal
and conservative, secular and religious. They disagree on how the
law should balance competing interests. They agree that same sex
marriage is a threat to religious liberty. Where the future conflicts
are likely to arise, where they have arisen in the past, just how
slanted our law is in favor of gay rights, these are questions unfolded
in this extremely insightful volume.
A few quotes from Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts:
The “afterword” is written by Douglas Laycock, long recognized as one
of the foremost scholars of religious liberty in the American legal
community. He observes: “All six contributors – religious and secular,
left, center and right – agree that same-sex marriage is a threat to
religious liberty.”
