Adventist Responses to the Supreme Court's Same-sex Marriage Decision

Today the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that overturned bans on same-sex marriage in several states, and extended the right to marry to same-sex couples in all fifty states. Below, following excerpts from the majority opinion authored by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and the dissenting opinion by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, we have compiled a list of responses from an array of Seventh-day Adventists to the High Court's ruling. -Ed.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Thank you for representing a spectrum of opinions. I hope that, coming just before GC and the women’s ordination debate, this decision will not have an adverse effect. But I have to say that I personally have been rejoicing all day that my many friends have a legal recognition of equality, although on the ground level it may still be a long time in coming. It’s interesting that in two comments from people who are opposed to gay marriage, they still apparently are okay with civil unions and the right to live together and receive tax benefits.What does that indicate? I hope it indicates a faint beginning to understand this whole issue better.


Did some one ask you to bless a Gay marriage? NO!
No one is forcing you to marry a Adventist and a Catholic. You probably won’t.
When our President was born 15 states did not recognize his parents marriage because the bible does not allow black/white marriage.

The state passes out drivers licenses. The bible does not bless that. You don’t have to bless that either. You don’t have to have a drivers license.

Christians should be promoting “people that commit to a lasting loving relationship”. Or at least Christians should not harm loving families.

This subject is between the government and a couple. It has nothing to do with your church or you. Go do something good like feed, close and house…

[quote=“spectrumbot, post:1, topic:8641”]
The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that all people, regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation are God’s children and should be treated with civility, compassion, and Christ-like love.
[/quote]God bless us all.


That paragraph from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion is important for Adventists who worry about what this might portend for the denomination.


I had mixed feelings today as well. After reading all the great news about the Supreme Court’s decision I listened to President Obama do the Eulogy for Rev. Clementa Pinckney. No matter how many victories we have for equality, there still exists a fundamental problem with inequality in our country. The arc of the moral universe is still bending toward justice but we can’t yet jump and catch it once and for all.


Mhmmm… Perhaps it will - as the topics are being intertwined in a rather irrational manner by some.

However, from a different perspective - the ruling may set an example. It gives permission, but forces nobody. This principle is something religious liberty has always been standing for. And advocates of religious liberty may or may not agree with the court’s decision - but hopefully will maintain the principle behind it.


Fredy Reinosa: “I disagree with the supreme court ruling…marriage is a sacred institution…No Judge or any other person has the authority to change that definition.”

In other words, this Pastor believes that all judges and other persons must adhere to God’s Word, and that our government must enforce God’s authority on all of its citizens. Of course, this pastor has abundant company among a large swath of Adventism and Christianity.


What a shame that the SDA Church while it claims to believe in a “Present Truth”, it has a hard time accepting something like this that promotes equality among God’s created beings. It holds to the idea that every human is born heterosexual even though the evidence it clear it is not so. Love for another human being is a God given gift, and every human should have the equal chance to enjoy it whether he or she be heterosexual or homosexual.


While marriage is under attack in western societies,
with every year a higher percentage
of recorded births being out of wedlock,
with countless heterosexual couples co-havitimg,
without the benefit of legal marriage,
it is refreshing that for decades gay and lesbian couples
have been actually FIGHTING
for the privilege of being married,
and now SCOTUS has made it possible.

I think that this ruling strengthens marriage generally.
And surely the most conservative position would
be to encourage ALL couples gay and staight,
to enjoy the stability of marriage which strengthens society
and benefits families.

Those who decried the hedonist, promiscuous gay
life style that produced AIDS, should surely be happy
to promote stable monogamous couples.
Apparently not, now that SCOTUS has legalized,
same sex marriage, the opposition is still
proclaiming “one man, one woman”.

This always makes me snicker as I consider the
countless stalwart biblical heroes who were
unambiguously polygamists, starting
with patriach Abraham and continuing down
multiple generations.

Let us all celebrate a true victory for
marriage as an institution, and hope that
more heterosexual couples will joyously
follow the role models currently being set
by the gay community.


The question that the Supreme Court decided, within the bounds of a constitutional framework, was whether collective identities, like a religious definition of marriage, should be protected when in conflict with the respect for the unique identities of each individual, regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Modern constitutional law is individualistic, because it is the individual person who is the bearer of rights. This is an understanding of rights that is by no means blind to cultural or religious differences, which is emphasized in the majority position. But, it avoids the paternalistic concept of individual autonomy embedded in the minority position, implying that one distinct reading of a sacred text should decide the question on behalf of all. And it gives people the same opportunity to pursue their own version of the “good life”, within a constitutional framework of equality.

So, this case shows that individual civil rights trumps hegemonic collective identities when they are in conflict. Any legal order that does not safeguard the autonomy of its citizens to an equal degree, is illegitimate. This is the fundamental principle of religious liberty.

This case is not about “compassion and Christ like love”, but about civil liberties in a democratic constitutional state.


I had many friends mail me saying that a weight had been lifted from their shoulders. They were all estatic and very happy.

I’m happy for them.


People, even in Oslo (Norway), are today taking to the streets to celbrate the US Supreme Court decision yesterday. This event has a great impact far beyond the USA! It’s symbolic effect is beyond measure.


Celebrating the US decision here in London.

Pride Day here in London and I woke to my partner saying that I needed to see Obama singing ‘Amazing Grace’ and the news on the Supreme Court ruling re same sex marriage. She had taped the news in the middle of the night and argued that it was Sabbath viewing (she – the non-SDA half of our marriage).

Tears of joy!

‘Praise God from whom all blessings flow…’ running through my mind.

(me - the 4th generation (‘disfellowshipped’) SDA who attends church weekly)

It’s great to know there is one more country in which we are ‘people’. Maybe some day the right to marriage (which is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights) will be available to everyone.

As a couple we celebrated out 21st anniversary together a couple of years ago by getting married in my country of birth, Canada, a few weeks before the first same sex marriages here in the UK.

God is love.

Let’s celebrate Pride and Sabbath today.


Even in “Merry Ole’ England”, Marriage was a “form”. One had to go to the Court House, be married, Sign the FORMS.
ONLY THEN, could the happy couple process to the church to be BLESSED [only] by the Priest before God and to take Communion together. [Back then they called it the Mass].

Today, Marriage is STILL a Form. One has to pay the Marriage License Fee at the Court House, Obtain the License and have the TWO being joined together witnessed by a 3rd party or parties. One may do this at a BLESSING CEREMONY in a church by a Priest, Pastor, Rabbi or anyone else AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE to do so.

Dr. CARSON has it ALL Wrong! Sorry!


Is our religious liberty is at risk? “Apostate Protestantism” would have its views be the law of the land, and many Adventists are “joining hands” with it. First Adventists joined them in desiring the legislation of “traditional marriage”. Where will we be when the next thing they want is to legislate church attendance, and that it must be on Sunday? “Oh, but it is best for the family,” they’ll say. Where is the faithful Adventist advocacy for religious liberty from days of old?


Adventism has not been about present truth for decades and is too entrenched in a theology that is irrelevant and becoming increasingly damaging to society. While I do think that the definition of marriage is being misrepresented a bit we can celebrate that this country has put one more stumbling block behind us. We, who are unencumbered with pursuit of orthodoxy, can now focus on who our LGBTQ friends are and how we all should live in God-fearing communities. I relish it!


This could be a disaster.

See what has been happening around the world in similar cases:


I wish for many more disasters like these.


Truly a disaster, Tim! LOL But the sad thing I noticed is that most of these countries are largely secular now. Does it follow that only secular people can be happy and loving and inclusive? I read somewhere (in all the news about this) that the reason the whole world is celebrating with America is that America is seen as a very conservative country, so this signals a huge shift in the world. I hope it can shift without turning secular!


Scalia made a very scathing dissent speaking of his fellow justices:

“They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a fundamental right overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification and almost else in the time since.”

But Justice Kennedy’s decision with the majority is a masterpiece:

“No longer may this liberty be denied. No union is more profound than marriage…in forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were”.

In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts Jr. said the Constitution had nothing to say on the subject of same sex marriage. Is there anything in the Constitution defining marriage at all?