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

I don’t know, but I do know that most if the nicest, most caring and thoughtful people I know are expressly not Christians.


I’m glad the NAD and GC are holding the line, and opposing this poorly thought out decision by the Supreme Court. The ruling is somewhat surprising, given the fact that most of them are Catholics. One would hope that they would also set their religious convictions aside and strike down any Sunday law that rears its ugly head.

Maybe they actually read their bible. Or they think this doesn’t have anything to do with church, but is a public legal decision.

The bible isn’t very clear about what marriage should be, but does give many examples of different arrangements:

Edit: Another thoughtful page/interview:’s-contradictions-about-sex/


Which Bible are you reading? (This is condescending. - webEd) Mine is pretty clear, both in the OT (Genesis), and the NT (Jesus, quoting Genesis).


Allow me to be the bad guy for a moment (aside from the same sex issue). Was it right for 9 unelected judges to make this ruling for a nation of 330 million people? This seems to a question people are bringing up. And some may say: “these people are only asking this because the ruling went against what they believe.” Fair enough. But remember, this can also occur with things that you, too, are against.

So the question, I believe, is a valid one: is it right for 9 unelected judges to be making these types of rulings?

1 Like

That is the role of the court. It is the final arbiter when matters of constitutional law are at question. No matter now many people vote for something or how many legislatures pass laws, if they are unconstitutional, the courts are responsible to decide. It is, after all, a constitutional mandate that creates the separation of powers and the courts.


From what I’ve heard and read it is suggested that this is not a constitutional issue. Because the constitution is silent regarding marriage. Therefore, it seems to be nothing more than one’s interpretation. The Bill of Rights is also silent on marriage.

I quickly went through both to see if this is true; it seems (to my laymen’s understanding) to be. Personally, reading the Constitution was extremely boring lol. Your Bill of Rights on the other hand I enjoyed.

This is how I perceive it: the Constitution is neither for, nor against gay marriage. However, I have a lot to learn regarding this issue.

Thanks for your reply Carolyn.


It was heartening to read a variety of responses here. (not referring to comments) . and happy to see people emulating God’s love in adventism’s sphere.

Other leaders would do well to note that love fur fills the law. so the thou shall nots would be taken of first in loving God and loving the neighbour as ourself and wouldn’t hurt them. as for how people are seen from God’s view, Romans 3 mentions it’s not by doing noble acts. faith being separate from doing the right things, being right for self righteousness.

1 Like

The bible is clear that marriage is between a man and woman , Jesus in Matthew quotes Genesis 2 “And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE” Matthew 19:4 Christ will never accommodate his morality to the times, nor to the inclinations of human beings What was done at the beginning is what God judged most worthy of his glory, most profitable for man, and most suitable to nature.

1 Like

Hi Birder,

Where in the Bible does it explicitly say that a man and another man cannot marry? Or that a woman and another woman cannot marry?
As I understand it, marriage did not originate as a religious ceremony; this article explains it very well:

It doesn’t make sense to me that we as a people have turned it into one. Furthermore, marriage is a cultural universal, so objectively speaking, why would the Christian Bible be the central authority over marriage when it is not the authority for many countries around the world? Don’t they deserve to have their own authority on marriage based on which authority they choose?

Best regards,

  • plum

The constitution does not mention marriage, but there is long-standing case law that establishes the right to marry as a fundamental human right. The most important recent example is Loving v. Virginia, a decision that ruled that interracial marriage was a right. It was based on, among other things; the connection between marriage and liberty (marrying the person you choose). The Due Process clause of the 14th amendment that the government shall not deprive person of life, liberty or property without due process. Not being able to choose the person you want to marry deprives a person of liberty and the of pursuit of happiness. I haven’t read the entire majority decision but I was able to skim it, so this is only a small part of the rationale.


The bible says that it is an abomination and it is still an abomination. It’s better to obey God rather than man. The USA and other countries just sinking there inhabitance deeper in sin and will bring judgement on the land. And when it starts let me see the ones that would stand up and argue with God. Every mouth will be shut in that day and we will all listen to the surpreme verdict which no one could gain say. It’s better to humble yourself now before probation closes. Our many interllectual post then would go up in smoke and all who love to show off there scholarly post would be futile then.


Well, the translation does not matter. Any bible will do. The bible is not clear on marriage, and different passages appear to contradict, but only if you read them as being prescriptive instead of descriptive.

There are many examples in the bible of various marital arrangements:

Here’s a quick summary with textual references:

Here’s a thoughtful piece:’s-contradictions-about-sex/


Yes, but you first have to define marriage. Or should I say, redefine it. Because it has never meant what it does now in the history of Christian Western culture. It was never discussed because it was “self evident,” to those back then as to what marriage was. It would have been absurd to have even brought it up - the definition that is.

Now my other question is: if people have allowed for its redefinition, which was not based on the Bible, who is to say what is or what is not marriage now? Unless I am mistaken, the Bible had nothing to do with this ruling.


Yes, I think so. That is our system, which we hold dear. The SCOTUS make many decisions on a similar or more grand scale.

The fact they are un-elected is key. They serve for life and so their decisions do not impact their service. They can judge with their best sense of the law without fear that political repercussions will impact their service. In short, they need not be popular, as do the other branches of government, in order to retain their offices.

At , it is stated:
“EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
And then this, which I did not know:
…The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American “experiment in democracy” with the oldest written Constitution still in force.


Hi Sox,

Jesus seemed to be pretty tolerant of gay people, often referred to as eunuchs back then.
More information here, it’s an enlightening read:

It makes sense as well for a god of love to be, well, loving indiscriminately. We would all do well to learn by that example.

Best wishes,

  • plum

traditional marriage


No you are no mistaken. The bible can’t have anything to do with it because we have a secular constitution with separation of church and state. Through the many numerous cases around DOMA laws argued in state and federal courts, the courts ended up rejecting many so called secular reasons to bar same gender couples from getting married because many were really religious arguments.


5 SC judges passed it. 4 didn’t. Are those 4 who didn’t, incompetent, and/or guilty of sexual orientation discrimination?

1 Like

I think too many people, Carolyn, are mistaken on what “separation of church and state,” means. It simply means no one religion/denomination/theology can rule peoples consciences. To think that America was founded outside of Christian thought does not fit. All but 2 of those who signed the Deceleration of Independence were Bible believing Christians. Therefore, to think that they would have did such a think excluding Christian, particularly Protestant principles, would be to ignore the facts. Religious affiliation of the singers of the Declaration of Independence:

Charles Carroll - Catholic
Samuel Huntington - Congregationalist
Roger Sherman  - Congregationalist
William Williams - Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott - Connecticut - Congregationalist
Lyman Hall - Congregationalist
Samuel Adams - Congregationalist
John Hancock - Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett - Congregationalist
William Whipple - Congregationalist
William Ellery - Congregationalist
John Adams - Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine - Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton - Episcopalian
John Penn - Episcopalian
George Ross - Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. - Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. - Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton - Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge - Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee - Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee - Episcopalian
George Read - Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney - Episcopalian
Samuel Chase - Episcopalian
William Paca - Episcopalian
Thomas Stone - Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry - Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson - Episcopalian
Francis Lewis - Episcopalian
Lewis Morris - Episcopalian
William Hooper - Episcopalian
Robert Morris - Episcopalian
John Morton - Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins - Episcopalian
Carter Braxton - Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison - Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. - Episcopalian
George Wythe - Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson - Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin - Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett - Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson - Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes - Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer - Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean - Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton - Presbyterian
Abraham Clark - Presbyterian
John Hart - Presbyterian
Richard Stockton - Presbyterian
John Witherspoon - Presbyterian
William Floyd - Presbyterian
Philip Livingston - Presbyterian
James Smith - Presbyterian
George Taylor - Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush - Presbyterian

I’m sure everybody knows this famous quote from the G.C. Ellen White, who was very pro freedom of religion acknowledges this about America:

When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near.

Its freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. That was the French revolution who wanted a godless secular nation, not America.