Adventists Celebrate Prop 8 Invalidation


(system) #1

In 2008 over fourteen hundred people signed the Adventists Against Prop 8 petition urging the Pacific Union Conference's Church State Council to rescind its advocacy for California Proposition 8.

By supporting this Proposition to define marriage from a religious perspective the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council is in danger of imposing their particular religious, theological convictions upon the general public. Adventists in the United States have historically defended the concerns of minority groups (even when they have disagreed with them on specific positions and practices) and have strongly objected to the use of religious arguments and means for establishing even what they consider to be public good. ... Therefore, we urge the Church State Council to rescind its support for Proposition 8 and encourage Adventists in California to vote “NO” on Proposition 8.

Today, Adventists Against Prop 8 states:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ invalidation of 2008′s Proposition 8 is a just, moral, and righteous decision. This is a decision that all Seventh-day Adventists who are committed to religious liberty and the gospel of Jesus Christ can celebrate. It points out unjust and immoral discrimination by its right name. It sets the nation further in the trajectory of recognizing full equality of gays and lesbians in all areas of life. This decision affirms the truth that the moral arc of the universe indeed bends toward justice.

AAP8 concurs with the majority decision which said, in part…

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 should have been enacted. … Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort. —Judge Stephen Reinhardt, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/3792