... a reference to the National form of government -- we are in fact "a Republic" not a pure democracy.

The reason I listed the quote however is not for the "Republicanism" statement it is because of the "Protestantism" statement.

My point is that if the right to privacy and the separation of church and stated were not sufficient to dictate policy when it came to prohibition - then even less so when dealing with the much larger moral issue of the topic you listed.

in Christ,

Bob

what our church (at least our Pacific Union Conference) is doing, which I believe is wrong.

The PARL [religious liberty department] leader of our Union Conference has written extensively in the current Pacific Union Recorder that we should vote FOR the bill requiring marriage to be only for one man and one woman. He then goes on to spout off all the radical rightwing arguments [which are mostly imaginary, and are scare tactics, IMHO]:
1) Churches that rent facilities for wedding or other groups to use will have to permit same sex weddings;
2) public school students will be taught that same sex marriages are moral and good;
3) colleges will be required to conform not only hiring and admissions policies, but curriculum and instruction, or lose accreditation and access to Cal Grants;
4) property tax exemption will be challenged for institutions that hold onto 'outmoded' notions of marriage and sexuality;
5) clergy may lose the right to perform state sanctioned weddings;
6) students from Christian schools may be denied admission to public universities;
7) doctors (including all businesses and all professionals) cannot refuse treatment or services on the basis of their conscience [e.g., artificial insemination to a gay person].

Well, in my opinion, these are all imaginary -- possible future events -- and have not yet come to pass. I think our PARL director has been reading the scare propaganda put out by the radical right wing.

I'm actually aghast that the editor of the Pacific Union Recorder would allow such a piece to be published.

What do you believe should be the government's and the state's view of gay rights (in society, of course)? Should gay people in the society at large be afforded equally all the rights and privileges of heterosexuals?

Where do you see James and Ellen White coming down on that issue?

Recall that in Lev 18 God does not give any leeway on this one for godless pagan nations. It is interesting that in Lev 18 he does not charge the pagan nations with Sabbath breaking, or lying, or lack of tithing, or lack of social work, or coveting or worshipping idols or taking God's name in vain. (All of which they were also guilty of -- but did not get them wiped out).

The moral issues that he charges them with - for which he will not tolerate their continued existence included only very specific moral issues including this gay issue and also killing infants.

Notice that in the quote were EGW promotes working together with the temperance movement - she later points out that these are the very guys that will be promoting Sunday legislation and YET she says that on these key issues SDAs were to JOIN WITH them!

If we take the issues they were facing - slave owners and those who sell and consume aclohol.

They argued that these practices should be illegal and that this was not a political statement - but a moral one.....