The Executive Committee of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists voted in March to go on record as opposing AB 1967, a bill that would amend California law to provide for gay marriage by changing the language of marriage statutes. Where it refers to a man and a woman, the language would be changed to 'two persons'.

Below is a letter from Thomas Mostert, president of the Pacific Union Conference, to assembly member Mark Leno, author of the bill, and to Ellen Corbett, chairperson of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

The Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is the administrative arm of the church serving a five-state western region, including some 200,000 members in California. Our church has long served the people of California through a variety of community services. Through the teaching and healing ministries of Jesus Christ we seek to communicate God's love for all. I am writing to respectfully express our opposition to AB 1967.

Marriage is the bedrock institution of society. It insures society's health and survival. As such, sound public policy ought to protect marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act, approved by a wide margin of Californians, affirmed the commonly understood definition of marriage that has existed in societies throughout all time.

Seventh-day Adventists are not unsympathetic to the rights and needs of homosexuals. As a church, we have refrained from the culture war conflicts over these issues, professing no expertise on how public policy should address these needs. However, the current effort to modify the designation of marriage to include same-sex relationships goes beyond the legitimate protection of the rights of homosexual citizens.

The SDA Church teaches that 'marriage was divinely established in Eden and affirmed by Jesus to be a lifelong union between a man and a woman in loving companionship'. We are convinced that it is perilous for society to change what God has established. The redefinition of marriage will have profound negative consequences for parents and children, and will impact social, emotional, physical and sexual health. Such consequences may be clearly perceived by all, regardless of whether one holds a religious perspective. We urge your committee to carefully assess all the relevant public health data before acting precipitously.

There are two claims commonly asserted against religious perspectives on this issue. First, it is suggested that religious views of marriage are irrelevant because religious organizations should not seek to legislate morality. However, since AB 1967 is clearly an attempt to legislate a new moral and sexual ethic, religiously motivated points of view comprise a legitimate perspective in the debate.

It is also wrongly asserted that religious moral views are illegitimate

because they would violate the separation of church and state. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has championed the separation of church and state for at least one hundred years. You may well be familiar with our advocacy since we send Liberty magazine to all legislators as a public service. In AB 1967, all concede that the state is being asked to revisit the definition of marriage as a civil institution, not in its religious aspect. All agree that the state has legitimate authority to regulate marriage as a civil institution. In analyzing whether state action would violate the separation of church and state, one must look to the nature of the action, not the nature of the arguments. Religious justifications for preserving the current definition of marriage cannot properly be ruled out of order where, as here, the state can legitimately regulate marriage as a civil institution.

The attempt to place same-sex marriage in the context of civil rights is also erroneous. The Seventh-day Adventist Church in California is a multi-ethnic community consisting of dozens of language groups and nationalities. Many of our members and clergy marched in the civil rights movement and take offense at equating moral choices governing sexual conduct with skin color, which can be neither chosen nor changed.

The voters of California have voiced their will on this issue, and affirmed that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. The effort represented by AB 1967 to change this definition clearly contradicts current law and should not be supported. It appears to be blatantly unconstitutional, and risks eroding respect for both law and democracy.

In conclusion, we are convinced that the divine wisdom that created and ordained marriage between a man and a woman is clearly reflected in public health and welfare data that is subject to objective assessment, and that same-sex marriage constitutes an experimental and dangerous social policy. We therefore urge you and your committee to reject AB 1967.

Respectfully yours,

Thomas Mostert, President