Put your spouse first so your marriage will last. A happy marriage is the union of two good forgivers. Love doesn’t keep score. “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of the Lord.” Ephesians 5:21 KJB
Tag Archives: marriage
Homosexual Men ‘Divorce’ to Become Threesome, Now Plan to Use Sisters as Surrogates
NOVA SCOTIA — Two homosexual men recently “divorced” under Canadian law so that they could include a third man in their relationship, and now plan to have their sisters serve as surrogates to bear their children.
“We just want to say that love is love. It should be multiplied not divided,” Adam Grant told the Daily Mail. “It shouldn’t matter if you’re in a three-way or a four-way relationship.”
Grant and his partner Shayne Curran met Sebastian Tran at a nightclub in 2012, after “tying the knot” the year prior. A year later, they agreed to be open to seeing others.
“Adam and I wanted to have a little more fun so we decided to experiment with multiple partners,” Curran stated. “We never intended it to be anything serious, we certainly never planning on taking on a full-time third partner by any means. It was just bit of sexual experimentation.”
When they met Tran, they both had feelings for him, so in discussing how they could include the man in their relationship, they decided to divorce in order to become a threesome.
While polygamy is not legal in Canada, the men state that they have attorneys that can work up paperwork declaring that the three are bound to each other “in the eyes of the law.”
“If anything, Sebastian only enhanced our relationship,” Curran said.
Now, in order to have children, the men state that their sisters have agreed to become surrogates. Some have also offered to donate their eggs.
“I have two sisters who have both offered to carry our children for us as surrogates and are willing to donate their eggs as well. My sisters actually argue over which one them will carry our baby first,” Curran stated. “Sebastian’s sister will probably donate her eggs too so we can keep it in the family. We want to mix our genes enough so that our kids are as genetically close to us as possible.”
As previously reported, earlier this year, photos of three Thailand men who symbolically “married” each other went viral, garnering societal support for the concept of same-sex “throuples” worldwide, but also generating remarks from Christians about the confirmation of the slippery slope that has long been predicted.
“Love occurs unconditionally and is not limited to only two people,” one of the men, only identified as Art, wrote on Facebook. “Love brings peace to the world.”
Following the report, Dr. Michael Brown noted that the situation demonstrates how mankind has made up its own rules along the way in an attempt to legitimize and justify what a particular person wants. Since homosexuals have stated that marriage should be defined as the union of two people who have feelings for each other, regardless of gender, where does the rule about two people come from?
“If a gay activist says, ‘But marriage is the loving, long-term commitment of two people,’ the answer is simple: ‘Says who? That’s just your new definition. Where did you get the idea it was two people if not from its historic, natural meaning?’” Brown explained. “And so, if I’m ‘bigoted’ because I don’t recognize same-sex ‘marriage,’ then gay activists (and their allies) are just as ‘bigoted’ if they don’t recognize three men (or women) ‘marrying.’
He stated that these developments are demonstrating the domino effect that results when the world rebels against God and His Master design for mankind.
“Those who have taken down the fence of marriage as God intended it have opened up a Pandora’s Box of possibilities,” Brown said, “none of them good.”
|Christians Need Not Apply
Posted: 09 Oct 2015 04:28 PM PDT
Editor’s Note: This is a well written article. But sadly, like many political commentators on the right, he conflates the whore of Rome with true Christianity.
Written by Selwyn Duke
“Haters of humanity” was the charge leveled against Christians in early first-millennium Rome. Thus impugned because they didn’t want to participate in the empire’s pagan festivals, they suffered a plight common to those swimming against their civilization’s tide: persecution. Of course, even in a nation that appreciates freedom of speech and religion, stigmatization of certain groups is inevitable. For as someone once pointed out, stigmas are the corollaries of values: If certain things are to be valued, it follows that their opposites will be devalued. As an example, you cannot value economic freedom highly without devaluing communism. Ergo, stigmas are necessary. And since they’re the flip side of values, what a civilization chooses to value is of utmost importance.
So when Rome valued paganism, it quite naturally devalued Christianity. But this would change. Jesus’ faith was legalized in 313 A.D., and in 380 it would become the empire’s official religion. And it would so infuse and shape the West that the Occident would become known as Christendom and the United States’ first president would say, “To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” For, in fact, Christian character was once considered integral to everything.
Change in America
But a change has been afoot in America. It has been happening quickly, so quickly that few people, even most astute culture warriors, fully appreciate what’s occurring. It has been hard not to hear of Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk jailed for contempt of court after refusing an order to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples. She has been cheered by the Right and chided by the Left, portrayed as both a Christian hero and an oath-breaking zero. And not surprisingly, most of the debate has centered on the legality of her stance. Davis is, of course, defying a court order. But while U.S. District Judge David Bunning, who sent the clerk to prison, has said, “Oaths mean things,” what of the Supreme Court justices who, in issuing the unconstitutionalObergefell v. Hodges faux-marriage ruling, clearly violated their oath to uphold the Constitution? Should one submit to a rule of lawyers contrary to the rule of law? Of course, Davis is also defying Kentucky governor Steve Beshear, who has ordered state clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And states do have wide-ranging powers under the Constitution. Yet even a governor doesn’t have the legitimate power to violate his state’s constitution. As to this, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer recently wrote in “Clerk the Only One Obeying the Law” that the courts have no constitutionally granted power to strike down law and then pointed out:
Here’s how the Kentucky constitution reads:
[“]Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[”]
… Thus Kim Davis would actually be breaking the law and violating the constitution of the state of Kentucky by issuing same-sex licenses.
Bottom line: Kim Davis is the only one in this sorry saga who is following the law and the Constitution.
When she took her oath of office, it was an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Kentucky. She did not take an oath to uphold the rulings of the Supreme Court, especially when submitting to such rulings would require her to violate her oath to uphold the Constitution.
In the above Fischer is merely echoing Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1819 and 1820 that to give “to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres” makes our Constitution “a complete felo de se” (suicide pact) and “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Davis, however, has mainly cited not man’s but moral law in her defense. While her lawyer has appealed her case (and lost) based on freedom of religion, she unabashedly told Judge Bunning, “God’s moral law conflicts with my job duties,” reported CBSDC/AP. “You can’t be separated from something that’s in your heart and in your soul.”
And whether it’s the rule of lawyers or of law, this reality cannot be ignored. No moral person places statesmen or the Supreme Court before the Supreme Being; this is why while many will emote about “the law” when it serves their ends, Americans have a long history of violating it with the understanding that, as Augustine of Hippo put it, “An unjust law is no law at all.” The antebellum abolitionist and civil-rights movements, for instance, involved defiance of the law. And, in fact, our very nation was founded on resistance to law, on a bold act of nullification — of the law of the British Empire.
Height of Hypocrisy
Then there’s the matter of imperious would-be masters who make hypocrisy an art form. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign may be listing because of her illegal use of a private e-mail server to conduct government business, but this didn’t stop her from tweeting about Davis on September 3, “Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law — end of story.” And her former boss, Barack Obama, boldly violates federal immigration and other laws he finds inconvenient, as he ignores “sanctuary cities” and localities that violate federal drug laws (which are unconstitutional, though this certainly isn’t a factor for “unconstitutionalists”).
And particularly apropos is the case of openly lesbian Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker, who said in 2012 that “she refuses to conduct marriage ceremonies for straight couples until same-sex couples can also wed,” reported New York’s Daily News at the time. Of course, given that judges may refuse to perform marriages, Parker’s case wouldn’t involve the kind of “violation of civil duty” of which Davis is accused. Yet it is perfectly analogous to another recent case, that of Marion County, Oregon, Judge Vance Day. Like Parker, Day decided to stop doing weddings altogether — in his case, nearly a year ago — over the faux-marriage issue. Like Parker, his reason is that the current law conflicts with his sense of right and wrong. Unlike Parker, however, his problem is that he didn’t want to feel pressure to “marry” same-sex couples after a 2014 federal court ruling expressing the belief that faux marriage should be government sanctioned in Oregon.
And, unlike Parker, Day is now being investigated by a judicial-fitness commission.
Notable here is that the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct just issued a ruling in August on the very same matter, stating in part, “A judge may not decline to perform all marriages in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on his or personal, moral, or religious beliefs.” Absolutely striking. A judge can refuse to perform marriages — but not for politically incorrect (e.g., Christian) reasons — and not to avoid performing faux marriages. So when Parker exited the marriage business because she thought such unions should be endorsed by government, it was hardly a blip on the radar screen. When Day does so because he believes such unions shouldn’t be, he’s investigated as unfit for office.
When considering all the above, it’s clear that laws and standards are being applied selectively — but, actually, not all that inconsistently. Just consider another example from the judicial-standards front, when earlier this year the California Supreme Court prohibited state court judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts merely because, at the time, the organization reflected Christianity in banning open homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. Or consider the case of former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, who was fired early last year after writing a Christian book entitled Who Told You That You Were Naked?, in which he briefly touched on homosexual behavior. Now ponder what Lifesite’s Jonathon van Maren related in February about a trip he had just taken:
In Budapest … our tour guide stopped on the steps of the St. Stephan Cathedral to explain how the Hungarian Communists “dealt with” the Christians. It wasn’t that you couldn’t be a Christian, she said. You could pray at home, worship at home with your family, even get baptized and go to church. However, you had a choice. “You could either be a Christian,” she told us, “or you could be successful.”
So when GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee recently tweeted “Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country,” perhaps he wasn’t being literally accurate. After all, churches aren’t yet being shuttered. But implicit in everything that’s occurring, with a wink and a nod, is that old message: You can be Christian — or you can be successful.
And leftists have said this in so many words. Not that long ago a number of stories were in the news about Christian bakers who refused to bake cakes for faux weddings. And if you read Internet comments, you’d observe a common sentiment: “If you can’t do the job, you can’t have the job.” The problem is that any and every “job” is increasingly being defined as requiring absence of Christian principle. The quoted standard tendentiously places the onus on the Christians, but here’s what is really being said: “You’ll conform to our agenda — or we’ll destroy you to the point of pennilessness.”
A good example is couple Aaron and Melissa Klein, former owners of the bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Oregon. They were forced to shut down their business in 2013 after refusing two lesbians a “wedding” cake and being charged with discrimination. But this wasn’t enough for the sexual storm troopers. Because earlier this year administrative judge Alan McCullough fined them $135,000 and ruled that the funds will go to the lesbians for “emotional, mental, and physical suffering.” The government perhaps wanted to persecute in private, though, because Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian “placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to ‘cease and desist’ from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs,” wrote the Daily Signal in July. This apparently is part of Avakian’s attempt to “rehabilitate” the Kleins, which, stated their lawyer, Anna Harmon, he made clear was his goal with “those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas.”
The good news is that, with the help of Christian relief organization Samaritan’s Purse, far more than the fine amount has been raised for the Kleins’ cause. Yet granting relief to those targeted for “rehabilitation” is becoming a monumental task. As Samaritan’s Purse reported in April in a piece entitled “Persecution Against U.S. Christians On the Rise”:
In Indiana, a small-town pizzeria owned by a Christian family closed its doors after receiving death and firebombing threats after the owner said in a television interview that he would not want to cater a gay wedding because it would conflict with his faith.
In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled that a photographer could not refuse to shoot gay ceremonies — even though Elaine Photography owner Elaine Huguenin said that she would happily photograph gay customers, but her faith forbid her from doing so in a context that seemed to endorse same-sex marriage.
In Washington state, a florist was sued for discrimination by the government because she could not in good conscience create custom arrangements for a same-sex ceremony.
It should be noted that this is unprecedented in American history. Government has long trumped freedom of association under the pretext that businesses, though privately owned, are nonetheless “public accommodations.” Yet what we’re seeing now is a huge step beyond: not merely forcing businesses to serve certain classes of people, but forcing them to service certain types of events. The analogy has been drawn, almost to the point of hoariness, that the above examples are akin to compelling a Jewish or black businessman to service a Nazi or KKK affair. The reality is, of course, that no one would even consider such tyranny. Nor did it faze media, politicians, and activists when pundit Steven Crowder produced a video earlier this year of Muslim bakers in Dearborn, Michigan, refusing to provide faux wedding cakes. But when Christians do it, they’re haters.
And this double standard is everywhere. Just consider again the aforementioned ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct. Reporting on the consequences for judges “who stop performing all marriages to avoid marrying same-sex couples,” CBS News wrote that they “may be interpreted as biased and could be disqualified from any case where sexual orientation is an issue.” Yet who doesn’t have biases? (Note that unlike a “prejudice,” a “bias” can be positive, negative, or neutral.) Did Judge Tonya Parker not exhibit a bias when refusing to perform marriages in the name of homosexual activism? And what of Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan, an open lesbian, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom officiated at faux weddings? Inferring bias, critics such as Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) say they should have recused themselves from the Obergefellcase and suggest they could be impeached for not doing so. Liberals have, of course, scoffed at the notion, but is it substantially different from the Ohio board’s position? Putting their own biases aside when ruling on law — just calling balls and strikes, as Chief Justice John Roberts put it — is a challenge for all judges, not just a subset. It is quite possibly the most important part of their job and one that, as recent history illustrates, too many jurists are failing at miserably. So the scrutiny received by judges such as Vance Day is not due to their having that universal thing called “bias.” It’s due to their having that increasingly unfashionable thing called a Christian worldview.
Putting Christians in Their Place
This is why all the discussion about whether Kim Davis is “breaking the law” misses the deeper and more important point: What does it say about our civilization when laws and standards — or, at least, how the powers-that-be wish to interpret them — preclude authentic Christianity in the halls of government and the marketplace? It says that while Justice David Josiah Brewer could write in an 1892 Supreme Court ruling of “a volume of unofficial declarations” and “mass of organic utterances” stating “that this is a Christian nation,” it can no longer rightly be said. The once stigmatized is now valued, and the once valued is now stigmatized.
This inversion of virtue and vice was predictable — and predicted. In their 1990 book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, homosexual activists Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk called for the valuing of homosexuality, prescribing a desensitization of Americans to homosexuality via a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising,” a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” Furthermore, they said that once homosexuality was normalized, those who would “still feel compelled” to oppose it would be “cow[ed] and silence[d] … as far as possible” and that if homosexual activists can “produce a major realignment solidly in favour of gay rights, the intransigents (like the racists of twenty years ago) will eventually be effectively silenced by both law and polite society.”
And what do we see today? Christians called haters and bigots, hate-speech laws in most Western lands prohibiting criticism of homosexuality, and the stifling of dissent via economic pressure. And the homosexuality agenda is an ideal vehicle through which to devalue Christianity. Just consider, for instance, that the Catholic Church has defined teaching stating that same-sex attraction is “disordered” and homosexual acts are objectively evil. Moreover and contrary to what some may suppose, this teaching cannot change; even Pope Francis, whom the media has portrayed incorrectly on the matter, has said as much. And, of course, any traditional Protestant will take the same position.
And the folly of doing otherwise is easily illustrated. What is one supposed to say? Adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, self-gratification is a sin, watching pornography is a sin, but homosexuality is … what? A lifestyle choice, like living on a houseboat? This is why I’ve often noted that the homosexuality activists aren’t asking for equal treatment, but preferential treatment, and it is an untenable position. For accepting homosexual behavior isn’t just accepting homosexual behavior: It’s accepting the complete collapse of the Christian model (and this applies to certain other faiths as well) for man’s sexuality. This is just one reason why no faithful Christian can even consider accepting homosexual behavior.
And this is the reason Christianity cannot be valued if the homosexuality agenda is. Once people accept that calling homosexual behavior sinful is “hateful” and “bigoted,” they will consider Christianity a hateful religion. And “Voila!”: At this point you have successfully placed the faith and its churches in the same category as hate groups, such as the Nazis, Aryan Nations, or the Ku Klux Klan, and made them grist for the Southern Poverty Law Center’s HateWatch page. And this makes clear the economic persecution facing Christians. After all, what prospects does an open and avowed Nazi or Klan member have for getting a high-paying job?
And what else lies ahead? Just as asteroids have a trajectory that enables scientists to accurately predict their future location, a culture also has an observable trajectory. Should we remain on ours — and only powerful applications of energy can alter a great body’s path — a further perversion of the “separation of church and state” myth may be used to completely exclude Christians from serving in government; in this, Kim Davis’ plight is a portent of things to come. On the same basis, Christians may one day even be prohibited from voting or from receiving government benefits (after all, “religion mustn’t influence government,” and public money mustn’t fund religious entities). Far-fetched? Well, if you’d told people in 1954 that in a few generations homosexuality would be celebrated and Christians who opposed it castigated, they’d have called you crazy.
But, of course, the story of man is quite crazy. This is why modern times have seen the murder of priests in 1920s Mexico and during the Spanish Civil War, and why Christians were regularly persecuted under Marxist regimes and suffer in the Mideast and elsewhere today. In accordance with Jesus’ warning, “You shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake,” Christian persecution hasn’t been an anomaly in the annals of man but a recurring theme. And what recurs the world over can occur anywhere — even over in our world. For as homosexuality and other un-Christian elements continue to be valued, Christianity will correspondingly be devalued. And, as the communists and Romans proved, when this happens enough, Christians may be thrown into gulags or the mouths of lions. After all, haters of humanity are fair game for most anything.
This article is an example of the exclusive content that’s available only by subscribing to the New American print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!
Posted: 17 Sep 2015 11:28 PM PDT
By Chuck Baldwin
September 17, 2015
Right now, the liberty movement is divided almost in half between those favoring the SCOTUS ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and those opposed (count me in the opposed camp). So, right now, the liberty movement is completely stymied over this issue. The only ones who win in such a case are big-government Orwellians.
To be sure, the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” was the result of decades of relentless propaganda from the national news media, liberal politicians, and college professors throughout America.
Think about it: what do Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor know that John Locke, Thomas More, Emer de Vattel, Algernon Sidney, William Rawle, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, William Penn, James Wilson, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams, John Jay, Daniel Webster, Francis Scott Key, Hugo Black, Rutherford B. Hayes, and William O. Douglas didn’t know?
In other words, just as in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion-on-demand, the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex “marriage” was judicial activism pure and simple. There were no precedents for either decision. Think of the brilliant minds in law, philosophy, and religion over two thousand years of Western Civilization that somehow missed the “right” of homosexuals to “marry.”
What I’m saying is, I realize that militant homosexuals, ultra-leftists, and judicial activists have been waging war on America’s historic Christian values for decades–and they won a huge victory with the Obergefell decision. I also understand that these people will never be satisfied until they have totally and thoroughly expunged these values from America’s public life. There is no question they will resort to any tactic–no matter how morally unjust or constitutionally corrupt–to achieve their radical, amoral agenda. Kim Davis will not be the last Christian to be persecuted for her faith in this country.
That said, the Obergefell decision has successfully divided the liberty movement almost in half, between those who agree with the decision (on whatever grounds) and those who disagree. But, instead of arguing over the SCOTUS decision, here is what ALL OF US in the liberty movement should be doing: we should be using whatever influence we have to promote the idea of taking marriage OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE STATE ALTOGETHER.
Most of us realize that marriage is sacred; that it’s much more than just a civil contract. (Only the state itself reinvented marriage as being merely a civil contract.) One doesn’t have to be a Christian to acknowledge this distinction. Throughout the history of Western Civilization, the state seldom had authority over marriage. Think of it: for over 1,800 years of Western Civilization, the state had little–if anything–to do with marriage. (In America, only the colony of Massachusetts is recorded as requiring state marriage licenses before the mid-nineteenth century.)
So, why do we even look to the state for a license to marry? The fact is, WE SHOULDN’T. All of the bickering over Obergefell only serves to ensconce the notion that the state has legitimate authority over marriage. IT DOESN’T.
In Pilgrim America and in Colonial America–and until only recently in modern America–Common Law (Natural Law) marriage was universally recognized as being, not only lawful, but sacrosanct. The idea of asking the state for permission to marry was as absurd as asking the state for permission to take communion or to be baptized.
For example, the State of Pennsylvania didn’t outlaw Common Law marriage until 2005. And the only reason the vast majority of states do not recognize Common Law marriage today is because the Church has completely surrendered the Scriptural teaching on the subject and has willingly (even happily) turned what is uniquely a divine institution over to the state.
In other words, ladies and gentlemen, the only one to blame for the decision of the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage is THE CHURCH. The ultra-leftists and militant homosexuals would have had NO CHANCE of achieving victory at the Supreme Court had the churches of America been doing their job over the last half-century or more to educate people on the historic Natural Law principles governing marriage and the state. (Virtually ALL of the major problems we are dealing with today are the result of the absence of sound instruction from the pulpits of America.)
But since the Church’s surrender of the sanctity of marriage, here is the current reality: 40 states do not legally recognize Common Law marriage. That means, those 40 states see only the state as having authority over marriage. But the state has NO AUTHORITY over marriage and cannot legally sanction ANY marriage. I remind you Jesus said, “What therefore God hath joined together . . . .” Only GOD can join couples in marriage.
The best that I can determine, these are the 10 states that still recognize Common Law marriage: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Texas, Utah, and Oklahoma. And Utah only seems to recognize Common Law marriage after the fact. In addition, Oklahoma is currently in the process of banning all State marriage licenses. This is exactly what all 50 states should do. (New Hampshire recognizes Common Law marriage for inheritance purposes only; so it should not be included as a Common Law State.)
So, including Utah, the people in ten states are free to marry WITHOUT a State license. And that’s exactly what every freedomist in those states should start promoting–and promoting LOUDLY. And freedomists in the other 40 states should start demanding that their State legislatures once again recognize Common Law marriage. Maybe people in those states should even consider civil disobedience and marry outside the licensing authority of the State. After all, if God has joined a man and woman together, what difference does it make if the State–or anyone else–recognizes it or not? If enough pastors and churches would do this, it wouldn’t take long for State legislatures to enact appropriate legislation.
Let the state recognize or not recognize to its heart’s content; let it embrace all of the perversion it wants. You can bet polygamy will be legalized next. And then what? Pedophilia? Bestiality? At some point, the sacred institutions of marriage and the Church will be forced to separate themselves from a suicidal society just as they did when the Roman Empire was collapsing. In Rome–as in oppressed nations today–Christians and churches mostly took their worship and sacred ceremonies underground. And, if history teaches anything, it teaches us that no civilization has long survived after socially embracing aberrant sexual behaviors. And America won’t either.
Let’s face it: the federal government in D.C. is leading America over an economic, political, moral, and cultural cliff. So, why do we keep looking to D.C. to fix the problem? THEY WON’T DO IT. As Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem.”
And the two institutions we should IMMEDIATELY extract from government–the two institutions that should have NEVER been allowed to be placed under the authority of government to begin with–are the institutions of marriage and the Church.
How in the name of common sense can pastors and churches take a Scriptural stand on the sanctity of marriage when they have allowed the Church itself to be bastardized by accepting the 501c3 tax-exempt organization status from Washington, D.C., and incorporation status from the states?
Think of it: our spiritual “leaders” have allowed the two most sacred institutions on earth (marriage and the Church) to be prostituted on the altar of state recognition. Think of it another way: our 501c3 pastors have become little more than pimps for the IRS and, now, a radical, activist Supreme Court. Do pastors really want Caesar’s blessing that badly?
Regarding marriage: we should marry under Natural Law (Common Law) ONLY.
Regarding the Church: it should be removed from 501c3 non-profit organization and State incorporation status–and if the pastor and church refuse to extract themselves, we should extract ourselves from THEM.
We either “come out” from this leviathan or we will be swallowed by it.
Yes, the radical left and militant homosexuals will continue to press their anti-Christian agenda with every means possible. Yes, those of us who have Christian, traditional and moralist convictions are going to be forced to defend these historic principles tooth and nail. But there can be no victory whatsoever by willfully surrendering the Natural Law principles upon which our convictions are predicated. Neither can there be victory by pretending that Caesar’s law is Supreme Law, because it’s not! There is a Court above the court. There is a King above kings. There is a Law above law.
Our founders gave their lives in order to bequeath to us a country in which we didn’t have to decide between obeying God and obeying government, as this constitutional republic was designed to protect our duty to God. Current national leaders–facilitated by America’s spiritual leaders–are taking that wonderful bequeathment away from us.
Therefore, say it anyway you want, “Don’t tread on me,” or “We must obey God rather than men,” but say it we must. And if Christian men and women cannot say it in defense of the sanctity and autonomy of marriage and the Church, they cannot say it at all.
P.S. I have a four-message DVD that I believe is absolutely essential for Christian people–and others who believe in our founding principles–to help them understand Natural Law. The title of the DVD series is “Liberty And Law.” Here are the message titles:
• Biblical Evidence for Natural Law (I show you the Scriptural evidence for Natural Law in this message.)
• Christ’s Law of The Sword (This message explains what Christ meant when He told Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matt. 26:52, KJV) Believe me, He did NOT mean that Christians are supposed to lay down their means of self-defense and never use the sword. I show from the Scriptures exactly what Jesus was saying to Peter. And, trust me, it will probably surprise you, as I doubt you have been taught this truth in church. And it will also help you to better understand a whole host of other scriptural principles as a result.)
• Liberty in Law (There is true liberty only in Law; but this Law does not ALWAYS mean the laws of men.)
• The Law of Necessity (This is a basic Natural Law principle that was demonstrated repeatedly throughout the Bible, including by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.)
This is one of the most important message-series I have ever delivered. And its truths are needed as much NOW as they were when our pastors thundered them forth in the churches of Colonial America–maybe more so.
To order my DVD, “Liberty And Law,” click here.
• If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.
© 2015 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved
American Minute with Bill Federer
Democrat President Grover Cleveland condemned Islamic terrorism committed against Armenian Christians in Turkey, December 2, 1895:
“Massacres of Christians in Armenia and the development there…of a spirit of fanatic hostility to Christian influences naturally excited apprehension…
European powers…have assumed a duty…as agents of the Christian world…to enforce such conduct of Turkish government as will refrain fanatical brutality…as have shocked civilization.”
President Grover Cleveland wrote December 7, 1896:
“Mad bigotry and cruel fanaticism…wanton destruction of homes and the bloody butchery of men, women, and children, made martyrs to their profession of Christian faith…
Our citizens in Turkey…in the midst of dreadful scenes of danger, their safety…is by no means assured…
The outbreaks of blind fury which lead to murder and pillage in Turkey occur suddenly and without notice…
I do not believe that the present somber prospect in Turkey will be long permitted to offend the sight of Christendom…
It seems hardly possible that the earnest demand of good people throughout the Christian world for its corrective treatment will remain unanswered.”
President Cleveland defended traditional marriage, December 8, 1885:
“The strength, the perpetuity, and the destiny of the nation rest upon our homes, established by the law of God, guarded by parental care, regulated by parental authority, and sanctified by parental love.
These are not the homes of polygamy.
The mothers of our land, who rule the nation as they mold the characters and guide the actions of their sons, live according to God’s holy ordinances,
and each, secure and happy in the exclusive love of the father of her children, sheds the warm light of true womanhood, unperverted and unpolluted, upon all within her pure and wholesome family circle.
These are not the cheerless, crushed, and unwomanly mothers of polygamy.”
Cleveland insisted on gold-backed currency and pushed to lower taxes.
In 1887, Cleveland vetoed the Texas Seed Bill, stating:
“I do not believe that the power…of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering…
A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power…should…be steadfastly resisted…
Though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.
Charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly… demonstrated.
Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character,
while it prevents…among our people of that kindly sentiment…which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”
On OCTOBER 25, 1887, Grover Cleveland proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer:
“The goodness and the mercy of God, which have followed the American people during all the days of the past year, claim their grateful recognition and humble acknowledgment…
by His omnipotent power He has protected us from war and pestilence and from every national calamity;
by His gracious favor the earth has yielded a generous return…
by His loving kindness the hearts of our people have been replenished…and
by His unerring guidance we have been directed in the way of national prosperity.”
“To the end that we may with one accord testify our gratitude for all these blessings,
I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States, do hereby designate and set apart…a day of thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by all the people of the land.
On that day let all secular work and employment be suspended,
and let our people assemble in their accustomed places of worship and with prayer and songs of praise give thanks to our Heavenly Father for all that He has done for us, while we humbly implore the forgiveness of our sins and a continuance of His mercy.”
The Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.
|Who will join and stand in defiance of government intrusion?
Posted: 25 Jun 2015 10:45 PM PDT
Don Boys, Ph.D.
The Bible teaches that “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” Heb. 13:4. That verse is true whether it is believed or not. Marriage is God’s business, but was taken over by the state with the consent of pastors; however, the state should have nothing to do with marriage. Nothing. Hundreds of pastors are refusing to sign state-issued marriage certificates!
In the Garden of Eden, God set the pattern for all future marriages with one man and one woman constituting a family. A God-approved marriage is publicly declared, heterosexual, monogamous, physical, and permanent. After God established marriage, man’s wicked heart soon twisted God’s plan when Lamech (who became a murderer) took two wives, and marriage has been going downhill ever since.
I thought only a few of my fellow preachers believed that marriage was a family affair without any involvement of the government but I was wrong. According to Life Way Research, one in four U.S. pastors think it is wrong for them to sign a state marriage certificate! Moreover, a prominent conservative but unofficial Catholic magazine, First Things, takes that position and more than 400 pastors and laypersons have signed a pledge to “no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage.” Ministers who have taken the pledge are Roman Catholic, Baptist, Church of God, Episcopal, Church of Christ, Universal Life, Bible Churches, Nazarene, Methodist, and others.
They will no longer sign state marriage certificates but will recommend that couples have a civil ceremony as well as religious ceremony. Conversely, I think preachers need to tell the state that a church wedding is sufficient with no state permission required and no civil ceremony is required.
Most pastors end a wedding ceremony saying, “By the power vested in me by the state, I now pronounce you man and wife.” Wait a minute, how can that be justified from Scripture? Does a preacher teach a class, preach a sermon, or counsel a family or anything else by powers vested by the state? According to the American Jurisprudence Encyclopedia, a pastor performing a wedding “is a public civil officer, …not at all to be distinguished from a judge of the superior court….” That makes such pastors tools of the state.
What if a state decided that there were too many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals running around and wanted to “thin them out” by forbidding them marriage licenses, would any preacher in America be willing to obey that law? Only the weakest preachers would comply. Real men of God would tell state authorities to go back to the statehouse and continue to do their thing but leave the church house alone. Such preachers would continue to marry their young couples in defiance of such oppressive laws.
Even influential laymen have declared that the state should get out of the marriage business. David Boaz, Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute, asked, “Why should the government be in the business of decreeing who can and cannot be married?”
Conservative talk show host Larry Elder declared the state should “leave marriage to non-governmental institutions like churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship or private institutions.” He said that marriage licenses made as much sense as licensing barbers or taxi-cab drivers.
Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, radio talker Glenn Beck, and law professor Doug Kmiec (a Roman Catholic layman) have joined the chorus, advocating no state marriages. Kmiec said, “If the state got out of the marriage business. . . . then the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community.”
The state of marriage in the U.S. is a mess and I never thought I would ever support the atheists except in their repenting and trusting Christ, but here I am supporting their position on marriage! Atheists sued Indiana because atheists were forbidden to perform marriages. Of course, they have the right to perform their own marriages. The fact is, all governments should get out of all marriage entanglement totally and leave all marriages to the churches, sects, etc. I suppose if the state wanted to marry hedonists, humanists, and heretics they could do as they are doing now.
No government has constitutional authority to approve or disapprove religion, but government at all levels always seeks more power and screams like a banshee when power slips (or is jerked) from their hands. States continue to reach for or hold onto power for the sake of power. They often look silly in their grab for control as in California.
In September of 2008, California prohibited the use of bride and groom in any state wedding ceremony! Moreover, their schoolbooks may no longer use the terms husband and wife. Of course, you know why. Such terms might offend those who practice perversion. My, my, aren’t public officials super-sensitive to their citizens? Well, they are not sensitive to normal, decent, citizens. If you are a white, heterosexual, creationist, Bible-believing Christian, (you know, the kind of people that founded and grounded this great nation), you must change what you have always been taught or move out of the state! And people are doing that by the thousands!
The California high court declared that the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman was unconstitutional so the marriage license was changed to Party A and Party B as in Alfred and Bill or Alice and Betty. Yes, I know it was nutty and a little slutty, but after all, California is the land of fruits and nuts with an abundance of nuts. Bride and Groom were no longer legal until sane people threw a fit and reversed it. No court or authority can change the meaning of words.
Marriage is what it is as defined by God in the Garden so when a court seeks to nullify God’s definition, they are seeking to do something that cannot be done. It can be debated, decided, and declared but not done. The facts don’t change: marriage is between a man and woman who choose to commit to a lifetime together. No court or legislature can change that.
The above silliness is one of many reasons why the state should have nothing to do with marriage. But many are concerned about a non-state marriage being acceptable and legal. Acceptable and legal to whom? The union of man and woman is a law of nature. Such laws are unchangeable while human laws always change or pass away. Natural marriages in England, Iraq, Brazil, or any state are considered marriages in any U.S. state, so why should marriages in any U.S. church not be considered acceptable and legal?
You don’t have to have a state-issued marriage certificate; and no preacher should use one thereby denying power to the state that God never intended it to have. As long as your family and your church are satisfied with your public commitment to each other, that should be sufficient.
Get the government totally out of marriages.
(First of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriages From Ancient Times Were Family, Not State Approved!”)
http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 15 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Todayfor 8 years. His shocking books, ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse!; Christian Resistance: An Idea Whose Time Has Come–Again!; and The God Haters are all available at Amazon.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations and may be used without change from title through the end tag. His web sites are www.cstnews.com andwww.Muslimfact.com and www.thegodhaters.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE NOT SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE
Brother Dillard, This was posted by Religious News Service. Your Comments please: (Bro. C. M.)
Hi, Brother C.M.! Well, well, what a subtle twisting of truth! Lucifer is up to his old tricks. It is reminiscent of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. There is considerable truth in it, but twisted to make a horrible lie. That is what the serpent did in Eden, and what he continues to do today. I shall comment in paragraphs of rebuttal so labeled. I assume the entire article is an exact copy of what appeared in media. The article and my rebuttal appear next.
“For those who look to the Bible to restrict marriage to one man and one woman, the primordial source is Genesis 2, the second account of the creation of humanity, in which God forms a man out of the dust and a woman out of the man’s rib. The chapter seems to set up what they now call “biblical marriage,” declaring (in the King James Version), “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
[Rebuttal] The author is knowingly wrong here. The primordial source is Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is indeed an expanded account but one that reveals God (Elohim) in the creation of a different office work (Jehovah-elohim) to deal with fallen mankind. It does indeed set up biblical marriage as it was then and has continued to be for the past 6,000 years or more. Note the affirmation of Jesus about this in Matthew 19:4-6
“So how can this account be considered supportive of same-sex marriage?”
[Rebuttal] The answer to this question is simple. It cannot!
“For starters, the Hebrew word “adam” that is translated as “man” means “humanity” or “human being” — in the genderless sense that was once common English usage (as in, “man is the measure of all things”). Thus, in Genesis I.26, God says, “Let us make adam (humanity) in our image.” Unlike English, Hebrew differentiates adam from the gendered word for man, ish.”
[Rebuttal] As far as I can presently determine, this paragraph is true, except the author intentionally omits that in Genesis One that it goes on to say that the “adam” (mankind) under consideration is specifically named: “Male and female created He them.” Eve is as much “adam” (Mankind) as Adam was. There was no cause to refer to Adam as “ish” because there was no other male human on earth.
“In Genesis 2, the person we know as Adam is repeatedly identified simply as ha-adam – the human. Thus, Genesis 2.18 has God saying, “It is not good for the human to be alone. I will make a fitting helper for him.” (“Him” because adam is a masculine noun in Hebrew in the same way that nauta — sailor — is a feminine noun in Latin.) Note that God does not say anything about procreation as the reason for instituting this human relationship. Procreation is the order of the day in Genesis 1 (“be fruitful and multiply”), but that injunction has nothing to do with marriage.”
[Rebuttal] The author’s comparison of “adam” and “nauta” is contradictory. The gender of words in ancient languages does not necessarily denote sex. But, “Him” is gender specific. “Sailor” is not. Again, the Genesis Two account is an expanded, more detailed account of Genesis One. It is not contradictory to Genesis One. The “Ish” (Adam) is called “Adam” (mankind) because there was no other human form in existence. Ish (a man) comes into play much later, when there were humans (plural) on the earth. The helper which God would make for Adam is indeed fitting inasmuch as the Hebrew word literally carries the idea of “according to his front.” The purpose is aptly illustrated in electrical connections. It takes a male plug and a female receptacle to transmit electricity. Similarly, in procreation that type of connection is necessary to transmit the species. This terminology can portray nothing less than conjugal relationships of procreation. It is an expanded presentation of what is meant in Genesis One “Be fruitful and multiply.” To say that this has nothing to do with marriage is outright silly. God consistently in every age condemns fornication and adultery.
But what about Genesis 2.24: “Therefore a man shall leave…”? Isn’t that a mandate for “biblical marriage”?
[Rebuttal] Yes it is! A marriage as a civil contract is of recent origin. Biblical marriage consists of mutual agreements and pledges plus a consummation. Such union of a couple is not consummated as a marriage except in the act of sexual intercourse. So it has always been, and so it is presently.
No. Although traditional English translations employ the prescriptive future tense, the Hebrew is simply the descriptive present, now using the gendered ish: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother, and cleaves to his wife, so that they become one flesh.” Genesis 2 is a just-so story, explaining why, at the time it was written, a guy would leave his parents and establish a new marital relationship.
[Rebuttal] The author is wrong again about biblical Hebrew. Yes, English uses tense of verb, but Hebrew does not use tense at all. All action is presented as complete or incomplete. The incomplete verb, as here, is understood as a continuing process. “Therefore shall a man (any man in any age) proceed to leave his father and his mother and (continue) to cleave to his wife.” It is a never-ending process as long as humans remain on the earth in the flesh.
In a word, Genesis 2 is all about the human need for permanent companionship — companionship of an intimate fleshly kind. Whoever wrote it would, I believe, understand exactly what the desire for same-sex marriage is all about — and why it is good.
[Rebuttal] Agreed to the last five words. Moses wrote it under inspiration of God. I am certain he understood quite well the horrendous sin of homosexual co-habitation – but why it is evil. After all, sin is the misuse of anything from its intended purpose.
HEAVEN ON MY MIND
Parson to Person
The Lyrics of a gospel song include the words: “I woke up this morning feeling fine; I woke up with heaven on my mind.” What an inseparable duo! They are cemented more securely than “love and marriage” or “horse and carriage.” When thoughts of heaven and of the Good Lord are founded solidly on the eternal Word, they become the substantiating of heaven on earth. How else could one feel then but fine, mighty fine! Think about it!
David described the blessed man as one who meditates in His law day and night, Psalm 1:2. That is feeling fine, mighty fine! When others dish out unfair treatment, instead of being discouraged, consider the marvelous meaning of the words in Psalm 119:78, “Let the proud be ashamed; for they dealt perversely with me without a cause but I will meditate in thy precepts.” This turns personal hurt and discouragement into feeling fine, mighty fine! When the forces and “friends” of this world bring pressure to think and walk perversely, remember Psalm 119: 15, “I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.” This severs a bad situation and leaves one feeling fine, might fine.
Some folks are comparable to a reed shaken by the wind. They bend and sway with whatever force is predominant at the time. Others are more comparable to a mighty tree, realizing that even though evil winds may not be stopped, one may, but the grace of God, stand strong and not bow down to them. It is incumbent upon every Christian to know who he is through identification with the person and words of the Lord, not by simple, blind acceptance of the tenants of a church where he may belong.
In the classic movie “Gone With The Wind,” Scarlett dealt with unpleasant or difficult situations by procrastination: “I won’t think about that today, I will think about that tomorrow.” That mindset can only make matters worse by creating a vacuum evil is eager to fill. By all means, take the initiative!
Taking the initiative then to be in control of spiritual and mental matters, one will find himself marching in cadence with the Pauline instructions that speak so pungently to this point. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Now there is the subject matter having come full circle. With goodness and heaven on one’s mind, life is fine, mighty fine!
The importance of a godly wife
Only eternity can reward the wives of the great preachers of the past such as the godly wife of Benjamin Keach, who at 28 years of age, was called to pastor the Baptist church at Horsleydown London in 1668. This holy lady, who had borne him five children in ten years, died in 1670, and Keach wrote a poem in her memory entitled “A Pillar Set Up.” In this poem he gave her a very great and noble character, commending her for her zeal for the truth, sincerity in religion, uncommon love to the saints, and her content in whatsoever condition of life God was pleased to bring her to. He particularly observes, how great an help, and comfort, she was to him in his suffering for the cause of Christ, visiting, and taking all possible care of him while in prison, instead of tempting him to use any means for delivery out of his troubles, encouraging him to go on, and counting it an honor done them both, in that they were called to suffer for the sake of Christ. He also said that some acknowledged that their conversion to God was thro’ the conversation that they had with her.” Two years after her death, he married a widow of extraordinary piety with whom he lived thirty-two years. Susanna Partridge bore him five daughters, the youngest of whom married Thomas Crosby, a renowned Baptist historian. After the death of Keach, she lived with her daughter and son-in-law, and Crosby wrote of her, “She lived with me…the last twenty years of her life. I must say, that she walked before God in truth, and with a perfect heart, and did that which was good in His sight. She lived in peace, without spot and blameless.” Many godly wives saw their husbands pilloried, imprisoned, and treated roughly, and the encouragement of these women provided the strength that kept them strong. Keach died July 18, 1704. Joseph Stennett preached from, “I know whom I have believed.
Dr. Greg J. Dixon: From this Day in Baptist History Vol. I: Cummins/Thompson, pp. 294-95.
appeared first on The Trumpet Online