Posted on 05/17/2004 11:22:07 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
For the first time in America's great history, same-sex marriage is legal within our borders. It's time we ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" For far too many, this basic question has been missing from the debate over the redefinition of marriage.
Advocates of preserving traditional marriage, myself included, have argued that the fundamental building-block of every single civil society in the world throughout history has been marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman – all societies that have veered from this definition eventually vanished.
Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier, safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional families that include one mother and one father.
To change the basic building block of society would result in radical changes in every other aspect of our lives. For example, consider the exercise of free speech and the freedom of religion in Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2003. On April 28, 2004, Bill C-250 passed the Canadian Senate making it a criminal offense to criticize homosexuality. The government has already started banning radio programs containing criticisms of the lifestyle. Depending on how the Canadian courts rule in specific cases, pastors could be thrown in jail by simply preaching sermons against homosexuality.
Evidence from the Netherlands illustrates that when the definition of marriage is altered, people begin to shrug their shoulders at the concept of marriage altogether and see it as unnecessary – since same-sex marriages became legal in Norway, for example, 80 out of 100 babies in some areas of the country are now born to single mothers.
Everything from advertising to children's textbooks will change to depict same-sex marriages as "normal." The costs of extending health care, insurance, social security and every other benefit to new types of married couples will skyrocket for everyone and could break the federal treasury.
Also, who determines where the line is now drawn? If two men can marry, can two brothers marry each other? Or two heterosexual widows? If gender doesn't matter, why does it have to be between "two" people? Why not three or more? Can a group of people sharing a house decide to marry each other so that all may enjoy the legal benefits? Where does it end? Why should it matter?
We have correctly raised all of these issues and more in our defense of marriage. But the basic question we must raise – the only one that really matters – is: "Was God wrong?"
Our opposition tells us that we can't bring religion or God into the picture, that to do so would be to force our moral beliefs on others.
Yet, the only argument that the same-sex marriage crowd makes is couched in moral terms – "It is immoral," they say, "to deny two people who love each other the right to marry." It's the only argument they have, and it is entirely based on their view of right and wrong.
The advocates of same-sex marriage say they believe in God – most seek to invoke His name in their marriages. I say it's time for everyone to stop – stop and ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" God's definition of marriage is clearly defined in the account of His creation of this basic human relationship in Genesis 2: 22-24:
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
Was God wrong in creating woman and man for each other? Was he wrong when he established marriage as the institution in which children are to be born?
God's design for marriage is the only one that matters. The evidence – much of which has been provided in this column – also proves that God's design for marriage is the only one that works for mankind.
God loves us – all of us. He created mankind in His own image, and designed a beautiful framework in which we can thrive and multiply and experience true fulfillment in every sense of the word. The laws of nature – created and defined by the Creator – are the indisputable evidence that fundamental to mankind's societal existence is the cornerstone of marriage between one man and one woman.
To say otherwise is to declare God wrong.
"Our opposition tells us that we can't bring religion or God into the picture, that to do so would be to force our moral beliefs on others."
Yeh, but they don't think anything of it to force their immoral beliefs on us!
No, God was not wrong. The following is my opinion gleaned from having lived a few years, having a good education, having read history and having observed the lives of three family members who are gay and who, incidentally, share my views of this situation. The overturning of our traditional moral and natural laws regarding what a family is has more to do with a the number of homosexual/lesbians who have earned advanced degrees and pursued careers in government, academia, the media and entertainment world where they have much more power to skew laws in their direction than their numbers at large would indicate. I am trying to say that their percentages in these institutions and groups are far larger than in society as a whole. We are seeing, in my view, an impatient and irrational push for their agenda, which in some cases even their own members do not approve of, such as homosexual marriage. In my college sociology class, we learned that when laws are made for society which go against what the majority believe, an immediate reaction may not be evident, but, over time, people will not adhere to those laws. They ultimately will be ignored or overturned. Now, if we end up in a dictatorship in America which I think we will if the leftists take over, our laws will not be made for the majority for they will be enslaved by force and fear. It is comforting to know that God will have the last word...
If an amendment to protect marriage is passed, but allows for gay civil unions, then only the word, "marriage" was protected and not the institution.
First time in "America's history"? It is first time in the mankind's history (unless we include one or two small European states of last few years which are going to be overrun by Muslims).
Kind of reminds me of Nietzsche saying God was dead until God said, "Nope, you are."
bump
One of the best pieces of advice I ever heard from our preacher:
Satan uses the 4 D's to do his work...
1. Doubt - "Are you SURE that..."
2. Debate - self explanatory
3. Dissent - Subtle, semi-illegal challenges
4. Destroy - Total, unruly change from what was once right
Several years ago in Indiana, parents were shocked when a judge ruled that parents in Indiana have no inherent right to determine the upbringing of their children. There were outcries of “judicial activism” and calls to impeach the judge. The problem is that the judge was right, and he was doing the people of Indiana a favor by telling them what was really going on. Too few of the Citizens of Indiana asked the question, “Why don’t parents have the right to determine the upbringing of their children?’” What follows is the rest of the story.
Matrimonia debent esse libera. (Marriages ought to be free)
God created man and women, and then created the institution of marriage. Men and women, so long as they are not violating God’s Law, have an absolute right to get married. This is important, because we have a situation in which the government did not create the institution of marriage, so it has no authority over it. Because lawful men and women have a right to get married, they do not need the permission of any government to get married, and their rights within the marriage are not subject to review, infringement, or alteration by the State.
On the subject of rights, let us examine what the Supreme Court had to say with regard to these natural rights:
“As in our intercourse with our fellow men, certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’--that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement--”That all men are endowed”--not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain unalienable rights’--that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime--’ and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these’--not grant them but secure them--’governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the (consent) of the governed”
Today, marriage is defined as a civil right, and not as a natural right. Civil rights are assumed to be those rights arising out of the action of the government. Also, every state in the union has a law that requires everyone who desires to get married to obtain a marriage license. In Indiana, for example, the law is found at IC 31-7-1-1 Sec. 1:
“Before two (2) individuals may marry each other, they shall obtain a marriage license...”
If men and women have a right to get married, then what is all this business about going to the State to get a license? Just what is going on here? Where did this regulation come from? Fortunately for you, gentle reader, there is an answer, although you may not like it.
First, one must be aware of what a license is. Generally, it is permission from a competent authority to do something that would otherwise be illegal, a tort, or a trespass. Simply by holding a license, one is (by definition) doing something that is otherwise illegal, or injuring someone, or damaging their property, which one has no right to do. The holder of a license is engaged in a privileged activity, and the grantor of the license has the right to make and enforce all the rules. This basic definition holds true for virtually all forms of licensing, but is particularly true of the marriage license.
Once this simple concept is understood, the reader can examine the legal definition of the term “marriage license”. In Black’s Law Dictionary, fifth Edition., we find the following definitions:
At one time in our history (during the dark days of slavery) intermarriages (between a black and a white) were considered illegal and in order for a black and white to marry they needed a “marriage license”.
If a license is permission to break the Law, then how is miscegenation a crime?
At the risk of prompting considerable and passionate debate, it must be said that there is ample evidence in the Holy Scriptures that God does not approve of interfaith marriages. Regardless of the popular sentiment of today, the fact remains that our law is rooted in the permanent and enduring Law of God. For further study, and not placed here as any sort of definitive proof, see:
* “We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land.”
* “They have dealt treacherously against the Lord: for they have begotten strange (zuwr- racial alien) children.”
* “Ye have transgressed, and taken strange wives... now... separate yourselves from the people of the land and from the strange wives... until the wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us.”
* “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Remember, God created marriage. God has the right to restrict it, or modify the terms and conditions as He sees fit. Therefore, by definition, men and women who obtain marriage licenses are approaching the State and asking permission to violate the law via intermarriage. Are they really engaged in miscegenation? It doesn’t matter. They voluntarily went forward and ASKED for a license. By going to the State and asking for permission, they are acknowledging that they do not have any right to get married under God’s Law, over which God is Sovereign. What they are asking for is a marriage under the State’s laws, over which the State is Sovereign. After all, if they had the right to get married under God’s Law, then why would they go the State and ask for permission? Possession of a license is the prima facie evidence that the holder of the license is engaged in a privileged activity.
When a licensed couple goes forward to the alter (blasphemous thought) or before the ‘civil’ magistrate, they are entering a three-party limited partnership: The man, the women and the State. In this limited partnership, both spouses have the job of collecting and creating assets. The State has the job of making the rules, and can change or amend the rules at any time, and has no obligation to notify its partners about any of the changes. The married couple has the responsibility of complying with all of the rules, regulations, codes, and proclamations.
The State is their Sovereign and they don’t have any rights in this criminal enterprise. For those readers who haven’t quite caught on yet, the proof that this State marriage is a criminal enterprise is in the fact that it is a licensed activity. Ipso facto, having a marriage license means that the holders of said license have no rights in their marriage, because without the license their marriage is illegal. That is why they had to get a license!
Incident to its participation in this criminal partnership, the State gains an equitable interest in every asset accrued to the marriage. Most young couples on their way to get hitched don’t consider the ramifications of this arrangement. Most do not know that the most valuable assets of a marriage are the children, and they are giving the State an equitable interest in their children.
It follows then, that when the State steps into someone’s marriage and removes the children for something like not putting them in public or private school (home schooling), or because the parents are (ominous gasp!) Spanking the children, or sending them to bed without their supper, or yelling at them, etc, it is because the State is simply trying to protect its own property interests, according to its own rules.
The State gets to operate by its own rules because that was the agreement under which the partnership was created. In a lawful marriage under God’s laws, children are a “gift” (given to the parents) from God, who clearly states that He is responsible for “opening and closing the womb;” but in the State’s legal marriage, the State is part owner of the children. It has a property interest to protect, and has the right to do so. It should be pointed out that the Scriptures have something to say about not keeping God’s Law, and instead keeping the law of foreign gods: “But if ye will not...do all these commandments... I will send wild beasts among you which shall rob you of your children.” Leviticus 26:14-35.
At the end of this limited partnership, when one of the spouses dies, all the property accrues to the other spouse. And when the remaining spouse dies, the heirs come forward to inherit. The State says, “As the sole remaining partner in this criminal enterprise, in order to inherit the equitable interest of the deceased partners, you have to buy me out.” The heirs pay the state a percentage (which is determined by the State) of the estate in order to buy out the State’s interest in said late criminal enterprise, and take possession of the remainder (if any) of the assets. Some people call this an “inheritance tax.”
There are, no doubt, some questions remaining. This article is for the purpose of exposing the reader to the basic issues of licensing and its application to marriage, and to expose the use of licensing to steal the rights from "We the People.”. This is a complicated issue that requires an understanding of the concepts mentioned above; stay tuned for further exposition. Until then, take good care of the State’s children
Since a license is ”permission” to do something unlawful and the very act of being a sodomite is against God's law and the people of this country have been abandoning God’s laws for many years and continue to do so. An unlawful act can be made or changed into a "legal" act by man.
Homosexuality is disgusting and in no way normal, but as I stated above, the people of this country have been abandoning God's law for many years. Even the churches have replaced Jesus the Christ as the head and foundation of the church with the IRS by asking "permission" via 501(C)(3) to worship and preach the Gospel (which has been bastardized by political correctness and the whims of bureaucrats)
This will only get worse. Soon preachers who actually practice what they preach and follow God's law will be arrested. Next to be persecuted and arrested will be Mr. and Mrs. Christain. Everything is being flipped around. Right is wrong and wrong is right. Those who hold out until the end will be saved.
BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.