Monday, February 25, 2013

President Urges Supreme Court To Redefine Marriage


Late Friday afternoon, as offices were closing and workers were heading home for the weekend, President Obama's White House delivered a brief to the Supreme Court.

The message?

His brief is formally urging the Court to declare unconstitutional the portion of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) law that bars recognition of same-sex marriages by the government for income tax purposes, federal employee benefits, immigration and a number of other programs.

The President is also including so-called same-sex "marriage" in his immigration reform proposals.

Will he also insert himself into the California Proposition 8 matter also scheduled to come before the Supreme Court beginning March 26?

Does the President have more in mind than just these specific cases?

Is he preparing to make an all out push to redefine marriage nationally, even though he has repeatedly said he believes it is a matter for individual states to decide?

There are now some Republican "conservatives" who are saying they think there is a case to be made for "conservatives" to support same-sex "marriage."

But first, Tim Eyman, Mike Fagan and Jack Fagen have unleashed the wrath of the Seattle Times, the Spokesman Review and other papers across the state. GOP Chairman Kirby Wilbur agrees with the papers and is calling on Eyman to apologize.


This past week, Tim Eyman sent out an email to his friends and supporters, giving them an update and encouraging them to continue their financial support to his political action committee, "Voters Want More Choices."

The email indicated, as they all do, it was from Eyman, Mike Fagan who also serves on the Spokane City Council, and his father, Jack Fagan---all of whom are involved with the PAC.

As most know, they have been very successful in resisting and reversing tax increases over the past number of years. While this has not endeared them to liberal progressives, their work is generally appreciated by conservatives.

At issue are these words which Tim included in his email:
"Candidate Inslee repeatedly promised to veto any tax increase. He said no way to higher transportation taxes in 2013. Inslee said he'd grow jobs to generate more tax revenue. What a lying whore he turned out to be. In recent weeks, he's made it clear he'll sign any tax increase the Legislature unilaterally imposes."
So Tim, how do you really feel?

State GOP Chair Kirby Wilbur says Tim shouldn't have said that. "There is no question that's beyond the pale and is uncalled for, and I would condemn such a thing."

He said, "You may say, 'I disagree,' or 'he lied' and point that out. But you don't call him a 'lying whore'. He should apologize, no question."

Tim Eyman says he will not apologize.

Oh, my.


President Obama is specifically targeting Section 3 of DOMA.

His brief reads, "The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important benefits that are available to legally married opposite sex couples."

The brief says, "Gay and lesbian people are a minority group with limited political power. Although some of the harshest and most overt forms of discrimination against gay and lesbian people have receded, that progress has hardly been uniform, and has in significant respects been the result of judicial enforcement of the Constitution, not political action."

When President Obama initially refused, as President, to defend DOMA, a federal law, the Republican led House of Representatives promised to defend it, which they have and are doing.

They too have filed a brief with the Supreme Court, which says in part, "Gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best connected, best funded, and best organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time that virtually any other group in American history."

This federal case will come before the Supreme Court in the next few months.

Is President Obama posturing himself to attempt to get a federal constitutional "right" to homosexual "marriage?"

I firmly believe he is.

It would also be helpful to his agenda to try to influence California's Proposition 8 case which comes before the Supreme Court March 26.

If he is trying to get a federal homosexual "marriage" law, and I believe he is, he will likely jump on this case as well. He has until Thursday of this week (Feb. 28) to file that brief. We'll see.

However, even if he does not file a brief, it is pretty certain he is taking his best shot at redefining marriage nationally.

You will recall that just over a year ago he was saying he believed the marriage issue was a matter for each state to decide. You will also recall that until about a year ago he also said he believed marriage was between one man and one woman.

Then he evolved.

Relativism is a wonderful tool for secular progressives who look to the political winds for their core beliefs.

There is nothing tentative about what he is doing. He has his petal to the metal. He is committed to redefining marriage as he "remakes" America.

In my opinion, the best thing the Supreme Court could do would be to stay out of the marriage issue. I personally believe this issue should be decided by the American people, not the courts.

Do you know which state has the highest number of homosexuals? I have linked a recent Gallup Poll that shows the percentage of homosexuals in each state. 

Republican Jon Huntsman, a Mormon and a Republican presidential candidate in 2012, has also apparently "evolved." He said over the weekend that he now supports same-sex "marriage" and thinks there is a case to be made that you can be a conservative and support same-sex "marriage."

I don't think that's possible. And here's why.

Jennifer Thieme has written an excellent article on this subject. I will summarize some of her thoughts with my own.

First, and foremost I do not believe anyone who claims the Bible as the Word of God and His revelation can honestly believe that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

Secondly, as a public policy issue, homosexual "marriage" does not stand alone nor is it a conservative issue because it requires the natural family to be dismantled at the level of public policy.

True conservatives support limited government and they understand that there are other institutions which serve to limit government power. Two of these institutions are the natural family and religion.

Same sex "marriage," which as a policy removes the gender requirement for marriage, is a great vehicle for those who wish to increase the scope and power of government as it forces these other institutions to diminish.

In order to accommodate homosexual couples into the institution of marriage, all gendered words are removed from the law, words such as bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father, etc. These are replaced with gender neutral words like partner, party, applicant, and parent.

This change means that marriage, as a public policy for every couple and family, becomes genderless. Individuals have gender, of course, but to accommodate homosexual couples, there is no "gay marriage" as a public policy. A policy of accommodating gay couples into the institution of marriage might look like "bride and groom" for traditional couples, with the additional "bride and bride" or "groom and groom" for homosexual couples, but that's not what happens. It's "partner 1 and partner 2" or "party A and party B" or "applicant A and applicant B" as the policy---and it applies to all couples, not just homosexual ones.

There is actually no "gay marriage" as a policy under genderless marriage---there is also no traditional marriage.

I have been asked more times than I can count by reporters and talk show hosts, "How will marriage equality hurt your marriage?"

The answer? Traditional marriage as public policy will cease to exist.

One question that must be asked. What will society look like after a generation or so without traditional marriage as a distinct policy?

There is no way a biblical Christian can support the abolition of traditional marriage. Nor can a true conservative.

May God help us.

58 comments:

  1. Marriage licenses or fishing licenses, the Feds can't look at citizens with totally legal state licensed contracts and say to one "nice contract you have there" and "Contract? What contract?" to the other.

    Simply unconstitutional. The Federal government can't pick and choose which equally contracted citizens it is going to serve - either all such contracts from a state are acknowledged, or all of them are federally void - pick one.

    This was a known defect in DOMA at the time of its passage, a poison pill that would kill it if it was judicially reviewed. This defective legislation was supported to stop a constitutional amendment, not to actually last.

    Interestingly the Mexican Supreme Court just ruled there was a right to marriage equality and cited American legal precedence in part as its justification. The irony of this shouldn't be lost on the readers but sadly most likely is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What we need is a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, I agree that would work.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
  2. "Traditional marriage as public policy will cease to exist"

    This makes no sense. Of course heterosexual marriage will continue to exist. No wonder you are losing the argument so badly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They can't wrap their minds are the idea that being for one thing doesn't prevent you from being also for another just as a parent's love of a child doesn't stop them from loving the others.

      Yes, their error is in thinking Christ's Law is exclusive rather than inclusive. I 100% support traditional marriage

      Delete
    2. Your logic is faulty.
      Talk apples only or oranges only but don't mix them together. You lose your argument.

      God loves all of His children - whether they obey Him or not obey Him. He lets us make our choices but He sticks to His laws yet.
      A loving parent will let a child know when he/she is making a mistake. And has to let the child clean up the mistake made whether biological children or legal children. That is real parental love. Does the parent love the child any less? No. Simply loves the child.
      Loving a person does not mean that one has to accept their actions. That is where your inclusive/ exclusive issue should lie.


      As an adult one can love another of the same sex very much. But does that mean one should enter into a marriage/sexual relationship? No it doesn't. But one would cultivate the relationship into one of mutual respect and sharing. Honest caring people know the boundaries and abide by them.
      Loving a person does not mean one has to accept their actions.

      Trying to change norm or definition of marriage from since the beginning of time is a rather unreasonable thing to do.

      Delete
    3. The state doesn't define marriage, they only legally register spouses. Your religion thinks you can't marry someone of another religion or race, then that's cool, but the state has to accommodate people with different religious beliefs.

      And as to the rest you aren't talking about what we were, that someone can support traditional marriage AND be for marriage equality too, that to a Christian support of one thing doesn't imply resisting another. Christ's Law is inclusive.

      Delete
    4. RE: A loving parent will let a child know when he/she is making a mistake.

      I'm sorry, but you are not my parent. You are my fellow citizen. I do need to hear from you whether what I'm doing goes against your personal religious beliefs. It's none of your business. Like Oshtur said, the state has to accommodate people with different religious beliefs.

      Delete
    5. The state isn't defining marriage, really? You could've fooled me, since that exactly what the legislature just did.

      Now we can get on with marriage equality for every other aberrant religious belief. If you don't agree, you're a bigot.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    6. Oshtur, Christ's law of love is inclusive for people but not for people's wrong actions. Fortunately for His people He forgives us if we ask for His forgiveness. I am curious who forgives you when you do wrong? Or do you never do anything wrong?

      Delete
    7. And marriage isn't a wrong action but the Feds ignoring some legal contract holders is.

      And I know you know the Lord's Prayer, the same who forgives you your wrong actions and intents. We ask God to forgive us as we likewise pledge to forgive others. Everyone is forgiving everyone, right?

      Delete
    8. Craig, as history has shown its not that hard to fool you, you do it to yourself all the time. Marriage is a promise, as all contracts are and many people make these promises without the involvement of the state.

      It always amazes me that supposed Christians are so quick to say that the state defines marriage when in the next breath they say that God does. All the state does is legally recognize these promises, this is America where the state is beneath our feet, not over our heads.

      And we do license all spouses now, what 'aberrant religious belief' is left? Who doesn't have the ability to license a spouse now be they husband or wife?

      (you aren't going to bring up concubinage or with noncontractable entities are you? Washington is one of 5 states where concubinage is already legal, just not licensed, and their is no legal contract possible between a citizen someone of another species, phylum, etc ;)

      Delete
    9. That was clever, lol. You've already been fooled by Satan into thinking "Did God really say....you will not surely die"

      The state just did redefine marriage. If as you say the promise doesn't need the state, why the push to involve it?

      I think I can answer that.... affirmation of aberrant sexual behavior.

      You just contradicted yourself with the concubines, their not licensed nor should they be legal.

      God defines marriage, the state has redefined it

      There is no legal contract YET for siblings or animals, just as there was not one for homosexuals. Mark my words, someone's going to try.

      Yes, the state is below God's feet as well, as we are also. Our nation will not profit long in our folly.

      Craig In Lacey

      Delete
    10. Craig, more obfuscation on your part. What was asked for was the ability to legally register a spousal relationship, nothing more.

      As to even talk about entering into a legal contract with an animal goes to show you don't even understand what a legal contract is.

      And you didn't know it has been legal to have as many concubines as you want since 1976 just shows there is no point even talking with you.

      Sorry Craig from earth to heaven you just don't have a grasp on this issue.

      Delete
    11. I'm not entirely familiar with all the laws in this state and when they were enacted. Regardless of when it was granted, it still shouldn't be legal and the fact that they can't marry shows some common sense.

      There is no obfuscation on my part, I've been consistent in my argument. God defines the boundaries of marriage and proper sexual conduct. 1 man and 1 woman within marriage. That's it.

      The point about siblings or animals was that someone will try because all truth is relative in the liberal playbook. Whats right for one is right for them and how dare anyone tell them its not.

      You are being obtuse and I expect nothing less.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    12. Craig, God defined what we were supposed to do when following His Law and being in a loving supportive exclusive relationship doesn't interfere in that at all.

      Sexuality is part of purely terrestrial dogma, there is no sex in heaven. These are exactly the kind of things his followers were given the ability to 'bind and loosen' within the context of Christ's Law.

      Regardless of what some say, women can teach men, they can go to church with their heads uncovered, they can eat animals with cloven hooves, bi valves, wear cloth of two fibers, buy a car on the Sabbath, heck move the Sabbath to another day, take over a pagan holiday for an annual celebration of the birth of Christ even though it isn't even close to his birthday, and have a husband or wife and all still be in keeping of Christ's Law.

      Again, Christ's yoke is far lighter than you seem to be able to imagine. You can carry more if you want, just as the day labors can work from dawn instead of starting late in the day for the same wages. But just as Christ advised don't' grouse about you're working harder than you have to to get the same reward.

      Delete
    13. Craig, gays are not obligated to forego marriage rights because some crazy out there MIGHT try to legalize marriages with animals. If someone out there makes a move to legalize man-animal marriages, it won't be because gay people exist and want to marry. It would be because marriage itself exists.

      So if you really want to avoid these crazy marriages you seem genuinely concerned about, it's time to get rid of marriage altogether.

      The truth is: Gay marriage will not help the arguments of any person who tries to convince the public that people and animals should be able to marry.

      Delete
    14. So true the chances of legally marrying an animal are less than buying your next house from a corgi.

      Now when the Vulcans arrive we might have to revisit the prospects of interspecies contractibility, but not anytime soon.

      Delete
    15. Oshtur, show me the passage that specifically allows man to change marriage as Jesus instituted it in Genesis and Jesus reaffirmed it in the Gospels.

      Ceremonial laws are no longer necessary because there is no Levitical priests or a temple in which to perform them. There is no ritual uncleanness. The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, our bodies are now the temple, we aren't suppose to defile them. That would not be showing love for God or each other.

      A prime example of 'binding and loosing' is found in Acts 15 in which Gentiles were told to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. The New Testament is quite clear about what sexual immorality is, that includes homosexual behavior. But you have already been shown this and refuse to listen. There is no exception made for 'committed loving relationships', although "commitment" might be a good idea =)........... just kidding! As to the rest of your examples, none is an issue of salvation.

      I know, I'll get some Christians together and we'll 'loose' God's restrictions on coveting, greed, and drunkenness and He'll have to 'loose' them in heaven. Really? I don't think so, Homey don't play that. =)

      This is what liberal theology gets you, a perversion of God's Word.

      Yes, God says you can have a wife, just not a male one

      8:45.

      It won't be because marriage exists, it'll be because they think marriage will affirm their aberrant sexual behavior ,as the homosexuals think it will.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    16. "I know, I'll get some Christians together and we'll 'loose' God's restrictions on coveting, greed, and drunkenness and He'll have to 'loose' them in heaven. Really? I don't think so, Homey don't play that. =)
      Excellent examples though I know you didn't mean them to be. We used to not allow the collection of interest on debt, now we do. Some say no one should drink alcohol, now we allow it.

      But that you don't understand just keeps getting reinforced. We don't follow the old laws because they have passed, they have all been 'loosened'. Only those that would interfere with Christ's Law are still applicable and what that exactly means can be 'bound and loosened'.

      In a previous note you brought up 'though shalt not murder', and as we know what is illegal killing has changed massively throughout the last 2000 years. How much work is too much work on the Sabbath? How far to travel is too far? These are what 'binding and loosening' refer to and under Christ's Law we have loosened many things.

      As Jesus told us the Law exists for Man not Man for the Law. Common sense dictates what is and isn't compatible with Christ's Law, yes and sexual immorality is one of those things that isn't the same as it was in the past.

      Paul said that those who masturbated won't get into heaven - you really think that's true? Some said that any sexual position that wouldn't result in a child was sinful - you think that is still the case? Yes, what constitutes sexual immorality has changed too, and gays can keep Christ's Law as well as straights. Christians recognize this.

      You are looking for specific permission when you were mostly told by Christ what to do, not what not to do, and those few things he did proscribe you seem to love doing with wild abandon.

      Gay spouses are just as acceptable as straight ones are to God. May you some day see that.

      Delete
    17. Again Oshtur, you're being obtuse. Do you actually read the Bible or just parrot what someone told you about it?

      The Bible doesn't say don't drink alcohol, it says don't get drunk. The fact that people do, with the resulting damage to society and families in particular, shows the wisdom of God's Word. Usury is forbidden because it sinks people further into debt, it makes the borrower a slave to the lender, it also feeds into peoples coveting and greed. Those that have the means see an easy way to make money off those that don't and those that don't have, see a way of "keeping up with the jones", again demonstrating the wisdom of God's Word. Yes, they are excellent examples of what happens when men buy into Satan's lie, "Did God really say...."

      I've already covered food laws and ceremonial laws, missed that, did you?The principle of the Sabbath rest still remains, God knows we need time off from work. As you said, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

      I understand quite well that the Law exists for man, the purpose of which is to convict of sin (Romans 7:7), not for salvation, which is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.



      Sexual immorality isn't what it was in the past? I'll give you that one, it's worse. Every kind of debauchery can be found in the media, be it print, film or online, and the people only approve and clamor for more. Romans 1: 18-32 perfectly describes our modern culture. Murder hasn't changed, nor God's Commandment, only man's efficiency at it and the scope of it have.

      You know, it really doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what God says, if he says masturbation won't get you to heaven, I'd think long and hard about the ramification of indulging, don't you? There is nothing in the Bible about sexual positions, that was somebody's opinion, a straw man at best. As a matter of fact, where the Bible is silent, we should be too.

      Yes, Jesus did tell us about marriage... "for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife and the 2 shall become 1 flesh". It's not possible for 2 men or 2 woman or Jesus would've said so..... you know, what to do...... Paul wrote extensively in 1 Cor. 7 about marriage, divorce, celibacy, widows, unbelieving wife/husband, not one word about committed, loving homosexual relationships, let alone 'marriage'. Hmmmm..... maybe when God told him to include it, he forgot?

      Yes, God did tell you what to do, marry a woman. Unless you can remain celibate and that's fine with God also.

      Liberal theology( ..".you shall not surely die".) is a stumbling block to the truth. Still praying for you, bro! =)

      Craig In Lacey

      Delete
    18. Talk about obtuse, you ramble on all these things that have changed and still don't understand the concept of the Christ given ability for that change. What is and isn't illegal killing has most definitely changed or are you seriously saying you could stone an adulterer to death? I see you skipped the women can now teach men, that even the holy deal with interest now.

      But this entire discussion is pointless, you don't understand Christ's message and ironically it is only you parroting the Bible with no apparent understanding of it.

      That yoke of yours must be so uncomfortable.

      Delete
    19. What didn't you understand about God's wisdom concerning coveting, greed and drunkenness? Are you really that dense dude? The fact that man (even those that claim Christ) continues to disregard sound biblical teaching and suffer for it, only reinforces our stupidity and our desire for the things of the flesh. That the "holy" would be deceived and lead others astray is truly tragic.

      Jesus set the example with the adulterous woman, It wasn't that she wasn't guilty, it was the crowds self-righteousness that was the problem. What did he tell her at the end, "go and sin no more". We've "loosed" adultery to the point its not even a sin any more, same thing with promiscuity . You really think God has "loosed" that in Heaven? The Bible says to expel the immoral brother, we don't even bother and so that leaven infects the whole lump. The Laodicean Church is alive and well, it has a form of godliness yet deny's the Holy Spirit.

      It appears that ' binding and loosing' may have indeed been for the establishment of the early church. Homosexuality being rampant in the Roman Empire, the church had ample time to 'loosen' restrictions, they didn't. It is through the study of scripture and by the leading of the Holy Spirit that the body of Christ functions. Do you really think the Spirit would tell the 'eye' to 'loose' something and not tell the 'hand' or the 'foot' as well. Our God is a God of order, not disorder.

      I think you need to visit Vulcan, so you can learn basic logic.

      There will always be those who seek to divide the body, widen the gate. If you're not careful, you're going to run into a post.

      My yoke is nice and fluffy, tastes good on a sandwich too.

      Meanwhile, I'm called to preach the word, be ready in season and out, correct, rebuke and encourage- with great patience and careful instruction. (2 Tim. 4:2 )

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    20. Craig you seem to be confusing Christians with popular culture, they aren't the same. Binding and loosen refers to Christian doctrine compatible with Christ's Law. What constitutes illegal killing has changed, what women can do has changed, and what constitutes sexual immorality has changed (or are you saying it is moral to take a 12 year old wife?). That is what B&L is about - what constitute illegal killing (murder) what constitutes keeping the of the Sabbath has changed. That is what B&L is all about, the Hebrew did it and Jesus specifically said Christians could. So all these people thumping their Bibles talking about how things were are the ones 'parroting'. Our metric of obedience now is Christ's Law and that gives more flexibility than thumpers seem comfortable with but like it or not it is there.

      And the things most B&L are the things that are of this earth and have no relevance in heaven: food, sex, Sabbath, gender, all things we know don't even exist in heaven, let alone could be B&Led.

      The question you ask is "Can a person of Grace be this way and follow Christ's Law?"

      And as far as I am concerned it is the modern mega church's that are like the Laodicean Church. Since you must know that same sex behavior in Rome was t like it is today I assume you are just being deliberately obtuse again. How many times does Jesus have to explain it is the why and intent in acts that is the sin, not a mere act. You are repeating the errors of the past, the ones Jesus died to free you from. How many times are you going to make Him die for you to save you?

      Delete
    21. Can a person of Grace be this way and follow Christ? No, you can't be unrepentant and follow Christ.

      In case you didn't notice, the popular culture is in the church, coveting, greed, drunkenness, divorce and remarrying, stealing, lying, homosexuality, promiscuity, disrespect for parents, etc and the church keeps on as if nothings wrong. Despite God's warning that those who practice such things will not enter Heaven, that warning is for those inside the church. In a lot of respects you can't tell the world and the church apart.

      None of those things will be in heaven, so what?

      "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Don't be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

      It's what we do here that matters, not what we can or can't there or are you being deliberately obtuse?

      On what do you base that belief that homosexuality was different in Rome. Do you know for a fact there were no' loving committed relationships?' We have the same behavior now, prostitution, rape, immoral sex. If they can't be "loosed" in heaven, how can we here? Go read Matt. 18:8. Again, Oshtur, your argument is illogical. Back to Vulcan for you

      Women aren't to lead men in the Church. Men are supposed to lead, you know, head of the women as Christ is the head of the man. Women can teach kids and other women. Woman was made for man, not man for woman. Oh, that's right, I forgot in your world, men are women and women are men. No wonder you have such a hard time following God's instructions.

      I understand it's the heart that's desperately wicked, that's not a new teaching. Jesus taught the same principle in the Old Testament. It was the hardness of men's hearts that has always been the issue. We do what is right in our own eyes and suffer for it and the tragedy is we never learn

      All I'm repeating is that unrepentant sin leads to death.

      By the way, Christ died once for all. If you actually read the Bible, you would know this.

      Craig in Lacey





      Delete
    22. You quote an out of context mistranslation and you wonder why I shake my head. You aren't going to thump your way to salvation and the hardness of heart that makes you reject Christ's message is pitiful beyond measure.

      You insist to live your life under the old Law that has been fulfilled. You reject Christ's own words that things can be bound and loosened within His Law. You have yet to show how a gay person can't keep Christ's Law except by referring to dead Law or presumptions of exclusion that don't exist under Christ's Law.

      You just want there to be a judgement that exists only in your own mind and on some level you know this since you continually ignore the examples of binding and loosening I have given in regards to murder and sexual immorality.

      Yeah I get it, the idea that things in the Bible can be contextual to the people and times is scary to the fearful mind, and that some wish there still were the hard and fast rule books like the Pharisees thumped. This fear is a trap, one of the earliest and easiest corruptions of Christ's message.

      Sorry Craig, your misunderstanding of Christ, His message, and what He asked you to do is too complete for me to make any headway against - the warning of Matthew 18:8 is one you should be taking to heart. Take what comfort you can from the ancient dead Law you cling to and may Christ forgive you for rejecting His instruction of love.

      Delete
    23. I'm not fearful at all, my trust is in Christ alone. My yoke is light and fluffy. You have put your trust in false prophets who tell you what your itching ears want to hear because it affirms your behavior. Romans 1 speaks to this. Don't be deceived, you will reap what you sow.

      We've been through this before, I don't hate you nor do I seek your destruction. It is my love for you that compels me to call you to repentance. I'm doing what Jesus called Timothy to do; correct, rebuke and encourage- with great patience and careful instruction.

      Binding and loosing was complete when the Bible was complete. Food restrictions, ceremonial requirements, marriage to young girls, Jew vs Gentile, slavery, and adultery all are covered in Acts and Paul's writings, unless you don't consider them Scripture. I would say obviously you don't because you consider them presumptions of exclusions.

      The whole of Scripture is God speaking, more specifically Jesus speaking, as He is the WORD OF GOD. Would Jesus contradict Himself ?

      But I know, the homosexuals have there very own translation now, the QJV..the Queen James Version... thought I was going to say something else huh? One of the fruit of the Spirit is kindness, so I will control myself. This translation is one of the most corrupt in existence, it completely disregards Koine Greek sentence structure and the definition of Greek words. No wonder so many are deceived.

      The Scripture I quoted is accurate and in context, it is a warning to those inside the church not to act like pagans.

      Encouraging your brother to sin, placing a stumbling block in his path is precisely in contradiction to Christ' law. Again, Christ"s fulfillment of the law was accomplished on the cross, one man to die for the sins of all mankind. The blood price is paid. The law is still there to convict of sin ( Roman 7:7), without the law there is no sin. Apparently you don't understand this. I've said repeatedly the law doesn't save.

      It is precisely because of his instructions on love that I even bother to rebuke you. If I didn't care I wouldn't bother. It's also to edify those who may follow in your footsteps, may God grant them discernment.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    24. Craig, binding and loosening is an ability Christ gave, or are you saying his other abilities are also now gone too? it isn't ended just because the Bible is complete, that statement alone makes me feel you don't really understand what the ability means.

      And no the scripture you quoted was inaccurate and makes your reference to something called Queen James version, a bit humorous. I looked it up and I would be curious what Greek error they have made? Does that mean you have no problem with the Hebrew differences?

      Oh and I was referring to 'malakos' which is Greek for 'soft' and used during the time for 'wanton' behavior that in a sexual context was masturbation. 'Manly men' didn't need to do that and it was considered 'malakos' to do so. This was known until the King James version came out where it was oddly translated as effeminate, a clumsy substitute for
      'unmanly' which was referring to self-gratification.

      Yes the Bible is God's word but where did he say gay people can't marry? No where, but He did say that we could bind and loosen within the context of Christ's Law just as He did. You are seeing cultural and contextual statements as absolutes in ways they just weren't.

      Making coming to Christ seem more difficult than it is and it is you who by putting unnecessary barriers between people and God that violates it.

      Remember Moses plea to God and realize that even He can change His mind. Christ is not nearly as hard hearted as you would have Him to be.

      Delete
  3. Marriage is a contract between God and a male/female couple. No one or nothing else can change the definition of marriage. You can argue whatever you want but this one belongs to God and only God.
    Governments got involved in licenses for health safety reasons only. Well, for money too. Now we are throwing out all health concerns to simply appease a very small rebellious and wealthy group of people.
    Sense and sensibilities are also going out by the wayside.
    Self destruction comes to greed and immorality. Time will remind us of this fact in God's own timing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science and facts do not support any of your assertions. There are only positive health effects when same-sex couples are able to participate in marriage.

      Delete
    2. Did you pass eight grade?

      Delete
    3. Yes. Did you pass "eight" grade?

      Delete
    4. Glad you caught my typo. Thank you.
      Good to hear you passed eighth grade, So where did you go on to take your theology or philosophy classes? Or even any sociology classes?
      Or do you just accept the "Do as I darn well please" life style?

      Delete
    5. Is this a job interview?

      I love how the folks against gay marriage like to frame the pro-gay marriage position as the "Do as I darn well please" position. Who the heck is holding that position?

      This argument is about allowing same-sex couples to marry (which has already been settled by this state), so if you have comments about that argument, state them. But quit changing the subject.

      Delete
  4. RE: It's "partner 1 and partner 2" or "party A and party B" or "applicant A and applicant B" as the policy---and it applies to all couples, not just homosexual ones.

    Ahhh, I see. So, what you are claiming is that the substitution of the words “bride” and “groom” with “partner 1” and “partner 2” to accommodate same-sex couples on forms and in state law has some kind of profound and practical effect on the actual marriages that take place in the state and therefore gay marriage should not be allowed?

    OK… Using that logic, you should be placated by this simple solution: On the forms, let’s change “partner” to “Choose one: Bride \ Groom.” And in state law, let’s always refer to a “partner” as “the bride or groom.”

    Of course, the wording will be longer, but since you lay this out (across six paragraphs) as the substance of your resistance to gays marrying, I’d whole-heartedly support such a change.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In reply to the previous comment: "Traditional marriage as public policy will cease to exist" absolutely makes sense. As you said in your comment, "of course heterosexual marriage will continue to exist," but the point he is trying to make I think is that this won't be considered "traditional" anymore.

    Gary: I agree with your last line~May God help us!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why wouldn't heterosexual marriage be considered "traditional" anymore?

      Delete
    2. I used the term 'heterosexual marriage' as the term 'traditional marriage' has held many more meanings than gender over time.

      I could argue that 'traditional marriage' has included wives as chattel. To many, 'traditional marriage' refers to defined roles as in man is provider and decision maker, woman is subservient and takes care of domestic matters, etc.

      'Heterosexual marriage' more clearly describes what we are discussing here.

      Delete
    3. Great, well nothing changes with regards to "heterosexual marriage" at all...so I'm not sure what the issue is then?

      Delete
  6. Mirriam-Webster Dictionary online defines the word "whore" as:
    1: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
    2: a male who engages in sexual acts for money
    3: a venal or unscrupulous person

    Definition #1... Inappropriate
    Definition #2... Inappropriate (to common knowledge)
    Definition #3... Wholly accurate description (not nice, but accurate)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just like calling your brother a 'fool' can be "not nice, but accurate."

      WWJS?

      Delete
    2. On this one Oshtur we agree, it was a stupid and unnecessary thing to say. He should apologize.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
  7. SiAnon@9:11, No one said that heterosexual marriage would cease to exist. It was stated that it will no longer be public policy. When traditional morality is removed from public policy, it is replaced only by relativistic moral policy (whatever feels right to you, in this moment), thus displacing the very basis which society hinges upon. There is no moral or ethical cohesion, thus a breakdown in society. Splits only become fissures and further divide, thus society continues a downward spiral. There are many examples in history, Rome being one of the most obvious and documented.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, this is why you are losing so badly. Heterosexual marriage will continue as public policy and homosexual marriage will be added as public policy. They will both be public policy.

      You would do your side well by finding another point to argue that isn't quite so clear to everyone outside of your niche.

      Delete
    2. Anon @10:29 -- Just because genderless words will be used on forms or law to reference people involved in a marriage, that does not mean that traditional marriage is no longer public policy. The words "partner" and so on are clearly understood to mean men and \ or women and are used for the sake of brevity and clarity and do not change the law practically in any way in regards to heterosexual marriage.

      If you truly believe that replacing "bride" and "groom" with "partner" on forms will lead to the breakdown of society through a downward spiral akin to Rome, that's your prerogative. But, personally, I think marriage is stronger than that, and I highly doubt people will flee their marriages or even worry that paperwork in Olympia calls them a "partner" or "spouse" ...

      Delete
    3. Keep bride and groom for hetero and partner for homos, problem solved.

      Delete
  8. Regarding your comment that marriage should be defined by the people not the courts:

    Marriage laws have always been defined by the states. States decide who can marry within their borders and the federal government has always recognized those marriages. Then DOMA section 3 comes along, which “allows” the federal government to disregard the states’ wishes when it comes to marriage rights.

    Thanks to your efforts on Referendum 74, we now know for certain that the people of our state (and two others) wish to allow same-sex couples to marry. We are now legally married here, but DOMA section 3 cuts us off from a vast majority of the rights that come with marriage, basically lopping our marriages off at the knees.

    DOMA section 3 takes the power from the people of our state to decide who is married and puts it in the hands of the federal government. You want this to be decided by the people? Fine, then get rid of DOMA section 3 and you’ll have your wish. The people have spoken.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Regarding your comment that marriage should be defined by the people not the courts.

    Marriage laws have always been defined by the states. States decide who can marry within their borders and the federal government has always recognized those marriages. Then DOMA section 3 comes along, which “allows” the federal government to disregard the states’ wishes when it comes to marriage rights.

    Thanks to your efforts on Referendum 74, we now know for certain that the people of our state (and two others) wish to allow same-sex couples to marry. We are now legally married here, but DOMA section 3 cuts us off from a vast majority of the rights that come with marriage, basically lopping our marriages off at the knees.

    DOMA section 3 takes the power from the people of our state to decide who is married and puts it in the hands of the federal government. You want this to be decided by the people? Fine, then get rid of DOMA section 3 and you’ll have your wish. The people have spoken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Last time I checked Congress was elected by the people and nationally there is no majority for redefining marriage. DOMA should stay as it reflects the majority of people in this country.

      Delete
    2. You are so wrong.

      Polling shows support for marriage equality at over 50% on average for about a year and a half now.

      Since Gary allows URLs as long as they don't link to a web site, you can copy and paste this URL into your browser to see for yourself:

      www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

      Either way, you're still missing (or avoiding) the point. Who enters into a marriage is state law, not federal...so DOMA supersedes the will of the people in states where the people want gay couples to marry, like our own.

      Delete
  10. All the sociological and family research reveals that that marriage of one man and one women is best way to raise healthy children.
    Why do we need to change 5,000 years of social normal for 3% of the degenerative population. The public has been sold a false philosophy that homosexuality is about fairness when it really is aobut starting a complete immoral and unhealthy life style.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is outright false.

      In fact, every mainstream medical / pediatric / adoption organization disagrees with that statement, including the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the Child Welfare League of America, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children. All support child-rearing and adoption by gay couples and people.

      This is a major falsehood perpetuated by anti-gay folks that just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

      I'd love to see a link to proof to back up your assertions.

      Delete
    2. A Mom and Dad of course is the best way for children to be brought up . Are you suggesting it makes no difference if we had a culture where the natural parents were just another choice , not to be uplifted , supported , and prefered ? That the natural biological and natural protective and nourishing aspects aand insticts of parents were just ignored ?

      Good grief man , are you so bigoted you will sacrifice children for your selfish political and social desires.Homosexuality has nothign to do with , the natural connection between a Father and child or Mother and Child has no beearing in regards to the sexuality of the parent . The connection is between child and parent is what is being spoken to .Marriage is an important aspect to the family , only in cultures where that natural selection has been violated do other aspects like single homes , gay marriage , unwed parents come into play . It does not mean those people are less , it means the BEST method of raising children is being compromised.

      Mick

      Mick

      Delete
    3. Thank you Mick, well said

      Craig In Lacey

      Delete
  11. The reason that folks are rejecting the Word and God's input on marriage is that the guilt complex will go away if biblical Christians go away. Then no one will be telling, arguing or attempting to convince them that homosexuality is wrong. I wonder when the government is going to tell us parents that we cannot teach our kids that it is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't blink. it's coming!

      Craig In Lacey

      Delete

  12. Once again the president is working to destroy the constitution.

    When will we get a Christian president in the white house, one that will say something like, "I encourage everyone to support DOMA because it's another step we can take to avoid the falling away of America from it's maker and God."

    And speaking of falling away, isn't that why a shooter with a handgun or "assault style" rifle would shoot into a crowd, as if without any thought?

    Isn't that the real cause of the horrible shootings we've been seeing?

    And isn't it time we who make laws should lift our fingers to do something against the assault, the spiritual assault against this great nation?

    So, let's all support DOMA, for it remembers the commandments of God, the way that God ordained for people to marry.

    Amazing sometimes, how one good word seems to beget another, as if the seed was in it's very fruit?

    I think God made it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Once again the president is working to destroy the constitution."

    You are so right. Since when have we ever let the Supreme Court make the final decision on constitutional issues? Obama has no respect for the constitution at all!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is strange the President is suppose to understand Constitutional law . He defended Marriage between a man and women once . He never stated the Constitution was against his view.

    Now he says he changed his mind on marriage .

    Neither opinions should have a bearing on the law of the Land . Because I support life from conception does not mean The Constitution supports it.

    If I was pro choice then changed to pro life the Constitution still would not support it .

    This guy gets a way with too much , The DC media lets him say and do what he wants and is unacountable for it . What a divider he has become .

    Mick

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.