The Right Opinion

If Same-Sex Marriage Is a 'Right,' There Are No Rights

By Terence Jeffrey · Mar. 27, 2013

The old adage that one lie leads to another is never more apparent than when modern American public officials deal with issues arising from sexual immorality.

President Bill Clinton, for example, started a chain of lies when he decided to have an adulterous relationship with a White House intern.

Clinton first lied to his wife, then to a federal court, then to the American people.

Nor could Clinton's lies, delivered as president, be his lies alone. His partisans in Congress either had to abandon him or add another link to the chain of lies by declaring that perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal court, so long as they were intended to cover up presidential adultery with a White House intern, were not the sort of high crimes and misdemeanors that ought to be considered impeachable offenses under the Constitution of the United States.

Yet, as corrosive as Clinton's perjury was to the public understanding of right and wrong and true liberty, it was not as corrosive as the left's current crusade to get the Supreme Court to declare same-sex marriage a “right.”

Clinton's perjury was at least predicated on the assumption that people not only would see his behavior with a White House intern as a transgression against marriage, but also that they ought to do so.

If they are to succeed in their cause, those who now claim that same-sex marriage is a “right” must eradicate from American law and society the true – and only sustainable – rationale for any right at all.

That, of course, is that rights are immutable things that come from God – that they are part of the natural moral law that all men and all nations have an inescapable duty to obey.

The Founding Fathers of this nation not only believed in the natural law created by God, but insisted it was the justification for the United States becoming a nation.

The “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,” they said, “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station” of an independent state.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” they said, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Now, did Nature's God, who endowed all men with unalienable rights, endow two people of the same sex with a “right” to marry one another? If so, why did God create men and women?

Why did He create a system of human reproduction that rests on mothers and fathers and not mothers and mothers or fathers and fathers?

In truth, the advocates arguing to the Supreme Court that five or more justices should band together and declare a “right” to same-sex marriage are not arguing that there is a God-given right to such a thing. Indeed, the more candid among them see morality itself as an obstacle to their desired end.

In the case challenging the constitutionality of California's marriage amendment, which came before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in the Obama administration's amicus brief that it is illegitimate for the government to base a policy on “a moral judgment” – in this case, a moral judgment about homosexual behavior.

“Protecting children from being taught about same-sex marriage is not a permissible interest insofar as it rests on a moral judgment about gay and lesbian … intimate relationships,” he says.

But it is going to be either one way or the other: The government either will teach children about same-sex “intimate relationships” or it will not. And if the government does teach children about same-sex “intimate relationships,” it will either teach them that these relationships are right or they are wrong.

The advocates of same-sex marriage want the government to teach children that same-sex “intimate relationships” are not only right, but a “right.”

To do that, they must reject the natural law, the Old Testament, the New Testament and more than 2,000 years of Western tradition. They must teach that the God of Genesis, who created all things, was wrong about marriage. They must teach that Jesus Christ was wrong about marriage.

And they must teach that the Declaration of Independence was wrong when it insisted our rights come from our Creator.

So, if God did not give Americans a right to same-sex marriage, who did? Its advocates are hoping it will be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and …

A state that no longer recognizes that it is subservient to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God will also no longer recognize the God-given rights of individuals. In such a state, there will only be those privileges the powerful decide to grant us – until they decide to take them away.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

Appeal_patriots_day_1
32 Comments

tod-the tool guy in Brooklyn N.Y. said:

A government big enough to give you everything you desire(moral or immoral), is big enough to confiscate all that you have! Blessed Easter Terence.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 6:45 AM

PH in DE said:

'U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in the Obama administration's amicus brief that it is illegitimate for the government to base a policy on "a moral judgment" '

Wrong. All legitimate policies and laws are based on moral judgement. Murder is a crime because it is morally wrong. Theft is a crime because it is morally wrong. (Of course, the current administration and its adherents are all for theft from others for themselves and their projects, regardless of the morality of the theft or the projects.)

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:16 AM

XCpt in the ether replied:

Murder and theft are crimes because they have victims, regardless of the moral code of either party. Bringing morality into play as defining what is a crime results in the condition of determining who's morality is superior, and therefore infringed, when someone in society commits one act or another that is considered a violation of those morals.

The law is meant to apply equally to all citizens of a nation, regardless of gender, age, race, etc. To apply your moral standard to who should be allowed to be married implies that your morals are superior and makes a law, or benefit of a law, discriminatory against anyone that holds a different moral standard.

If marriage, by law, provides a benefit to two citizens that is not available to any two other citizens, because of their age, gender, race, etc. than that law is discriminating against them. You need to take off your moral blinders and look at the injustice that is generated by ANY law that discriminates against, or provides a favor to, one segment of society over another. You don't have to participate in gay marriage, or agree with it based on your personal morality, but to deny citizens of this country the same legal rights as any other couple of citizens is a violation of their pursuit of happiness.

God may have created man/woman, but he didn't create the government that discriminates against members of our society that keep them from enjoying the same privileges of other members of society. It was people that thought they were morally superior to everyone else and wanted the law to reflect their values. Hardly what I would consider equal justice under the law if one group can enjoy the benefits provided by it when another group cannot.

Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 4:35 PM

wjm in Colorado said:

This is the goal of the marxists, they get rid of all the morality in society, get rid of GOD, and declare themselves the highest authority. The only rights we will have are those they deem suitable. If the Democrats continue the train wreck of Marxist Ideology, the Republic is over. Democrats are Traitors.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Dick Boas in Long Pond, PA said:

Mr. Jeffrey: According to scripture; G-d created Adam and Eve. He did not create Adam and Steve. When will the fairies get that? Thanks, Dick

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Master Gunny in Tifton GA said:

It is time for the church to take the offensive and expose atheist hypocrisy for what it is.

I suggest that a lawsuit be filed demanding that laws against theft, murder, manslaughter, fraud, perjury, and a host of others be removed from the books because they are a violation of the separation of church and state. Since all of these issues are contained in the Bible, and since most of these laws have their origin from Biblical principles, then to enforce them is to force upon society a religious viewpoint.

In a world where we are merely the product of chance and natural selection what need have we archaic rules established by religious zealots? In the brave new world that follow the abolition of all religiously based law the strong will survive, the weak will perish, and mankind will, theoretically, advance to new heights. Of course the weak may not like this agenda but since they will rapidly perish their complaints will be weak and short-lived.

The reality is the atheist could not live in the world that their "religion" would create. The very basis of their faith is immediately slaughtered by the cold and hard blows that logically follows from their dogma.

On what basis does a crippled person have to exist? They return less value for the expenditures necessary to keep them alive. In a world where I have a lust for a new, and expensive, car what fault should accrue to me if I steal yours; you being less well armed or ruthless? In a Darwinian world (that may be our future) no sense or morality will exist nor could it survive. Law becomes whatever is convenient for me at the moment.

The problem with Biblical standards is that they come in a complete package. If you accept that “thou shalt not kill” then you are also subscribing to the other rule, “a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman.” Picking and choosing the laws that you want to obey is to subvert not only the whole but also the basis of all law. Moreover the AIDS pandemic provides ample reason why the law was given to us in the first place. With between 20 and 40 percent of all male homosexuals HIV positive is not that sufficient reason to condemn the practice? And what if HIV morphs and becomes contagious from breathing or touching? Will society then be so cavalier about the laws passed through Moses to countless generations?

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska said:

Terence Jeffrey: "A state that no longer recognizes that it is subservient to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God will also no longer recognize the God-given rights of individuals."

Ted Weiland: The State has recognized it is subservient to Yahweh since Article made the Constitution the supreme law of the land:

"...The framers were fully cognizant of the word “supreme” and its meaning when they declared the supremacy of the Constitution. In so doing, they made the law of Yahweh subservient to the law of WE THE PEOPLE.

'Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' (Matthew 15:6-9)

"The framers, and today’s political leaders and Constitutionalists pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees of Jesus’ day weren’t so brazen as to call their man-made traditions supreme....

"Constitutionalists who claim to be Christians will predictably add 'under God' or 'under the Bible' to the declaration in Clause 2. But their authority to do so is not derived from the Bible or the Constitution. This is another futile attempt to make the Constitution a Christian document and a classic case of trying to serve two masters. Either the Constitution must be rejected because it never was subservient to Yahweh’s law, or Yahweh’s law must be rejected because it demands any inferior constitution be subject to and in concert with its supreme law.

"If you choose to promote the Constitution on its own merit, that is your prerogative. However, if you choose to promote the Constitution as a Biblically based document, that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to provide Biblical sanction for his idolatry...."

For more, see online Chapter 9 "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Master Gunny in Tifton GA replied:

Sir,

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Master Gunny in Tifton GA replied:

Sir, With respects the constitution was written to provide a framework under which other laws would be written. The design presumed that the states would possess most of the power over the people and the federal government only over those things were common to more than one state (national defense for instance). The Constitution most emphatically DID seek ro prepetuate the the divine institutions that perpetuate freedom and good governance. the Bill of Rights specifically to enumerate those rights that the framers knew to be of divine origen. They knew that each state would squabble over specifics, especially regarding church/state relationships and therefore left those matters vague.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

Gunny, thanks for your response. Please allow me to comment on two of your statements:

1) " The Constitution most emphatically DID seek ro prepetuate the the divine institutions that perpetuate freedom and good governance."

If this is true then why is there hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality? See "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" (http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html) in which a chapter is devoted to every article and amendment comparing the two

2) "...the Bill of Rights specifically to enumerate those rights that the framers knew to be of divine origen." Here's the irony in this oft-parroted statement: Except in Article 7 as the paper's timekeeper), God is not mentioned in the Constitution, and rights (particularly those enumerated in the Bill of Rights) cannot be found in the Bible. See "Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/rights-rights-everyone-wants-their-rights/.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM

David in Mountain View Missouri replied:

The argument that because the U. S. Constitution says it is the “Supreme Law of the Land” thus it tries to nullify the Bible is both shallow and legalistic. To say this boldface is to show little effort in understanding the founded and intended structure of government, power, and authority as began by our Christian Founding Fathers. For the argument to be correct, the U. S Constitution must be supreme wholly and completely over all, yet it is not whatsoever. It is both subject to the states and the free men of this country “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 10th Amend.

An additional example is religious tests. They were not allowed at the federal level (Art.6), but the states had a higher authority still, as Art. 1 Sec, 2 shows they could test representatives to the House. And the states themselves did have such tests in their state constitutions and laws. Was this in defiance of an over reaching, humanist federal government? No, the very men who wrote and signed our federal constitution were party to these state constitutions. They understood the sovereignty, power and authority of the states was higher than the federal government. Each state was not a vessel or lower level of government to the Federal government as is the false mindset today, but a free state that voluntarily entered into this Union with other free states. They hold authority and rights that cannot be legally violated or infringed upon.

The free citizen of this nation and each state also is superior in authority and rights over the U. S. Constitution. As the a member of the legal party We the People, we enacted this very Constitution, by the power and authority invested in us by God to have “dominion over all that is in the earth” (Gen. 1:26), just as we have power over the states.

Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 1:14 AM

David in Mountain View Missouri replied:

Just as God has granted us power, He is the source of this authority and power. Thus He is above the U. S. Constitution, the Free States and the free citizen. He has ordained each of these entities with their power, both directly (Rom. 13, Gen 1:26) and indirectly through His agents here on earth, that is His children; Christians. This is why the Christian Founders said for this government to work, it must be run by such agents of God. Because it is they who carry the power and authority to rule, correct, tear down or build up.

So why does the U. S. Constitution say it is the “Supreme Law of the Land”? It has to in legal speak to avoid appeals to arbitrary powers and authority seemingly over it by lawyers and other legalistic minded people (such as the Koran, Admiralty Law, another nation‘s law, the United Nations etc). You can’t just set the Bible over top of the U. S. Constitution, because it leaves no one to interpret and judge. The Bible is over top of the U. S. Constitution. It is the source of the law, authority and power that granted and established it, both from God directly (Rom.13), by the Sovereign States and by each Free Christian Man who holds the Bible and judges each matter from top to bottom, from legislation, to court cases to matters of state, to each candidate running for office. As long as this nation and government is dominated by Christians, then the Bible, God’s Word, is the true Supreme Law of the Land.

Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 1:14 AM

David in Mountain View Missouri replied:

And a little more to help Gunny on the Bill of Rights:
The argument of inalienable rights vs. duties and responsibilities is both false and hollow. It is solely based on the straw man that rights are optional while these God given duties and responsibilities are not optional. One; this concept would nullify the well excepted Christian doctrine of Freewill. God is not going to tie us up and drag us screaming into heaven. Each day we must make a choice whether to obey God or not. Over and over in the Bible God has said “choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh. 24:14-15). Second; those who espouse this idea put forth no scripture showing the concept of inalienable rights as being unbiblical. Third; the very scripture they put forth refutes their own argument. Rightly they say they show us our God given duties and responsibilities, but it is in these very scriptures that we are granted our inalienable rights.

Additionally if we come together to pool our resources in order to fulfill our obligations such as to provide safety and protection through our local police, militia, and neighborhood watch. If these were to became so proficient as to lower the crime rate to Mayberry standards. And then gun fatalities are primarily accidental shootings the question will be asked why are we allowing such deaths, it is irresponsible to have private gun ownership. At this point what argument do you have, since your duties and responsibilities have and are being fulfilled? None. But thankfully God did not set things up this way, for all institutions whether government, public or private, are made with men's imperfect minds and hands. Thus they will succumb to corruption and the use of tyranny, no matter how much scriptures they codify into their laws. The only safe guard for society, for our liberty, prosperity, and welfare, is that citizen practice their inalienable rights in fulfillment of their God given duties and responsibilities in accordance with their convictions of faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else save for God above.

Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 1:19 AM

David in Mountain View Missouri replied:

“Rights” as in such as those recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are real and Biblical in our horizontal relationship with men. These are God given, inalienable rights granted by the duties and responsibilities God has given us in Scripture. Some examples are Gen. 1:26 were we are given dominion over the earth and all that is in it and “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1st Tim. 5:8). Providing means such things as security, food, shelter, etc, so from these passages we see our right to self defense and to bear arms, property rights and security of property etc. Everyone of our true rights can be found in Scripture like this.

Before God, in our vertical relationship what we call “rights” are necessary parts of duties and responsibilities He has given us. Yet before Him, we do have rights, but a different type of rights. As sons of the living God and “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17) we have the right to pension Him in prayer (John 14:14, Mat. 7:7-8). We have all the covenants, birthrights, and promises we can claim as ours with the rights and privileges they include. Yes, God reserves His right as Sovereign over all, but He still grants us these rights as Christians and as applicable, as immortal beings “created in His image”. So it is incorrect to say we do not have rights.

Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 1:19 AM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

Any rights as sons of God (I prefer to look at them at gifts, which puts the emphasis on God instead of ourselves) has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, which, for the most part, are both antithetical and hostile to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality, as I demonstrate by comparing the two in "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Book Page and click on the top entry.

Friday, March 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM

David in Mountain View Missouri replied:

Up comes the white flag! I presented detailed, scripture backed arguments and his reply? "No that is wrong!" Not much strength to his doctrines.

Monday, April 1, 2013 at 1:03 AM

Brian in Newport News replied:

"Second; those who espouse this idea put forth no scripture showing the concept of inalienable rights as being unbiblical."

True, there is no scripture that specifically grants "unalienable rights". The idea of unalienable rights comes from the very fact that one exists: God is the Creator, He created you, thus your right to life was obviously granted by God. From this springs so many others: the right to defend your life and your property and the right to pursue happiness.

Excellent argument, David!!!

Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

If you're a conservative Christian, you should ask yourself: would YOU ever even consider making such a statement that anything other the Yahweh's morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments is supreme. If you would (I certainly wouldn't), but if you would, would you make such a statement without some kind of explanation indicating the limited sense in which you we're making such a statement?

All of David's musings are nullified by the fact that nowhere did the framers of the federal Constitution declare that the Constitution was based upon or under the superior supreme law--that is, Yahweh's perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11). What David declares is completely overshadowed by what the framers DIDN'T say.

Of course, if they had, they would have never used their superior law statement regarding the Constitution in the first place. If if were merely an oversight (and WHAT an oversight), look where we are today because of that oversight.

Their near silence in the Constitution, federalist papers, etc. regarding Yahweh, Christ, His Word, kingdom, and laws is deafening, while at the same time speaking volumes regarding where these men were religiously.

Lastly, even had they declared the Constitution subservient to the Yahweh, His kingdom and laws, the fact that there is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality is ultimately what determines whether the Constitution is Biblically compatible--Matthew 7:21-23. See "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" (http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html) in which I devote a chapter to each article and amendment comparing it to the Bible and thereby demonstrate they are not compatible at all.

Friday, March 29, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Chris in Wisconsin replied:

What part of "My Law is perfect, you shall not add or subtract therefrom" don't you understand ???

The Constitution is not the answer, it's the under lying problem. The Almighty told you in His Word that His Laws, Statutes and Judgments are perfect and "Thou shalt not add or subtract therefrom." He is to be the only Lawgiver, not the Congress provided for in that constitution that is claimed to be so great and "Christian"!

Legislative and presidential offices to do just that, i.e., "add or subtract therefrom." The making of Law is a power that belongs to Him and Him alone!

Malim in se (evil in and of itself as defined by The Great I Am, the ONLY lawgiver) vs. malim prohibitum (evil because someone determines, or legislates, it to be evil).

This legislative process provided the vehicle for the enemy to corrupt over time (via gradual increments) and finally take over. This nation wanted to determine what was "good and evil" (remember the garden?), instead of enforcing His Perfect Moral Laws.

Moreover, The Constitutional Republic, created by the god "We The People", has died.

Don't agree ?

Tell me about all the things you're "free" to do without getting permits, licenses, etc. ????

How about all those draconian laws you're now oppressed by and those who pull you over and demand "your papers please" (a.k.a. driver's license, registration and proof of insurance)???

Oh, and how's that constitutionally correct Obamanation wasn't born here challenge been working out so far ???

Continued on next post.

Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Chris in Wisconsin replied:

The truth of the matter is: For the most part, this nation has turned it's back on and, in essence, "flipped the bird" to The Great I Am that became flesh and dwelt among us. And because this nation as a whole hates the truth, here's what's happened to it:

Because they do not have a love of the truth, God has sent them a strong delusion, so that they will believe what is false in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in lawlessness. 2 Thessalonians 2: 10 - 12.

The only way to save this nation is to turn back to Him, His Perfect Moral Laws, Statutes and Judgments, i.e., His Kingdom/Will On Earth.

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, And I will give you rest. Take My yoke (i.e., His Law 1 John 5: 2 & 3) upon you , and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and 'YOU SHALL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.' (Jer. 6: 16). My yoke is easy, and My load is light." Matthew 11: 28 - 30.

Seek Him while He may yet be found.

Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 8:31 PM

David in Mountain View Missouri replied:

Well said Gunny!

Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 1:12 AM

Norm in Galena, Missouri replied:

Ted, along with many others, I also follow these postings, and once again, you're right on target! In fact, poignantly on target! The U.S. Constitution has become our National Idol (hey, seriously, what a name for a reality show).

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Brian Adler in Idaho replied:

Really, Norm? As an alumni of the "Ted Weiland Idol Worship School", you could at least be a better attack dog for Ted, instead of this gentle mushy stuff. Ted isn't looking for cheerleaders, he wants the kind of obnoxious, half-brain attackers like T. Edward Price. BTW, The U.S. Constitution is an idol only for those of you who can't get it through your thick skulls that it's what is in your heart (and mind) that makes you an idol worshiper; not any piece of paper or dead white guys who wrote the papers! Stick to your what you do best; singing with your family at Branson. Hope you have a successful/busy summer of gigs.

Friday, March 29, 2013 at 7:18 AM

HP in Kalispell, CA said:

Chief Justice Roberts already told us we have no rights with his decision on Odumbass Care. This will merely reinforce the message.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Honest Abe in North Carolina said:

Just as the left is ready to show piles of dead bodies to support the banning of guns and the eradication of war, let the government show every American child and their parents in school how homosexuals perform love-making to each other. I guarantee, with one lurid showing, there will not be another cry for "gay rights".

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 2:56 PM

MAJ USA Ret in Saint Louis said:

How absurdly ludicrous to think we can change the one, single and only institution that has remained constant across the vast menagerie of cultures throughout the panoply of social history.
Consider cave dwellers, tree dwellers, hunter-gatherers, nomads, farmers, ranchers, aborigines, villagers, islanders, mountain and cave dwellers, seaside cultures, rain forest tribes, Eskimos, oriental, native American, Polynesian, … etc. The differences in cultural norms of these groups could not be more diverse. But one thing was common: marriage between one man and one woman. And then consider social evolution. While the vast majority of cultures have evolved well into the industrial age, still today there are tribes living as close to the same manner as they have done so for thousands of years. And some, like this nation, have moved past the nuclear age, the space age and is now in the information age. And still, there is only one common cultural norm: marriage is one man and one woman. Finally, consider religions: there exists not one single major religion in the world today that does not endorse as the ideal definitiona marriage between one man and one woman.
It’s one thing to be ignorant. It’s quite another to be ignorant and proud of it. But what do you call a person who when confronted with the obvious reality asserts it is not true?
Any who asserts marriage can be anything else but one man and one woman needs a reality check – fast! Else, they should be institutionalized for their own good.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas replied:

I have to disagree with your final statement: "Any who asserts marriage can be anything else but ONE man and ONE woman needs a reality check – fast! Else, they should be institutionalized for their own good." (Emphasis added.)

As I wrote in response to Michael Reagan's article on the same subject: Abraham (known as the "friend of God" in James 2:23) had more than one wife. Jacob (from whom God brought forth the twelve tribes of Israel) had four wives. David (a "man after God's own heart" in Acts 13:22) had a bunch of wives. Solomon (to whom God gave more wisdom than any other man) had HUNDREDS of wives.

Polygamy created problems for all four of them, although Jacob seems to have managed it reasonably well (and it has probably worked out well for some people: it's been around a VERY long time for some reason), but to say that marriage can ONLY consist of ONE man and ONE woman is ahistorical and counter-factual.

As much as I dislike the idea of "Gay Marriage" (which I consider a contradiction in terms), the author is conflating two problems. The government schools need not teach ANYTHING about marriage, since the government should not be in the education business anyway. Since this is not about putting legal restrictions on what people do in the own bedrooms, it can only be about defining the legal parameters of how people choose to live their lives. I'm pretty sure the right to freely associate with whomever you want, however you want, is an actual right - a certain bunch of Dead White Guys in powdered wigs certainly seemed to think so.

Here's the issue: the state has no business regulating marriage at all.

Here's the solution: if the FedGov would just stay within the limits of the Constitution we wouldn't have to have this discussion. My wife and I are married because we made vows, not because a state says we're married. The state seal on our marriage license merely stipulates that the state acknowledges the legality of a union that would exist with or without its imprimatur or approval.

Traditional marriage (of which I am an advocate), and our liberties (of which I am also an advocate) face MUCH bigger threats than this.

Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Chris in Wisconsin replied:

You are correct about more than one wife being sanctioned by The Great I Am Himself (providing it's done properly, according to His Law).

However, you are not correct about "what people do in their own bedrooms", "married" or not.

The same God that sanctioned more than one wife, mandated that those sexual perverts be put to death upon conviction via public participating execution. Leviticus 18: 22 – 29; 20: 13.

The general principle is to rid the land of the evil: "Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you." Deuteronomy 13: 11. and 17: 7 "So shall you purge the evil from your midst."

And regarding your marriage license, look up the definition of "license" in any law dictionary. It will define it similar to this: "Permission to do that which, without said license, would be unlawful, a tort or a trespass.

Why do you think these sexual perverts want to be able to get a license ??
They WANT to have PERMISSION TO BREAK HIS LAW !!

Although it may not have been your intent, but you went to your state and asked for permission to either break a law, commit a tort or trespass in order for you to "marry". By doing so, you entered into a contract with the state and had it create a Limited Partnership or Limited Business Partnership as described in Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS).

What the state creates, it most certainly can and will regulate.

So, regarding your statement: "Here's the issue: the state has no business regulating marriage at all." It most certainly does with yours and all others with a marriage license ! And any children (or issue of that Limited Partnership) become wards of the state and you and your wife are the baby sitters.

That's why you could go to jail for spanking the child or be ordered to allow a doctor to poison that child with chemo or radiation in the event the child contracts some debilitating disease like canser. The child doesn't belong to you, it's a ward of the state.

(Side Note: Ever wonder why there's no jury in divorce cases ?????)

The only solution for this nation is to turn back to Him, His Laws, Statutes and Judgments, His Kingdom/Will on earth.

Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Brian in Newport News said:

All this hula balloo about gay marriage can be boiled down to one thing and one cause: money and the Federal government. Why do gays want their relationships to be recognized? Because they can gain benefits afforded married couples (inheritance, and such). If the Federal Government did not meddle in unconstitutional things, this would never have come about. They would have been content to continue living together as they have done for decades, decrying marriage as "just a piece of paper" as it was described in the '60's.

Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Francis E. Flesch in Great Falls, MT said:

With all the talk about morality, legality, Adam & Eve, I pose one question. What would your response or reaction be if one of your immediate family members come out of the closet, would you still hold your same beliefs? Think about it, you might have to eat crow. I know, I did, and I will not relinquish my love for the grandikid because of this. After all, he did not choose this lifestyle, he was born with it.

Friday, March 29, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Chris in Wisconsin said:

Regarding the sexual pervert problem. Here's the only solution:

First, there’s the need for the offender to turn back to The Great I Am that became flesh and dwelt among us, with Confession of Him as your salvation and Kinsmen Redeemer, repentance and baptism (full immersion) in His name. Acts 2: 38.

If the sin continues: 1 Corinthians 5: 4-5.

For those who will not repent: Leviticus 18: 22 – 29; 20: 13

The general principle is to rid the land of the evil: "Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you." Deuteronomy 13: 11. and 17: 7 "So shall you purge the evil from your midst."

The only solution for this nation is to turn back to Him, His Laws, Statutes and Judgments, His Kingdom/Will on earth.

Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Jonathan Hertzog in PA said:

And that one mention of the Creator in the Declaration of Independence, which, FYI, is NOT the document our government is based on, is the first and last time it was ever mentioned by our forefathers in any text that matters. The Constitution, on the other hand, pays no heed to a mythical Iron Age fairy tale or the mistranslated and hear-say compiled book it's followers hold to be their Holy Book. Oh, and if said book contains verses that describe how to treat your slaves, it gives up ALL RIGHTS to claim any sort of moral superiority.

Homosexual activity is found in 450 different species on this world, so much for Nature's Law.

If you choose to believe that homosexual activity is immoral and against your creed, then fine. Don't do it. But you are not allowed to impose your own beliefs on the rest of society. You are not exercising your rights as believers, you are demanded everyone else submit to them. The Constitution doesn't allow for that, because no laws that respect an Establishment of Religion can pass Constitutional muster.

Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 1:36 AM