Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Gay Marriage

The SCOTUS decision can't possibly mean anything to Bible believing Christians. Nations come and go in history. The US is no different. One day it will no longer exist. That is reality. What some government decides about the definition of a certain word does not preempt God's Word. All of this debate is about money and people living outside of God's commands wanting acceptance. If every Christian denomination accepted gay marriage, it wouldn't change God's Word.

This whole issue is a lot about nothing. Why would you desire the agreement of a government that denies God's Word in so many other areas. Your enemies, often, define who you are more than your friends. If the masses want to give financial benefit to certain types of individuals based on who they have sex with, it is no concern of mine. It won't change my belief in God's Word, nor will it change what the Bible says about it. It certainly won't change the effects of such arrangements. Gravity is what it is. The more you try to prove it doesn't exist, the more you prove its existence.

Life will not end if the SCOTUS decides black is white and white is black. Lot was saved. We just need to focus on what matters, and it isn't black robe decisions.


  1. stg58/Animal MotherMarch 27, 2013 at 9:35 AM

    This situation is wholly the fault of Christians.

    Why would we ask government to regulate marriage? Marriage licenses were the camel's nose in the tent. Why would we give the government any role in marriage at all? Once we gave government this power it is only a matter of time before it decides to define marriage to suit its own goals.

    This reminds me of the Israelites rejecting God and asking for a king.

    If we really wanted to save marriage we would abolish the family court system, no fault divorce, etc. etc.

  2. Sorry, but this most certainly is important. It matters. The softness of the Church on societal and cultural issues will be an idictment to it.

    The real issue is about justice. Benefits given to those traditionally married are b/c they provide more to society than singles. Same-sex couples do not provide those benefits to sodiety, and shouldn't receive any in return.

    Justice is important to God, yet it doesn't come up often in the Churches I've attended, nor on Christian radio broadcasts. Usually they insist they're focusing on "what matters".

    As for gov't being involved in marriage, historically, marriage had a huge role in government, not the reverse. Tribes/clans developed from married patriarchs. Different tribes often ceased warring and were brought together through marriages. This continued up to the level of nations. Furthermore, there are many legal/societal issues relating to marriage, issues that go beyond civil/contract law. Getting "government out of marriage" is an anachronism, and a misplaced belief that it will improve things or save costs.

  3. SD: I agree; what the ungodly government decides has no bearing upon the Absolute Truth of God. It's just sad, that's all. Personally, I would like to see a REAL display of civil disobedience by Bible-believing Christians seeking true, Godly, Covenant marriage between themselves and God. I would like to see them refuse to marry with State issued marriage licenses, and instead, have private ceremonies uniting them in matrimony as the early settlers of America did. I would like to see the marriages recorded only in family bibles and excluded from public record amongst ungodly "marriages" endorsed/performed by the State.


    1. Hi Song,
      This was an RLB post but needless to say, I agree. :)

  4. Song: I wrote an essay just last night regarding Covenants vs. Public Record. I used quite a bit of sarcasm (couldn't resist). But I'm totally serious about encouraging my kids NOT to "marry."

    SD: I've been a silent admirer up until now. THANK YOU for your commitment to the Truth.

    -Amanda, writing at selfishintoservice(.)blogspot(.)com

  5. stg58/Animal MotherMarch 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM


    Marriage as a diplomacy or foreign policy tool is different than government control and regulation of it. Yes, aristocracts and nobility have used it as a handy leverage tool for millenia, but they are getting married anyway.

    Apples and oranges.

  6. We need to be fighting to get government OUT of marriage, for everyone, especially Christians. This idea that we have to force the definition of marriage is so disturbingly wrong, that there are no kind words I can say about it at the moment.

  7. Much as I dislike the government in marriage (or anything), if we say the government should have the power to forbid us to murder and steal, we should also allow it to forbid us to commit adultery.

    That said, fornication and no-fault divorce already being legal, gay marriage would be spitting on a corpse after you've already dismembered it. I can't bring myself to get worked up about it.

    Homosexuality is the product of the destruction of marriage, not the other way around.

  8. I agree with most of the comments. DrTorch, I think you would be more in favor of the founder's intent which would be local control over such issues. We have lost so much of the founder's intent that at this point it does seem like, "spitting on a corpse." The limited, federal model really was inspiring and awesome. These weren't a bunch of idiots trying to figure out the best form of government. They had many competing ideologies trying come together. Unfortunately, the respect of local control over such issues has been completely washed away.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.