How Exactly Do We Get Government Out of Marriage

After years of saying that marriage was “nothing more than a piece of paper” or “oppressive to women”, the Left’s assault on the family has, as you are certainly aware, temporarily switched to insisting that it is vitally important for two lesbians be able to enter into such oppression by being able to legally “marry” without a groom, and if you don’t agree, it means you want to beat little girls to death for being tomboys.

Some on the Left, many libertarians, and some weary conservatives who mistakenly think it will get the whiny homosexuality advocates to shut up say, “Get government out of marriage!”

Oh, it may sound nice. However, what it really is, in addition to being the Left’s real goal in the matter (after they use neutered “marriage” to beat down anything that depicts heterosexual behavior as qualitatively different from homosexual behavior) is… impossible.

It is impossible to get government out of marriage.

Someone might say that government didn’t get into marriage until only a few hundred years ago, but they are neglecting to mention that before that, churches functioned as government, at least to some extent. With the secularization of government, the government has unavoidably retained involvement in marriage.

From a strictly legal perspective, what exactly is marriage? 



1) First and foremost, it is a financial partnership. Unless (and sometimes even if) there is an extensive, thorough, and valid prenuptial agreement that provides otherwise, marriage involves the mingling of assets and sharing of earnings acquired during the marriage. As such, in determining the amount of child support owed to a child of Spouse A, Spouse B’s income can also be taken into account. This financial partnership can also be evidenced in credit scores, judgments, etc. That marriage is a financial partnership is demonstrated severely in the event of a divorce. 

2) In most places, marriage provides default paternity. This is supposedly to protect children (and their mothers) from abandonment, but it also reduces the likelihood taxpayers will be on the hook to care for needy children and their mothers, and it also aids men who want access to their offspring and to include their offspring as dependents and beneficiaries.

3) Marriage provides default next-of-kin status. For example, absent a directive that says otherwise, if man gets into a car accident and is rushed to a hospital in critical condition, his next-of-kin makes medical decisions for him. If he has a girlfriend, but not a lawful wife, then his parents, siblings, or children will be making the decision, no matter how long he’s been seeing that girlfriend. However, if he’d married that girlfriend the year before, she is now next-of-kin. Our immigration laws also take kinship into account. As such, that same man can’t import his girlfriend as easily as he can import his wife. I frequently take and make calls on behalf of my wife, something I couldn’t do if she was not my wife.

4) Marriage provides default beneficiary status. This is much like the point above. 

5) Marriage is more intimate than a citizen's relation to the state. In certain circumstances, spouses can’t be compelled to testify against each other in court.

Marriage used to be a license to live together and have sex, but that has been almost entirely removed from the legalities of marriage. For the most part, people are now entirely free to associate in these ways without a marriage license.

Given these realities, how is it possible to get government out of marriage? 

Yes, the government can stop issuing and keeping marriage licenses, but all that would do is create more private paperwork and increase the involvement of courts, which are part of government. 

How would assets be split up in the event of a divorce or breakup? The same way as when there is a dispute between roommates - by courts, which are government. Some people will say spouses should not have joint accounts or community property anyway, but is that really the family culture we want to foster?

Yes, government can leave women entirely in control of their newborns, forcing men to sue if they want to be involved or women to sue if the man does not want involvement, and again, that would involve the courts, which are government. 

A lot of people don’t have wills, trusts, advanced directives, and other paperwork they should, and without a state marriage license, courts will have to get involved more. One of the arguments of marriage neutering advocates has been that brideless or groomless couples shouldn’t have to do all of that extra paperwork. Marriage abolitionists want EVERYONE to have to do all of that extra paperwork.

So spouses would no longer be exempt from testifying against each other? Do you want someone to have to walk on eggshells in front of their spouse for fear that the government could compel their spouse to rat them out for even thinking about the most minor offenses, or blowing off steam with figures of speech?

Why should the government “get out of marriage” but not “get out of birth”? Or, why are there government birth certificates? If you say birth certificates help protect a child’s rights, I maintain that a marriage license also does this. The natural process of birth is almost always preceded by a natural joining of a man and a woman, no matter how temporary. The paperwork deals with these realities.

No state in the union created marriage. States have simply recognized and recorded something that already existed, because such unions bring together both sexes, create a new unit that is the basic building block of families and society, usually join two families, and usually create the next generation of citizens. Abandoning state marriage licensing would only “get the government out of” an extremely tiny percentage of marriages - ones that never involve children, last until both spouses die simultaneously, never involve one spouse being unable to make their own medical decisions, etc. In reality, getting rid of state marriage licenses would bring more government into our lives, because marriage licenses are a paperwork shortcut.

Leftists who say “get the the government out of marriage” are like abortion advocates who want to implement King Solomon’s “solution” of cutting the baby in half. Are we, as a society, to say that people who do not want to be married by clergy or are unable to find willing clergy (perhaps Atheists or noncongregants of whatever sort) should not be able to get married? No more marriages by judges, justices of the peace, or other secular officials?

As written by DarwinCatholic:

The state cannot duck the situation, because arbitrating property disputes is one of its most basic purposes, and determining who constitutes a household is one of the basic elements of resolving property disputes.

As James Joyner put it:

Now, I suppose we could replace it with a set of complicated contracts:  wills, powers of attorney, adoptions, and so forth.  But that would be much more burdensome than a single legal act that solves the issues.  And there’s always the chance of sudden death that puts things into legal limbo before the parties would have an opportunity to execute a particular contract.  Say, one parent dies during childbirth or just before.  Now, custody is a non-issue if the couple is married.   If the parents were in a mere business relationship consecrated by a series of contracts, it would be murkier and require legal wrangling at a particularly emotional time.

Presumably, all of that’s solvable.   But, essentially, you’d be re-creating civil marriage under another name.   Which seems rather pointless, since we already have it.

The state gets involved in marriage because it unites a man and a woman in the kind of a relationship that naturally creates new citizens, even if not every single relationship does. The state is involved because of biological realities, not because of claimed attractions or love. The state and society simply do not have the same interest when there is no bride or there is no groom, and that is why brideless or groomless pairings were not considered or recognized as marriage in any culture in history, even ones where homosexual behavior was openly accepted and celebrated. 

Is It Time For Churches to Ignore State "Marriage" Licenses?

I'm bumping up this old entry. I should probably write a new version soon.



As marriage neutering activists have tied up courts across the country and shoehorned their talking points into television shows and other media, some members of the clergy have said they don't mind or even support the neutering of state licenses, because according to them, state marriage licenses have nothing to do with church wedding ceremonies. I have suspected that most clergy making such statements are either full of dung (hey, that’s Biblically appropriate language) or haven't thought through what they’re saying.

How could it be tested?

What it would take is for a couple to approach a such member of the clergy and ask to get married by that person in his or her church. If the clergy agrees, the couple could then explain that this would not be a legally recognized marriage as they would not have a state marriage license, because both of them are still legally married to other people. Those marriages were performed at a county office, by a non-clergy officiant, and that they both consider those marriages dead, perhaps because of infidelity on the part of their partners (a Biblical justification to divorce).

Would the clergy still perform the wedding? If not, then they were not being honest or coherent in their statements that state licenses are a separate matter. If they would perform the wedding, then at least they would be consistent.

What is marriage, according to the Bible?

They Seem To Have Skipped Over Something

Something that made the social networking rounds is the graphic found at this link. Supposedly, it is "How to Explain Marriage Equality to an Idiot"

Tired of hearing the rightwing nutjobs claim that if gays and lesbians can get married, soon people will be marrying their dog or their toaster? Here's a handy dandy chart to help you patiently explain the obvious differences.

Good use of "handy dandy", too. Extra points for that.

Notice what's missing?

The common question asked by people who, like every great civil rights leader in history, like every major religious tradition, like every person involved in writing and adopting the Constitution, and like every President up through this writing, understands that marriage unites a bride and a groom, is "If we change marriage laws to include homosexual relationships, why not polygamous relationships, incestuous relationships, pedophiliac relationships, relationships with animals, and relationships with inanimate objects?"

The text and the graphic completely ignore polygamous and incestuous relationships. I can only guess as to why. Here are my guesses:

1. These people want those relationships to get marriage licenses, too.

2. They realize the same justification they use for neutering marriage licenses also applies to polygamous and incestuous relationships.

Of course, we all know it is ridiculous to compare same-sex relationships to heterosexual polygamy and incest. After all, the latter two kinds of relationships have been historically recognized as valid marriages.

Oh, and by the way, homosexual people can get married, whether they want to or not. What we're opposed to is equating nonmarital relationships, including brideless or groomless relationships, to marriage, not "gays getting married".

Regarding adults marrying children: There are organizations pushing to lower the age of consent, and organizations that advocate the "rights of children" in a way that would also support a child being legally able to consent to marriage over the objections of their own parents.

Regarding "marrying" animals: There are governments seriously considering recognizing some (non-human) animals as persons. Why wouldn't such persons have the right to marry other persons?

And yes, some people have "married" inanimate objects.

The point is, the marriage neutering activists, like the marriage defenders, believe that marriage means something and that whatever doesn't fall into that category isn't marriage. It is a dispute of definitions, not a matter of hatred. The definition that marriage unites a bride and groom has been the universal definition through all of the cultural differences. Two men can't consent to marry each other any more than they can consent to an ash tray being food. Without both a bride and a groom, it isn't marriage, and that some governments have recently said otherwise only shows those governments to be defective, along the line of a government that would label water as cow's milk. One bride, one groom IS marriage equality.

We have our own graphic for people having a tough time understanding this.

Memorial Day

May we never forget the sacrifice of each and every fallen soldier who fought for us with honor. It is true that freedom isn't free. God bless the loved ones of those who have fallen. Thank you all for what you have given.

Wanted: Presidential Candidate

Required Qualifications:

1. Believes in a higher power - an omniscient, judging authority and future state of rewards and punishments for actions in this life.

2. Has integrity, ethics, morality, and discipline as demonstrated in both professional and personal life. Owns up to and has worked to correct mistakes.

3. Is a proven leader, manager, and appointer as demonstrated from previous experience.

4. Takes national security seriously, including control of borders/ports, and willing to use intelligence, covert operations, and military force to kill our enemies, break their things, and disrupt their threats to the U.S. Will ensure our military personnel, active and retired, are appropriately supplied and assisted.

5. Recognizes that both Islamofascism and European-style socialism are incompatible with and a threat to Western civilization and the American way of life; believes in American Exceptionalism, and has a grand vision for the union.

6. Recognizes Israel as beneficial to American interests.

7. Accepts the Constitution as the highest law of the land, not foreign documents, courts, personalities, organizations, or opinion polls; believes that the Constitution limits government, including the judiciary.

8. Believes in the sanctity and worth of individual human life from conception until natural death; seeks to treat individuals equally based on what they do, not based on identity politics.

9. Recognizes and respects the definition, roles, differences, and necessity to the American way of life of: marriage & family, business, government, church (or equivalent), and charities and civic organizations.


Preferred Qualities:

10. Has executive and foreign policy experience.

11. Will promote and support tax reforms that will move us away from federal income taxes towards a system primarily consisting of user fees and tariffs, supplemented, if necessary, by “sales taxes”.

12. Will work to eliminate or reduce federal government involvement in education, health care, business, and any activity not clearly stated as a federal responsibility in the Constitution, instead encouraging voluntary, private action, and state and local involvement only where and when appropriate; will seek real reform of Social Security, Medicare, etc.

13. Will support easing the immigration process for those who demonstrate a desire to legally immigrate, become naturalized, and become law-abiding, productive, integrated members of American society who are loyal to our Constitution and our way of life. In the event of an actual and detrimental labor shortage, will allow businesses to import temporary labor.

14. Promotes voluntary, proven conservation as opposed to using government force to force businesses and individuals to comply with the demands of alarmist activists.

15. Is effective at communicating and defending these principles.

16. Will not fall into the siren call of MSM praise for "bipartisanship", "listening", "international cooperation", and "change" - which are all codewords for supporting Leftist causes - to the detriment of these principles.


Notice I do not mention race, ethnicity, age, appearance, education level, sex, specific religion, marital status, or even political party. That's because as long as the person is described above, I don't care about those other things.

Of the current candidates, is there anyone who meets #1-9? Who meets #10?

Oral Arguments at SCOTUS Over State Resistance to Marriage Neutering

Today is the day.

It wasn't all that long ago that the Supreme Court of the United States handled a marriage neutering case and indicated that the federal government, despite having the Defense of Marriage Act, had to defer to what states called marriage licenses. Thus, if a state had issued a "marriage" license to a groomless couple, the federal government had to recognize them as married for tax purposes.

Will the Court now turn around  and say, "Never mind! States must listen to the federal government on this matter since the federal government (federal courts) are requiring states to neuter their licenses."?



In the prior case, the Court did not find that there was a right to get a state marriage license without a bride or without a groom, only that if a state issued licenses in those cases, the federal government had to recognize them.



It would seem to me that if the 14th Amendment or any other part of our Constitution required states to neuter their licenses, SCOTUS should have said so back then. Ah, but maybe these dances in the courts aren't about ensuring that people have their rights, but rather social engineering at a calculated pace?

There are many larger issues involved here beyond the laws of one state or another, including the nature of rights and what makes something a right, the role of the federal judiciary, the role of states in licensing marriage, and public policy as it relates to family.



Even the MSM, or Marriage Neutering Media, is admitting that the Notorious RBG has more or less announced her decision to support neutering marriage ahead of hearing oral arguments. The shrieking and whining and general hysteria would be unbearable if Scalia had indicated his intention to rebuff the marriage neutering activists. RBG and perhaps another pro-neutering member of the Court should recuse themselves, but of course everything has to be sacrificed on the altar of esteeming homosexual behavior, whether it is sound precedent, obvious differences between men and women, protocol, and anything else that keeps the activists from being able to force everyone to celebrate their orgasms.

The best ruling SCOTUS could issue is to indicate that when they said the federal government needs to defer to states, they meant it, and thereby overturn most of the federal court decisions.


The people who say that neutering marriage, especially through federal judicial activism, will have no result other than simply allowing two men or two women to get a marriage license are either lying or severely naive. The naive people fail to grasp how marriage is part of a systematic way things are organized, both legally and socially.

However, there are ways SCOTUS could rule that could have devastating results beyond the specific issue of marriage neutering, including, but certainly not limited to:

• They could explicitly establish that men and women are interchangeable. Federal law does not currently indicate this. The "Equal Rights Amendment" was never ratified and women are not required, as men are, to register for the draft.
• They could explicitly establish that people who identify as homosexual are a class in the same what that people born black are a class, needing the same kind of civil rights protections.
• Establishing a disconnect in law between marriage and parenting, indicating that marriage has nothing to do with raising children.
• New rights can be created.
• Opening the door wide to removing other requirements in state marriage licensing, such as those restricting the licenses to two unmarried people and restricting the licenses to people who do not have a close degree of consanguinity or previous affinity.

It is possible they could allow the federal rulings imposing marriage neutering stand without explicitly doing these things as a settled matter, but would they handle it that way? And in the long run, won't any ruling they make advancing the neutering of marriage empower the activists to do those things?

Maybe you're somebody who thinks all of those things would be great. And if you honestly admit that, I can respect where you are coming from even though I strongly disagree. But if you've been lying about it, well, you'd better hope that the tactics and precedents you have been using don't come back to bite you when they are used for something you don't like. And if you have just kind of gone along with what you think would make your friends and family and fictional television characters happy, you're in for a rude awakening if the homofascists gain more power. Hopefully, your awakening will not come too late.

Click on the tags to this post for previous postings about this topics.

No Means No

Are we obligated to enshrine something into law simply because a minority has asked us to?

The answer, of course, is no.  Even if that group thinks it is their right, that does not obligate us to do anything and should not obligate a court to rule in their favor. Any group can get organized and ask for something, and then claim that their group is being treated unfairly if they don't get what they want. Any group can claim that something is a right, but it doesn't make it so.

When someone asks for a change in how a state issues licenses, such as marriage licenses, they are asking us (the people of the state) for something. We have the freedom to say "no".

People have a right to form voluntary associations - or not - and to offer their consent - or not.  So, if two women want to share a life together, they are free to do so, and if they can convince someone else to perform a ceremony for them, they can have one or they can even do one themselves. However, just as one woman can't force another woman to live with her, no group can force someone else - such as the people of a state - to consent to change marriage licensing.

Judges are representatives of the people. However, if the people, through their direct vote, have made their nonconsent clear, judges should not counter that.

There simply is no right to a state-issued license, and equal access to that license is already provided.

No means no. No court should force your belief – the belief that you should get a marriage license from us even though you are without a groom or without a bride - on the rest of us.

It's Reasonable to Defend Marriage

Bumping this up from May 2013:

Amy Hall at Stand to Reason blogged around the SCOTUS hearing on the marriage cases. She pointed out that "It's Not About Equality":

The term “marriage equality,” if it means “the right to marry whomever you want,” is simply not an accurate term for what same-sex marriage supporters are advocating—not if they favor any restrictions whatsoever (age, number of people, incest, etc.). The truth is that nearly everyone does favor a definition of marriage that has boundaries and thereby denies “marriage equality” to some category of couple (or group).

As you’re likely to hear this term often this week while the Supreme Court is reviewing Prop 8, below is a reposting of “We’re Arguing Definitions, Not Rights” that can help you move your conversations past the charge that you want to deny people equal rights to the real question: What is marriage?

And for a collection of links to more posts and resources discussing this issue, see “Three-Judge Panel Strikes Down Prop 8.”

From "We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights:

1. Nearly everyone who thinks the government ought to issue marriage licenses favors defining marriage in some way. That is, they favor excluding some combinations of people (polygamy, incest, etc.), not individuals, from the definition. Even judges. Even you!

All laws discriminate between behavior and/or limit the definition of something.

2. You can't consistently argue that by excluding certain combinations of people, traditional marriage violates equal rights—unless you also argue to remove every single boundary from the definition of marriage and say anyone can marry anyone, in whatever combination of numbers they like.

If the argument is consenting adults have the right to get "marriage" licenses with anyone they want to, then yes, all restrictions on adult relationships would have to be dropped to include everyone.

3. If you're not willing to argue this, then you're for having a definition with boundaries, which puts you on equal footing with the traditional marriage supporters.

4. So the question is, which definition should we use? It's fine for you to argue that your definition of "two people who love each other" is better than my definition of "one man, one woman," or someone else's definition of "one man, multiple women," but we need to start off by understanding that we're arguing definitions, not rights.

Precisely. Everyone has the same rights now. Everyone would have the same rights if licensing is neutered.

It's not unconstitutional to adopt either my or your definition, as long as it's applied equally to every individual. Remember that the Constitution doesn't recognize rights for combinations of people; rights only belong to individuals.

That's a very important point.

So one can't say that a man and five women have a right to get married; one can only say that each individual man or woman has the right to enter into marriage (no individual is excluded). This right is then acted upon according to the boundaries set by the state's definition of what marriage is—boundaries which are equally applied to every individual. You would like to equally apply the boundary of "two people who love each other" (excluding some other combinations), and I would like to apply the boundary of "one man, one woman" to each individual equally.

Later, she wrote Now We Wait for the Ruling

Over at First Things, Glenn Stanton comments on some good questions the Justices asked. I tracked down one of the quotes he cited from Justice Sotomayor to get more of the context:

SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked—and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people…the incest laws, the mother and child…I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?

OLSON: Well, you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages, raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you—if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.

The first mistake Olson makes here is that he thinks people are being denied marriage because of their sexual orientation (i.e., “their status”). This has never happened. There is no test whatsoever for sexual orientation when a person applies for a marriage license. There is no class of people being told they’re not eligible for marriage. In fact, the exclusion of same-sex couples (that’s same-sex couples, not homosexual citizens) from marriage isn’t about prohibiting something on the basis of bad conduct or the status of a group, it’s about the definition of marriage.

Marriage was not something developed to make homosexual people sad.

If marriage is a particular thing, then everyone has a right to take part in that institution as it stands, regardless of their personal characteristics. But to be part of the institution, they must be part of the institution. They don’t have a right to change that institution into something different simply because they don’t want to be part of it the way it is.

Imagine a public park builds a tennis court so that people can come to play tennis. Nobody should be denied the right to play tennis games there. Period. It’s a public park, open to all. One day, a group of basketball players comes to the park, wanting to play a game, but they find they can’t play basketball on a tennis court. They immediately go to City Hall to complain: “Everyone has the right to competitive exercise with a ball on that court! We’re being denied our rights based on our status as basketball players!” Can you see the problem? The fact that they don’t want to play tennis doesn’t give them the right to demand that the government build a different court at the park. Their right isn’t to “competitive exercise with a ball” (tennis shares that in common with basketball, but it can’t be reduced to that), their right is to play tennis on that court, just like everybody else.

Or, as I like to say, a chess club has no right to demand status as an NFL team, requiring that the NFL sanction chess-playing. Football is not chess.

It’s Not a Ban on Gay Marriage

Marriage amendments, such as the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and "defense of marriage" laws are often referred to in news articles, commentaries, and other media as "bans on gay marriage."

I frequently point out that this phraseology is inaccurate and misleading – and I don't like it when it is used by "marriage defenders" or the marriage neutering crowd.

I maintain that "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron akin to "dry liquid".

Even granting that a man could marry a man, or a woman could marry a woman, the use of the phrase "ban on gay marriage" is still sloppy.

First, notice that there is a difference between "gay" and "same-sex". I don't know of anyone who is asking that the sexual orientation of the individuals obtaining a marriage license together be noted anywhere in the paperwork. It has never been part of the process. Consequently, a man of any sexual orientation and a woman of any sexual orientation have always been able to obtain a marriage license together, provided neither one was currently married to someone else, and provided they were not close relatives and were of age. A gay man could marry a lesbian or a straight woman. Likewise, a straight man could marry a lesbian. All of these combinations have happened more than once.

When and where neutered marriage licensing occurs, there is nothing preventing two straight men from obtaining such a license together, nor two straight women – provided they meet all of the requirements (marital status, age, non-relation). Thus the phrase "same sex" is more accurate than "gay".

The word "ban" is also wrong. Our marriage laws are no more a "ban" on same-sex marriage than they are a "ban" on polygamy.

Same-sex (and presumably homosexual) couples were having "marriage" ceremonies for years before any state our country neutered their marriage laws. They have exchanged rings, have had a minister officiate, have lived together, have referred to each other with spousal designations, have changed names, have held receptions and gone on "honeymoon" vacations, so on and so forth. Employers and other organizations could recognize them as married if they so chose. Neither California's Marriage Amendment, nor any other similar law prohibits any of this. Thus, it is not a ban.

Incestuous marriages have been recognized in the past, though now they are actually banned as people are prosecuted in most places for sexual activity among consenting adults who are closely related. People go to jail for this activity – forget about being a denied a state-issued marriage license.

Some – not all - states in the USA had actual bans on "interracial" marriage in the past that were struck down by a SCOTUS decision. Marriage neutering activists frequently compare this to the situation with neutered marriage licensing, but the comparison is flimsy.

With the adoption of the California Marriage Amendment or any other such law in other states, no couples were forced to split up or forced to stop living together. Not a single legal entitlement was lost, as the federal government has never recognized a same-sex coupling as marriage, and California still treats domestic partners as spouses. Contrary to a shameful television ad, no Mormon missionaries forced their way into the homes of sex-same couples to destroy or take their property.

Affirming traditional marriage licensing is not a "gay marriage ban". Such language is used by media outlets who abandon objectivity and engage in advocacy and manipulation.

John Eastman Explains The Law

The Public Discourse continues to churn out worthwhile reading, including this writing by Dr. John C. Eastman on Judge Roy Moore and the Alabama Supreme Court's recent actions in regards to marriage neutering.

The US Supreme Court has set a precedent upholding the right of states to define marriage as the union of husband and wife. All federal and state judges—including those in Alabama—are bound by that precedent.

That's right. In the DOMA case and others, SCOTUS indicated federal law had to defer to state law in marriage licensing.

Our nation’s elites have convinced themselves that a judicial order by a single federal court trial judge, no matter how wrong or contrary to existing precedent, is the “law of the land” and must be followed unquestioningly.

Only when it goes in their favor.

Decisions of the lower federal courts—what the Constitution calls “inferior courts”—are not binding on the state courts. If the lower federal courts in a state interpret the Constitution in a way that conflicts with the interpretation adopted by the state courts, neither decision has binding effect on the other.

The US Supreme Court has held that “A decision of a federal district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case.” Only the Supreme Court of the United States, which sits at the pinnacle of both judicial systems, can resolve such conflicts.

Bet you didn't see that in your newspaper.

Second, it is important to note that the federal court order at issue was entered by a single federal trial court judge, who serves on the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, one of three federal district courts in Alabama. That court has jurisdiction over only thirteen of Alabama’s sixty-seven counties.

While a federal district court order declaring a state law unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement can have statewide effect if there is a statewide official involved in the case before the court, that order can only bind the defendants named in the suit, their officers and agents, and “other persons who are in active concert or participation with” them, as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order cannot bind people not before the court or acting in concert with them.

Under Alabama law, probate judges—who are responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Alabama—are judicial, not executive officers, and are entirely independent of the executive branch of government. Therefore, the order issued to the Attorney General of Alabama did not and could not bind probate judges.

Facts are so inconvenient, aren't they?

The big irony for those accusing Chief Justice Moore and his fellow justices of ignoring the allegedly binding effect of the lower federal court order is that the lower federal court itself refused to follow US Supreme Court precedent—precedent that is as binding on that lower federal court as it is on Alabama Supreme Court and Alabama county probate judges.

In 1972, the US Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court holding that a state’s man-woman marriage law was not unconstitutional. That decision, Baker v. Nelson, is binding on the lower courts, both federal and state, even though it was only a summary disposition.

And I'll note again that this was AFTER Loving v. Virginia, which itself did not neuter any state marriage licenses.

How many of the people (wrongly) insisting that Moore is not following the law have cheered on all of the people who violated the law in initiating brideless and groomless "marriages", such as in California, in order to get the matter back into courts?

The problem with Dr. Eastman is that he writes as though protocol, consistency, logic, & reason matter. None of those things matter in these cases. Sheer power is all that matters, and the marriage neutering crowd has gained enough power to impose its will on everyone. Everything must be sacrificed on the altar of esteeming homosexual behavior.

Homofascists Sure Like to Attack Christians and Abuse Black History

Apparently, Twitter user Lithobolos ‏@Lithobolos didn't think my longtime pen pal could handle disagreeing with me himself, so he decided to jump in with the standard homofascist marriage neutering talking points, and most recently tweeted this out, along with a picture of two men (I think they're men - I guess we're not supposed to assume these days) kissing.

Weird people like @PlayfulWalrus find the best deal of these two getting married offensive. #lgbt #tcot #uniteblue

Notice that it was not written in response form, and along with the hashtags, is an obvious plea for help from fellow fascists.


The discussion was about whether people like bakers, florists, and photographers should be forced (at gunpoint, ultimately) to either participate in an event that mocks there sincerely held convictions, one of the most enduring & widely held convictions in human history - that marriage unites a bride and groom - or be forced out of a business.


Is it really "weird" of me to support liberty over fascism? To support the First Amendment rights of business owners? The arguments I have been making are not about whether I'm personally offended. It is about freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free markets.

George Carlin, Economist?

I have no idea if George Carlin, who was often a very funny man, said this or not. It doesn't really matter. The Left circulates this, thinking it is oh-so-clever.

I am for limited, Constitutional government.  Most people would classify me as a conservative. I most certainly do not want to "give the rich more money." The rich earn their own money. What I am against is taking, by force, even more money from the rich to waste on ineffective, inefficient crap that isn't even Constitutional in the first place or out of some sense of envy.

Perhaps the quote is being circulated in reference to capital gains, which is where some rich people are making most of their money? In that case, we're talking about gains made on investments. That income isn't taxed at the same rate as wages or salary because: 1) most of the time, it was already taxed as wages or salary before it was invested in the first place; 2) it was taxed again already since corporations pay taxes; 3) we want to encourage investment; 4) when the tax rate on capital gains is raised, actual revenue collected decreases.

That is because yes, people lose their incentive to take the risk of investing in ways that will subject them to higher capital gains tax rates. Rich people have choices about what to do with their money.

Meanwhile, many poor people do lose their incentive to be productive and work to earn money if they're getting hand-outs. If someone can get food, housing, clothing, medical care, education, recreation, entertainment, transportation, fire protection, police protection, and so much more without ever working, many of people will choose not to work.

It is ridiculous to compare letting rich people keep they money they've earned (rather than taxing them even more) to increasing hand-outs to people who choose not to work or not to advance their place in life.

Also, in general, rich people and poor people do not handle money the same way, or react to money to the same way. That is why many of the rich are rich in the first place, and why many of the poor are poor in the first place. Not all, but for the most part.

If you were to take, at random, ten rich individuals and ten poor individuals and even out their net worth and liquid cash, not so long down the line from doing that, most of the formerly rich individuals would be much better off that most of the formerly poor. That is because the rich do the things they do, and the poor people do the things they do.

The Left is always looking for ways to take money from productive people who put money to good use and give it to strangers who piss it away.

Dr. Ryan Anderson on Marriage Equality

Dr. Ryan Anderson: Marriage Equality and Marriage Reality at the Supreme Court

State of the Union 2015 Wish List

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, but permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over thirteen years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S. Apologize for Benghazi and what happened in the wake of that terrorist attack. Stress that ISIS and other such organizations must be obliterated.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Explain that allowing illegal aliens any advantage in gaining permanent legal status ahead of legal immigrants is a slap in the face to legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

We're One Race - Human. Yes, "race"-based slavery was our national birth defect, and injustices persisted after slavery was abolished, but hostile racists have very little power now in our overall system. Law enforcement must have limited powers, and rioting shouldn't be tolerated.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Encourage Responsible Gun Ownership. As it is the duty of every able person to stand up to evil & crime in protection of the innocent, responsible gun ownership, training, and practice should be encouaged, and state and local laws should allow for this. Apologize for Fast & Furious.

Declare the Growing National Debt Unacceptable. Explain that it is a basic function of the federal government to adopt a budget, and that it is unsustainable and immoral to accumulate increasing debt, thereby burdening future generations. The government should not encourage further dependency on government.

Don't be Santa Claus. Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Equal Access to Free Markets. Explain some of the major benefits of free markets, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable. It is clear that people can succeed in the USA regardless of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation, and focusing on slights, imagined or real, based on these personal characteristics, is fostering hostility and division and self-defeating thinking, doing more harm than good.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. Given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence and character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

Valuing Diversity

The Left, or champions of "equality", have been insisting for many years that diversity, including gender diversity and gender integration, makes an organization stronger and is generally beneficial. It is good, we have been told, for the military, for universities (including dorm rooms), colleges, and other schools, it is good for businesses and the workplace, it is good for hospitals, fire departments, and police departments, it is good in who provides our entertainment and information, it is good for leadership in charities, civic organizations, scouting, and churches, it is good for country clubs, and it is good for legislative bodies.

Gender diversity is good. Gender diversity makes us stronger. Gender diversity brings benefits to those involved. Gender diversity is required.

Right?

And yet, some of the very same activists who've been telling us this for years in their news releases, their picketing, their lawsuits, their plays, literature, and media productions, their classrooms, and any other way they can, suddenly contradict their claims when it comes to parenting, and when it comes to marriage, with or without parenting (though most marriages involve parenting).

Literally the same people who insist gender diversity makes organizations stronger deny it makes a gender-diverse relationship any different (let alone better) from a same-sex relationship, or adds anything important to parenting. They really want us to believe that everything they've said about gender diversity when it comes to everything else somehow doesn't apply to family.

We have overwhelming data that the absence or virtual absence of their father in their home while growing up correlates to many negative indicators in adolescents and adults. We don't have nearly as much information about the absence of mothers, so let's just stick with the absence of fathers. Many of those "fatherless" children had at least one other adult in the house in addition to their mother, including an aunt, a grandparent, etc. However, that isn't the same as having a father. Those who advocate that groomless marriage or same-sex parenting is no different than or at least not lacking anything worthwhile in comparison to the bride+groom union want us to believe that the absence of a father is entirely rectified by the presence a second female guardian. However, just as no man can satisfy a homosexual woman's desire for a woman, no woman, no matter how great a person she is, no matter how much she may love the mother of those children, can fulfill the need children have for a father.

Unfortunately, the neutering of state marriage licensing makes it official state policy that there is no difference. This is an insult to both men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and to our intelligence and innate sensibilities. This is anti-science.

Neutering state licenses means that bride+groom unions can't in anyway way be encouraged or incentivized or preferred over brideless or groomless unions under the law or in any program relying on taxpayer funds. For example, adoption or foster care agencies under state control or receiving any state funds can't prefer a bride+groom couple over a groomless union in placing children. They have to operate as though
giving a child two mothers and giving a child a mother and a father is the same thing. It obviously isn't.

We're all better off recognizing and encouraging bride+groom unions and parenting within such unions, but under neutered licensing, we'll have much less ability and fewer ways of doing that.

Studies also indicate that intentional parenting is generally better than "oops, we got pregnant" parenting, but it would take a substantial increase in the size and reach of government to even try to ban the latter to give every child the former. However, all it takes to set aside gender-inclusive unions as special, and thus hold up in our public policy the value of fathering, is a pair of already-there government documents, and maintaining the bride+groom requirement - the worldwide, historically celebrated core of marriage - in state marriage licensing.

It doesn't exactly encourage men to marry when or before having children, nor stick around to father their offspring, when we have public policy and a culture that disrespects them and insists they bring nothing of value to marriage nor parenting. But hey, it isn't like we're having any difficulties these days with fathers being around for the children, right?

The Left should abandon its absurd, self-contradictory claims that heterosexual unions are no different than homosexual unions. Leftist homosexuality advocates have proven effective at organizing and appealing to emotion and wielding their power, but just because they can get precedents and common sense tossed aside, judicial activists to rule for them, and elected officials to abandon their obligations, protocols, and ethics doesn't mean they should press ahead with the neutering of marriage, which would ultimately leave everyone, including them, worse off. Their efforts are more admirably spent on fighting the criminalization of homosexuality abroad and fighting actual prejudice, homelessness, assault, vandalism, bullying, suicide, domestic violence, substance abuse, mental illness, and sexually transmitted diseases, which are real problems in "gay and lesbian communities".


Previously:

Bride-and-Groom is the Right Side of History

The Ideal of a Married Mother and Father

Slippery Slopes and Neutering Marriage

More good stuff from Stand to Reason.

Is invoking polygamy, etc. a "slippery slope" that doesn't make for good argumentation?

I can't recommend STR more strongly. (For some reason blogger eats YouTube embedding the first time around, at least on this blog. It's not like they are both owned by Google, or anything. I forgot about that. Sorry.

Should Christians Retreat on Marriage Neutering?

Why a Gay Man Would Vote Republican

Something Leftists Democrats will often say is "Why would a gay person vote Republican?"

I can think of many reasons why.

Maybe the person cares more about...

1) American values and the American Trinity (Liberty, E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust)
2) the economy
3) government (taxpayer) debt
4) government employee pension reform
5) rewarding instead of punishing private sector success
6) free markets
7) fiscal responsibility and sustainability
8) monetary policy
9) decreasing dependency on the government
10) economic liberty
11) private property rights
12) tax policy and reform
13) Constitutionally-limited government
14) Federalism
15) judicial restraint and strict constructionism
16) tort reform
17) education reform
18) protecting human life
19) protecting crime victims and holding criminals accountable
20) reformative and restorative justice and reducing crime
21) personal defense and Second Amendment rights
22) national defense
23) religious freedom
24) strong families and parental authority/responsibility

...and any number of other things than:

1) voting as part of a lockstep groupthink support for pandering politicians who divide the American people into different groups based on skin color, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

2) making sure that everyone is comfortable with - and affirming of -  everything a homosexual person does

3) reorganizing everything to make sure homosexual behavior is depicted and affirmed in each and every area of everyone’s life

4) neutering all state marriage licensing through judicial intrusion

In short, they care about other things more than whether or not a politician cheers the fact that a man gets his jollies with another man.

If our nation goes into decline because of fiscal irresponsibility, too much dependency rather than productivity, too much federal government micromanaging of our lives and businesses, identity politics balkanization, or ineffective national defense, things like whether Harvey Milk has enough space in grade school textbooks is going to be the least of a homosexual person’s worries.

The original question presumes that Republicans or Republican policies are "anti-gay". There are some Republicans who do not like people because they are homosexual, but there are some Democrats like that, too. Where in the national GOP platform is anything that is against homosexual people? Affirming that marriage = bride+groom and that such marriages are the ideal for raising children is in no way a knock on homosexual people – it is simply recognizing the difference between men and women and therefore a difference between the pairing of a man and a woman and the pairing of two men or two women. Are there any more Republicans than Democrats elected to major office (Congress, Governor) who have expressed hatred for homosexual people?

Republicans are against bullying and against violence to an innocent person or their property, regardless of their sexual orientation. I’m not aware of any prominent Republican with any power who wants to prevent homosexual people from having the freedom of association.

There are homosexual Republicans, and there are heterosexual Republicans who support many parts of the Leftist homosexual agenda. There are Republicans who want to improve things for "the gay community" through other means than judicial fiat.

So there shouldn't be anything confusing about why a homosexual person would vote for Republicans.

But the Leftist Democrats do this with all of the groups to which they pander with identity politics, including African Americans, Latino Americans, and Vaginal Americans. They identify someone by one aspect of their personal identity and tell that person they have to support Democrats... as if that person can't think for themselves and the only thing that matters about that person is what someone else is going to do for them based on their skin color or genitals or their genitals being the same as their partner's.

A Wall Separates Both Sides

Marriage has been the basic building block of communities and society, uniting both sexes in a cooperative unit, usually producing and and raising the next generation with a parent of each of the two sexes.

Marriage is presented in the Bible as a powerful metaphor for God and His people, Christ and the Church. Literally from the first book of the Bible through to the last, marriage is depicted as uniting the sexes, while never portraying as marriage something absent of the participation of both sexes. Theologians who are followers of Christ cite marriage as one of only two or three institutions directly started by God. Even if one does not believe God created marriage, the fact is secular government in general didn't create marriage, and certainly not the government of the United States nor of the states themselves. They have merely described marriage, and put certain limitations (such as monogamy, minimum ages, low level of consanguinity) on the state licensing of marriage. The states have done so because new citizens, who do not consent to the relationships, usually result from marriage, and for the stabilization of family, inheritance, etc.

While I recognize that legislators, or the people directly, can legally vote to neuter state marriage licenses into documents that recognize nonmarriages under the name of description of "marriage", it is immoral for them to do so, as they are usurping something that our "wall of separation" should prevent. Fifteen years ago there was never anything anywhere in the world called "marriage" that lacked one of the sexes. Calling a brideless or groomless pairing a "marriage" is an abuse of the word, along the lines of government declaring that shrimp wrapped in bacon, served on a cheeseburger, is "kosher", or that ham is "vegetarian".

Any church or clergy that refuses to speak out in opposition to the neutering of state marriage licenses, citing the "separation of church and state" should be consistent. In that, I mean that they should never then, having claimed that religious marriage and state marriage are two separate things:

1) Require a state marriage license be involved in order for a marriage to be performed in the church.

2) Consider any congregants or members or staff "married" or not based on the possession, or lack thereof, of a state marriage license. It should be based  solely on whether or not there was a church-recognized religious ceremony and a church-recognized divorce. A man or woman whose legal spouse committed adultery should be free to pursue another spouse and have a marriage ceremony in the church, regardless whether or not the state says he or she is divorced in the first place.

Put up or shut up, all of you churches willing to roll over and bow down to the petulant marriage neutering advocates.

There are many good nonreligious reasons to support the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing, but even so, one does not surrender his right enumerated in one clause of the First Amendment - the freedom of speech - by exercising a right enumerated in another clause of the very same Amendment - the freedom of religion. Speaking up and voting for marriage on religious grounds is no less valid and legal than demanding and voting for the neutering of marriage on the basis of personal sexual attractions or federal entitlements.

What Is the Harm of Neutering Marriage?

Why should I care about "protecting marriage?" Who cares if a couple of guys want to marry each other? What’s the harm? How does this hurt my/your marriage? They've had same-sex marriage licensing in [a state our country] for [x] years, and isn’t the place still there? Have things fallen apart? When has a member of the clergy ever been forced to perform a wedding against his or her will?
These are questions that are often asked of those who stand up to defend marriage from being neutered.

However, in most places, it isn't up to us to demonstrate that there will be harm. The burden of convincing falls on the people asking for change. The federal government and all but a handful of states recognize marriage as uniting the sexes, so in those cases, it is those who want to neuter marriage who must demonstrate why doing so would be of overall net benefit to society. While a marriage license may solve practical challenges for a brideless or groomless couple, those issues can be addressed without neutering state marriage licensing.

The universal understanding of marriage has been that it unites a bride and a groom. Only recently, in a few places, has there been deviation from this concept.

With that in mind, let's examine the questions.

Why should I care about "protecting marriage?" 

Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality

How many times have you heard that? Yeah, I've heard it a bunch of times. Before I get to that, though, I wanted to address another issue raised by this cartoon. I'm not a Roman Catholic. In the US, we have freedom of religion, and we APPLY to jobs. Nuns here have chosen to be part of the Roman Catholic church. If they do not like the policies, teachings, practices, or leadership of the church, they are free to leave. Guess what happens when most people disobey their boss? They get fired. Now, on to the statement that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality."

Why is this an issue? Did the Pope all of a sudden one day just start speaking out against homosexuality, or was there something to which he was reacting? Who picked this fight? Does the church send operatives into the middle of meetings of homosexuality advocacy groups to protest and disrupt them? Something to think about.

Saying that "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality” is an argument that has been shown to be a bad one in many ways, many, many, many, many times. And check out this for good measure.

By the logic being used in this statement, we can also say that Jesus "didn't say anything" about rape, securities fraud, or torturing-for-fun polar bear cubs, either.

Quickly, 1) Jesus is God, and thus Jesus affirmed what God taught, and that included things about sexual behavior and marriage - this was reaffirmed with Jesus also being a Jew who affirmed the teachings of the Scriptures - and unlike other established practices and traditions of those days, Jesus is never recorded as changing or ending or countering or clarifying the existing teachings about homosexual behavior; 2) Jesus chose and raised up Apostles and disciples who also wrote about sexual behavior and marriage under the inspiration of God (the Holy Spirit); 3) Jesus spoke about the two sexes and the practice of them cleaving to each other.

Literally from the first book to the last, the Bible teaches that marriage unites a bride and a groom, and that sex is for marriage. The implications are inescapable (fornication is wrong, adultery is wrong, homosexual behavior is wrong). Jesus affirmed what we call the Old Testament – His audience was familiar with the Scriptures – He didn't need to repeat each word of them for them to remain valid and applicable.

Plenty of people don't give a rip what the Bible says, or don't consider Jesus an authority. Christians do, however. There are people who use all sorts of tricks, contortions, and gymnastics to try to present the Bible or just the Jesus of the Bible as neutral or even supportive of homosexual behavior, apparently in a desperate effort to take the air of the tires of Christians who do not bend... er... roll over and let homosexuality advocates go unanswered or homofascists run their lives. Sound Bible reading and study, however, reveals clear teaching about sexual behavior.

I do not think the government should attempt to prevent people from engaging in private homosexual behavior. Everyone should have their personal rights protected. Churches should be free to continue to teach the Biblical view of sexuality. These are matters of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

For more:

Answering the Gay Christian Position

http://www.equip.org/articles/answering-the-gay-christian-position

Christianity and Homosexuality

http://www.equip.org/articles/christianity-and-homosexuality

The Bible and Homosexuality

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-bible-and-homosexuality

Married People a Smaller Percentage of the Population

It's all over the news that there are supposedly now more "single" adults than married adults, or something worded similarly, and this is the first time in the history of the country things have been this way.

First, we need clarity of what actually exists. The statistics include the population down to sixteen years of age. Those are "adults"? Really? And what counts as "single"? Someone who is shacking up is not really single, are they, especially if they have children and financial accounts with their partner?

I'm sure most the change that has created this snapshot has to do with things like 1) people getting married for the the first time at older ages, 2) divorce, and 3) people living longer divorced or widowed.

Some of it, though, no matter how small, has to come from men who've gone on a "marriage strike", and I expect that to have an increasing effect on the statistics, even if in the end, many of the men end up with their strike just being a delay and not a lifelong standoff. The men who've joined the marriage strike are a diverse group, ranging from hedonists to devout conservative Christians who have come to the conclusion that legally-sanctioned marriage is something to be avoided.

Hedonists are increasingly realizing that they can get more sex, and with a variety of women to boot, if they do not marry, often without any obligation or jumping through any hoops. Hedonists (or anyone who has no moral/spiritual concerns about unmarried sex) can now get literally everything they want without ever marrying, without suffering (and often benefiting) professionally and socially. Others, such as the religiously devout, would rather be chaste and go through life "alone" than take on what they see as the risks, harms, restrictions, and burdens of marriage. Marriage strikers range from those who try to have as little interaction with women as possible (including in the workplace) to those who will do everything with women except legally marry them.

No small part of why these people have gone on a marriage strike has to do with the family laws and courts:

• unilateral no-fault divorce
• community property laws combined with the fact that most men do/will earn the majority, if not all of the income during the marriage financially punishes men for marrying
• alimony requirements (lifetime, in some places!)
• child custody and support issues
• presumed paternity and paternity fraud
• domestic violence response by law enforcement being at the point where a man can get physically assaulted by his wife and be the one to go to jail and permanently kicked out of his own home while still required to pay for it

Strictly speaking legally, if a husband earns more than his wife, as most husbands do, the only benefit a man gets from marrying is, in most places, default paternity status over his children. This, of course, is assuming he wanted children in the first place. Such automatic assignment of paternity saves him a little effort/expense as otherwise he'd have to sue for the designation. However, how many men have been unjustly denied access to their children by the mother moving away or orchestrating false abuse allegations? Meanwhile, a woman gets certain financial benefits/guarantees for being a wife, via the force of law.

There is probably some legislation that could ease at least some of the concerns of marriage strikers. The problem is, it is a certainty that introducing such legislation would be met with shrill shrieks of being part of some nefarious conspiratorial "war on women". That's a great fundraising tactic for certain politicians and abortion advocates.

Especially since it is increasingly becoming a legal principle that marriage is about the feelings of adults rather than what benefits children or society, I expect the statistical trends to continue, meaning we'll see the percentage of the adult population legally married at any given moment continue to shrink. After all, why bother to get or stay married to raise your own children, since marriage "isn't about children"?

This is not a matter to be ignored by Republicans. Married women are far more likely to vote Republican than women who aren't married. One reason is that many unmarried women, while claiming to be "independent", are very dependent on government programs and thus male taxpayers they don't even know, and Democrats promise more government programs. I suspect another reason is that Republican women are generally far more attractive and thus more likely to attract a husband.

Love and Hate

In response to my posting on negative perceptions of evangelical Christians, this comment was left by Anonymous:

I don't think anyone can deny that while evangelicals preach love, they are more prone to hate. Especially anything that falls outside of their beliefs, which given how backward many of them are, is a ton! I respect all religions and know that there are good evangelicals out there, I just haven't met any. Having lived in Georgia, I have been told that eating ethic food such as Lebanese or Indian is against the will of God, that yoga is spiritually dangerous, that Harry Potter fosters witchcraft. For among these reasons, while I respect all religions, I can't respect a religion that hates so much and denies science and hates anything it considers outside. Their message on Homosexuals is completey against their message of love, and their repression of women through their beliefs on contraception is rediculous and backwards. Their hating has turned me into a hater 

Clearly this person has bad feelings about experiences with evangelicals. I have no doubt that Christians have some amount of blame in that. We are called to give a reason for the hope that we have with gentleness and respect, and we don't always do things that way.

I want to take a closer look at the comment.

When the Sideshow Takes the Center Ring

As someone who believes in the rule of law and equal application of the law, it saddens me to see some situations devolve into a bad circus sideshow, where the truth gets buried underneath people playing to the cameras, talking heads yelling about something they did not witness as though they did, and professional attention-seekers doing what is best for their personal agenda, regardless of the harm it does to the actual victim or community.

A Tough Standard For Human Behavior

The Bible teaches that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes. These things are taught throughout Scripture, as something that applies to all people at all times, rather than something that applies to a specific group of people or for a specific period of time. This has many implications for human sexuality, at least for those who strive to follow Him.

Just one of the implications is that engaging in sex-like behavior with someone of the same sex is sinful.

For years, homosexuality advocates have taken the "don't believe the Bible" approach or "the Bible is outdated" approach for trying to reconcile homosexual behavior with Christianity, or at least neutralize Christian opposition to homosexual behavior.

Lately, homosexuality advocates have tried to say that the Bible doesn't really teach that homosexual behavior is sinful.

As wiser people than me noted even before the Internet came into general public use, a lie can travel halfway around the world before truth can get its boots on.

As such, refuting some of the recent attacks on the traditional understanding of Biblical teachings on sexuality can take a long time. With that, I point you to this:

“Gay Christianity” Refuted!

The complete response to Matthew Vines is now available as a single program. Yes its five hours and nine minutes long, (72meg in size), but the world needs to hear this message. We believe this so much that we have decided to make this publicly available to be distributed for free. Share it with your friends and relatives. We’ve titled it “Gay Christianity” Refuted and only ask that you not change it or sell it. All fair use rules apply for criticism too.

You can play it here or right click and download it. All that we ask is that if you are edified by it please consider supporting this work on a regular basis. There is more where that came from Lord willing.

"Gay Christianity" Refuted by James White is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License Based on a work at aomin.org.

Good churches will welcome people who have identified themselves as homosexuals. However, a good church will not abandon the Biblical standard for human sexuality for the sake of the feelings of anyone who wants to engage in sex or sex-like behavior with someone who isn't their spouse in the Biblical sense.

 

I listened to the entire file of James White utterly refuting what Matthew Vines taught. Vines repeatedly appealed to emotion, and that might be effective for people who do not think critically and do not have a good understanding of the Bible, but it doesn't make what Matthew Vines taught true. It isn't.

 

Sex is for marriage. Marriage unites the sexes. That is the consistent Biblical teaching.

 

I find it interesting that people who claim:

 

1) To follow Jesus Christ as omniscient & omnipotent Lord and Savior

2) Being "gay" is a God-ordained, God-created identity, a sexual orientation that is every bit a part of someone and every bit morally neutral as having blue eyes

3) That Christians have unjustly condemned all homosexual behavior based on misreading or erroneously being selective in their application of the Bible

...are unable to point to a single, clear, Bible passage or reliable external source documenting that Jesus cleared up typical misunderstandings or animosity of his day about sexual orientation or same-sex relationships. Surely, an omniscient & omnipotent Jesus could have said something like, "You know, grooms don't have to marry brides. They can marry other grooms, if that is the desire of their heart. This is also very good." And He could have seen to it that it was recorded and preserved in the Bible, and thus prevented all sorts of trouble endured by people.

Instead, Jesus repeatedly affirmed the Scripture and, unlike with other things, is never recorded as having cleared up misconceptions about sex being for marriage and marriage uniting the sexes.

Matthew Vines repeatedly referred to "loving" lifelong monogamous same-sex relationships. By his own logic, he is attacking nonmonogamous people, including many people who identify as "gay Christians", in a way he chastises others for doing in his very message.

There is no way around it, folks. You do have the freedom to not follow Christ. You do not have the authority to change what God has taught about marriage and sexuality. Yeah, that can feel like a bummer sometimes. I didn't always live by the Biblical teaching myself. Plenty of churches would have accepted my fornication. That doesn't make fornication right.

 

UPDATE:

Jesus, Scripture, and the Myth of New Knowledge Arguments about Homosexual Unions
 

(Follow that link to watch at 76 minute video.

 

Dr. Gagnon will address the myth that we have radically new knowledge today about homosexuality that allows us to discount the biblical witness on homosexual practice or to claim its affirmation of loving homosexual relationships. Join FRC as Dr. Gagnon clearly presents a Scriptural perspective on today's most hotly contested moral debate: human sexuality.

Robert A. J. Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He has a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [Society of New Testament Studies]. He is also an ordained elder at a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. He is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics; co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views; and, as a service to the church, provides a large amount of free material on the web dealing with Scripture and homosexuality.