Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: A Solution For The Same-Sex Marriage Problem
Source:
ChuckBaldwinLive
URL Source: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Article ... Same-Sex-Marriage-Problem.aspx
Published: Sep 24, 2015
Author: Chuck Baldwin
Post Date: 2015-09-24 13:38:07 by Hondo68
Keywords: Natural Law (Common Law), 501c3 tax-exempt org, church pimps for the IRS
Views: 2116
Comments: 20
Right now, the liberty movement is divided almost in half between those favoring the SCOTUS ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and those opposed (count me in the opposed camp). So, right now, the liberty movement is completely stymied over this issue. The only ones who win in such a case are big-government Orwellians. To be sure, the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” was the result of decades of relentless propaganda from the national news media, liberal politicians, and college professors throughout America. Think about it: what do Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor know that John Locke, Thomas More, Emer de Vattel, Algernon Sidney, William Rawle, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, William Penn, James Wilson, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams, John Jay, Daniel Webster, Francis Scott Key, Hugo Black, Rutherford B. Hayes, and William O. Douglas didn’t know? In other words, just as in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion-on-demand, the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex “marriage” was judicial activism pure and simple. There were no precedents for either decision. Think of the brilliant minds in law, philosophy, and religion over two thousand years of Western Civilization that somehow missed the “right” of homosexuals to “marry.” What I’m saying is, I realize that militant homosexuals, ultra-leftists, and judicial activists have been waging war on America’s historic Christian values for decades--and they won a huge victory with the Obergefell decision. I also understand that these people will never be satisfied until they have totally and thoroughly expunged these values from America’s public life. There is no question they will resort to any tactic--no matter how morally unjust or constitutionally corrupt--to achieve their radical, amoral agenda. Kim Davis will not be the last Christian to be persecuted for her faith in this country. That said, the Obergefell decision has successfully divided the liberty movement almost in half, between those who agree with the decision (on whatever grounds) and those who disagree. But, instead of arguing over the SCOTUS decision, here is what ALL OF US in the liberty movement should be doing: we should be using whatever influence we have to promote the idea of taking marriage OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE STATE ALTOGETHER. Most of us realize that marriage is sacred; that it's much more than just a civil contract. (Only the state itself reinvented marriage as being merely a civil contract.) One doesn't have to be a Christian to acknowledge this distinction. Throughout the history of Western Civilization, the state seldom had authority over marriage. Think of it: for over 1,800 years of Western Civilization, the state had little--if anything--to do with marriage. (In America, only the colony of Massachusetts is recorded as requiring State marriage licenses before the mid-nineteenth century.) So, why do we even look to the state for a license to marry? The fact is, WE SHOULDN'T. All of the bickering over Obergefell only serves to ensconce the notion that the state has legitimate authority over marriage. IT DOESN’T. In Pilgrim America and in Colonial America--and until only recently in modern America--Common Law (Natural Law) marriage was universally recognized as being, not only lawful, but sacrosanct. The idea of asking the state for permission to marry was as absurd as asking the state for permission to take communion or to be baptized. For example, the State of Pennsylvania didn’t outlaw Common Law marriage until 2005. And the only reason the vast majority of states do not recognize Common Law marriage today is because the Church has completely surrendered the Scriptural teaching on the subject and has willingly (even happily) turned what is uniquely a divine institution over to the state. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, the only one to blame for the decision of the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage is THE CHURCH. The ultra-leftists and militant homosexuals would have had NO CHANCE of achieving victory at the Supreme Court had the churches of America been doing their job over the last half-century or more to educate people on the historic Natural Law principles governing marriage and the state. (Virtually ALL of the major problems we are dealing with today are the result of the absence of sound instruction from the pulpits of America.) But since the Church’s surrender of the sanctity of marriage, here is the current reality: 40 states do not legally recognize Common Law marriage. That means, those 40 states see only the state as having authority over marriage. But the state has NO AUTHORITY over marriage and cannot legally sanction ANY marriage. I remind you Jesus said, "What therefore God hath joined together . . . ." Only GOD can join couples in marriage. The best that I can determine, these are the 10 states that still recognize Common Law marriage: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Texas, Utah, and Oklahoma. And Utah only seems to recognize Common Law marriage after the fact. In addition, Oklahoma is currently in the process of banning all State marriage licenses. This is exactly what all 50 states should do. (New Hampshire recognizes Common Law marriage for inheritance purposes only; so it should not be included as a Common Law State.) So, including Utah, the people in ten states are free to marry WITHOUT a State license. And that's exactly what every freedomist in those states should start promoting--and promoting LOUDLY. And freedomists in the other 40 states should start demanding that their State legislatures once again recognize Common Law marriage. Maybe people in those states should even consider civil disobedience and marry outside the licensing authority of the State. After all, if God has joined a man and woman together, what difference does it make if the State--or anyone else--recognizes it or not? If enough pastors and churches would do this, it wouldn't take long for State legislatures to enact appropriate legislation. Let the state recognize or not recognize to its heart's content; let it embrace all of the perversion it wants. You can bet polygamy will be legalized next. And then what? Pedophilia? Bestiality? At some point, the sacred institutions of marriage and the Church will be forced to separate themselves from a suicidal society just as they did when the Roman Empire was collapsing. In Rome--as in oppressed nations today--Christians and churches mostly took their worship and sacred ceremonies underground. And, if history teaches anything, it teaches us that no civilization has long survived after socially embracing aberrant sexual behaviors. And America won’t either. Let's face it: the federal government in D.C. is leading America over an economic, political, moral, and cultural cliff. So, why do we keep looking to D.C. to fix the problem? THEY WON'T DO IT. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem." And the two institutions we should IMMEDIATELY extract from government--the two institutions that should have NEVER been allowed to be placed under the authority of government to begin with--are the institutions of marriage and the Church. How in the name of common sense can pastors and churches take a Scriptural stand on the sanctity of marriage when they have allowed the Church itself to be bastardized by accepting the 501c3 tax-exempt organization status from Washington, D.C., and incorporation status from the states? Think of it: our spiritual “leaders” have allowed the two most sacred institutions on earth (marriage and the Church) to be prostituted on the altar of state recognition. Think of it another way: our 501c3 pastors have become little more than pimps for the IRS and, now, a radical, activist Supreme Court. Do pastors really want Caesar’s blessing that badly? Regarding marriage: we should marry under Natural Law (Common Law) ONLY. Regarding the Church: it should be removed from 501c3 non-profit organization and State incorporation status--and if the pastor and church refuse to extract themselves, we should extract ourselves from THEM. We either "come out" from this leviathan or we will be swallowed by it. Yes, the radical left and militant homosexuals will continue to press their anti-Christian agenda with every means possible. Yes, those of us who have Christian, traditional and moralist convictions are going to be forced to defend these historic principles tooth and nail. But there can be no victory whatsoever by willfully surrendering the Natural Law principles upon which our convictions are predicated. Neither can there be victory by pretending that Caesar’s law is Supreme Law, because it’s not! There is a Court above the court. There is a King above kings. There is a Law above law. Our founders gave their lives in order to bequeath to us a country in which we didn’t have to decide between obeying God and obeying government, as this constitutional republic was designed to protect our duty to God. Current national leaders--facilitated by America’s spiritual leaders--are taking that wonderful bequeathment away from us. Therefore, say it anyway you want, “Don’t tread on me,” or “We must obey God rather than men,” but say it we must. And if Christian men and women cannot say it in defense of the sanctity and autonomy of marriage and the Church, they cannot say it at all.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Exactly. Why should anyone ask the state or government for the permission to marry? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Because the lawyers & courts need the legal documentation to help resolve disputes regarding inheritence, paternity, divorce, etc. etc. You don't need a license if all you want to do is shack-up with yukon. But if the two of you ever want to adopt a kid, or care for one another if one of you becomes terminally ill and disabled, then you're gonna need a marriage license. Just don't try to get one in Kentucky because that bimbo won't give you one.
Methinks that you're making it more difficult for yukon to make his stupendous return to eLeFF.
Why? We are talking about his newlywed party.
All that can be resolved with a civil contract. If two people want to cede rights and claims to one another in the case of whatever, they should be able to do so, regardless of whether the relationship is husband/wife, husband/husband, sister/brother, mother/son, friends or whatever and that's fine. What it is called doesn't matter, so don't call it a "marriage" and leave that term to the churches or whomever wants to use it.
Fair's fair, Fred... If yuktard & his gay doppleganger don't like it, they can put me on their bozo filter. That's what it's there for.
2) Yukon 1) You libtards like to yield to the government with all the beuracracy they've injected into your sheep lives. Ask for permission to marry. Ask to divorce... ask the judge if your little brat is yours. 2) Yukon must have kicked your ass bad, for you to dwell about him like you do. lol Like I've always said, Yukon pissed off all the liberal closet posters... and you, are the biggest choo choo tree hugging libtard fucker that posts. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Churches kept records of marriages for centuries with no such problems. Less government pinheads causing these dilemmas is the answer. Fire those government trouble makers, and send my tax rebate. Thank you. I agree, and have written at length on it. Just understand, there are consequences for all of this, and that when one bears the consequences, one must learn to hate. Hate evil. Don't hate individual people, but do hate evil. And understand that WHEN (not if, WHEN) all of the following bad things come in train when you follow the path of getting married without a marriage license, that the oppression you will experience as a result is NOT "the consequence" of your action - to be "taken like a man". It is EVIL being deliberately inflicted upon you, by evil people who are determined to punish you. You may not hate your enemies, but you SHOULD hate the evil they do. And you don't respond to evil by simply "taking it" and "accepting consequences" - you respond by further acts that seek to destablize the evil. Follow me, because it's important. It's a simple thing to refuse to get a marriage license. Please note, however, all of the things that will follow: (1) No tax-exempt Church will marry you in any state requiring a tax deduction. So, if you're a Catholic, you cannot obtain a church wedding in America if you will not get the state's license. And that means that, as far as the Church is concerned, you're in a state of sin, an unmarried fornicator, because you are not married by either Church or State. You have married yourselves, before God, but without the sanction of Church or state. No Church will do it. You're not going to find a minister of a 501(c)(3) Church who will marry you without a license. So, the first thing you may well face is that fact that your church doesn't consider you married. The second thing that you'll face is that many other people will not consider you married either. You can say you are, and wear the rings, but those who know you did not marry with a license, or before a judge or in a church, may well consider you to be unmarried. Just because YOU have taken a stance against the law of the land and (rightly) claim to be married without license or clergy or ceremony, doesn't mean that other people in society in general will accept that you are. This can be avoided, for most purposes, because people don't ask each other to see marriage licenses. But sometimes the state does, and this is where you'll feel the oppression. If you don't have a marriage certificate, you're not going to be able to collect spousal or survivor social security benefits. You're not going to inherit through the intestacy laws of your state if your spouse dies without a will. You will not get the spousal exemption for estate taxation. You will have problems when it comes to access for information to health care. You're buying a lot of inconvenience, trouble and expense for yourself if you take this approach. The subtler approach is to recognize that the marriage license is not real, for marriage purposes. What it really is, is a coupon that gives access to various laws and services in the present and especially in the future. Instead of painting one's self into a corner making a moral issue about REFUSING TO GET a marriage license, the smarter, subtler, still Christian thing to do is to firmly understand that a "marriage license" is really a "legal benefits coupon", for whom you pay a surprisingly small up front fee. Buy the coupon, and get various economic advantages for life. Mentally, for yourself, you have t3o be firm and remember that is has nothing to do with God or marriage. You can use the fact that the Church will require it for a marriage as a means to show the Church how it has compromised with evil, but the Church, too, can be subtle as serpents. The best approach to marriage licenses and 501(c)(3) is not self-immolation. It is Christian Taqiyya.
Well since it doesn't matter what it's called, then I see no reason to censor my use of the term just because SCOTUS says gays are allowed to get married in a "civil" marriage. That still doesn't mean that churches are required to accept gay "church" marriages... some churches will & some churches won't... let the gays go to whatever church they want... I'm betting they'll probably be happier in whatever church accepts them... That's fine by me... I'm tired of listening to them whine about it. Besides, if more of them get married, then maybe they'll stay at home more and watch TV instead of spreading diseases at some filthy old bar.
But Americans have the right to get married without being forced to go to Church.
Get married at DisneyLand, see if I care. Have Goofy testify at your divorce, etc... - - - - - - - - - - Baldwin is misguided when indicating Natural Law and Common Law are interchangeable terms. One cannot drag the hocus-pocus of natural law into U.S. law. It is not common law. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. - - - - - As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals. Calif. Civil Code, Section 22.2, provides that the "common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State." In a broad sense, "common law" may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs. For Federal common law, see that title. As a compound adjective, "common law" is understood as contrasted with or opposed to "statutory"," and sometimes also to "equitable" or to "criminal." See examples below. - - - - - - - - - -
I believe it is wrong to say any state "outlawed" common law marriage. If two people of the opposite sex shack up and hold themselves out as married for a sufficient time in a state that recognizes common law marriage, that marriage is recognized in all the other states. Common law marriage is "[o]ne not solemnized in the ordinary way, (i.e. non-ceremonial) but created by an agreement to marry, followed by co-habitation." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. In the example given, Pennsylvania does not recognize marriages made under common law in Pennsylvania after 2004. In-state Pennsylvania common law marriages made before 2005 would still be recognized. Baldwin's contention that "the only reason the vast majority of states do not recognize Common Law marriage today is because the Church has completely surrendered the Scriptural teaching on the subject," is unpersuasive. Recognition of common law marriage does not automatically occur on shackup day. It may be several years before the happy couple are considered married. During that time, there would be no marriage and, accordingly, no divorce. A church marriage ceremony is not involved. Baldwin did not make clear that under common law marriage, there is no such thing as same sex marriage.
Baldwin is pretty libertarian, so he probably doesn't much care as long as it's not in HIS church. Good luck with that, only 1-2% of them have gotten married/are wanting to get married. That leaves millions of them out running loose wanting to have sex with anything that walks on 2 or 4 legs... The ultimate solution is for men and women not to become so mutually repulsive and atagonistic that heterosexual marriage between them is not considered a traumatic impossibility and the pathology of homosexuality is a more attractive alternative.
That would mean no more him tweeting about how small her boobs are or her about how small his package is, in today's stupid world that ain't gonna happen... Yep... What happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas anymore...
A relationship without trust, empathy, warmth, mutual respect or consideration, and a sharing of goals is like a car without gasoline. You can stay in it if you want, but it isn't going anywhere. We have generations so psychologically primitive and impulsive that they are unequipped to do anything but inflict massive pain on each other. Even if they get married, the marriages don't last very long. Fifty percent of them end in divorce. Children, which were once a celebration of the expression of bonding between a man and women are now discarded at the abortionist's office.
we should be using whatever influence we have to promote the idea of taking marriage OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE STATE ALTOGETHER.
#2. To: GrandIsland (#1)
Exactly. Why should anyone ask the state or government for the permission to marry?
#3. To: Willie Green (#2)
#4. To: Fred Mertz (#3)
Methinks that you're making it more difficult for yukon to make his stupendous return to eLeFF.
#5. To: Willie Green (#2)
Because the lawyers & courts need the legal documentation to help resolve disputes regarding inheritence, paternity, divorce, etc. etc.
#6. To: Fred Mertz (#3)
Methinks that you're making it more difficult for yukon to make his stupendous return to eLeFF.
#7. To: Willie Green (#2)
1) Because the lawyers & courts need the legal documentation to help resolve disputes regarding inheritence, paternity, divorce, etc. etc.
#8. To: Willie Green, nanny statists, totalitarians (#2)
Because the lawyers & courts need the legal documentation to help resolve disputes regarding inheritence, paternity, divorce, etc. etc.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#9. To: hondo68 (#0)
(Edited)
#10. To: Pinguinite (#5)
What it is called doesn't matter, so don't call it a "marriage"
#11. To: hondo68 (#8)
Churches kept records of marriages for centuries with no such problems.
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof...
#12. To: Willie Green (#11)
But Americans have the right to get married without being forced to go to Church.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#13. To: hondo68 (#0)
Regarding marriage: we should marry under Natural Law (Common Law) ONLY.
Natural law. This expression, "natural law," or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, indepependently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life ordered "according to nature," which in its turn rested on the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a "state of nature;" that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, and promptings of their true nature, such nature being as yet undefaced by dishonesty, falsehood, or indulge baser passions. In ethics, it consists in practical universal judgments which man himself elicits. These express necessary and obligatory rules of human conduct which have been established by the author of human nature as essential to the divine purposes in the universe and have been promulgated by God solely through human reason.
Common law. As distinguished from statutory law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. In general, it is a body of law that develops and derives through judicial decisions, as distinguished from legislative enactments. The "common law" is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American revolution. People v. Rehman, 253 C.A.2d 119, 61 Cal. Rptr. 65, 85. It consists of those principles, usage and rules of action applicable to government and security of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. Bishop v. U. S., D.C.Tex., 334 F.Supp. 415, 418.
Federal common law. A body of decisional law developed by the federal courts. The application of this body of common law is limited by the Erie doctrine and by the Rules of Decision Act, which provides that except for cases governed by the Constitution, the treaties of the United States, or acts of Congress, federal courts are to apply state law. Areas in which federal common law have been developed include federal "proprietary" interests, admiralty and foreign relations. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188. See also Erie v. Tompkins; Rules of Decision Act; Swift v. Tyson Case.
#14. To: hondo68 (#0)
For example, the State of Pennsylvania didn’t outlaw Common Law marriage until 2005. And the only reason the vast majority of states do not recognize Common Law marriage today is because the Church has completely surrendered the Scriptural teaching on the subject and has willingly (even happily) turned what is uniquely a divine institution over to the state.
#15. To: nolu chan (#14)
Baldwin did not make clear that under common law marriage, there is no such thing as same sex marriage.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#16. To: Willie Green (#10)
Besides, if more of them get married, then maybe they'll stay at home more and watch TV instead of spreading diseases at some filthy old bar.
#17. To: hondo68 (#0)
(Edited)
A Solution For The Same-Sex Marriage Problem
#18. To: rlk (#17)
The ultimate solution is for men and women not to become so mutually repulsive and antagonistic that heterosexual marriage between them is not considered a traumatic impossibility and the pathology of homosexuality is a more attractive alternative.
#19. To: hondo68 (#12)
Get married at DisneyLand, see if I care. Have Goofy testify at your divorce, etc...
And you can't stuff the genie back in the bottle so it's time to quit whining about it and move on to something more productive.
#20. To: CZ82 (#18)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]