Posted on 12/08/2012 5:28:00 AM PST by Kaslin
The Constitution was not written to take the place of moral law, but to supplement it. In those days before both birth control and welfare, marriage was an economic as well as a social bedrock for the care of children. Now the economic part has been eroded by the government, and as a result, our society is sick and suffering.
As the Founders observed, our Constitution was written for a moral people. Once morality lodged in the individual through his or her own personal effort goes away, pffffft. It's all over but the shooting.
right next to government mandatory health care.
You are correct. “Going over the fiscal” cliff will not be a collapse. When we can no longer borrow money, i.e., when the chickens come home to roost, that will be a collapse. If America does not repent and believe we are doomed.
In the Old Testament, polygamy was always related to the influence of the world, the influence of apostasy. Even though God made provision within the Mosaic Law for taking care of multiple wives, that was in order to make sure that the second, third, fourth wives were taken care of and not just abandoned and abused. It wasnt an approval or a prescription for polygamy.
The Old Testament:
May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. --Proverbs 5:18
Has not [the LORD] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. -- Malachi 2:15
In the New Testament, one-man-one-woman marriage is distinctly Christian. Paul made marriage to one woman a necessity for role models in a church:
A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. --Timothy 3:12
Nobody is making the essential legal argument...
Reynolds v. United States (1878) defined marriage as one man and one woman.
Nobody is making the essential legal argument...
Reynolds v. United States (1878) defined marriage as one man and one woman.
"...the same yesterday, today, and forever...." (Heb. 13:8)
New Testament v. Old Testament or Christian v. pre-Christian era is a false distinction.
He created Adam. How many wives did He create from that rib in Adam's side?
Speaking of Himself: "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one."" (Matt 19: 4-6)
Does the Creator of the Universe say united to his "wife" or "wives"?
God's patience with man's disobedience should not be interpreted by you as His endorsement of sin, or what defines what is His perfect will for man as He created him, designed him, and established the marriage relationship for him.
FReegards!
Religion does not matter in court...
Reynolds v. United States in 1878 defined marriage as one man and one woman.
It is never sanctioned but you will find against Gods plan, men in the OT had multiple wives and let me tell you it caused them pain and headache.
I don’t know why you would need a hint in this particular story that polygamy is wrong, since it’s provided for you in the Scripture I mentioned in my earlier post, and in God’s original design for marriage.
In this incident, God’s anger is kindled against David because of a deliberately malicious, evil act that results in a man’s violent death so that David can steal the man’s wife. Why would you expect Nathan to go into an exhaustive list of every sin David has committed?
Doncha hate when that happens? An edit button would be handy sometimes. ‘Course, that would allow the rewriting of a lot of history indigenous to FR, and a lot of response posts would wind up being pretty meaningless.
In this context you are correct. Let's hope and pray that this is all it comes down to and that the Court affirms stare decisis
California's Prop 8 is a matter of a State's right to self-determination affirming through popular vote the "one man one woman" definition of marriage through the State constitutional amendment process.
NY's gay marriage accommodation by vote of State Senate (not popular referendum like in WA and MD) takes on DOMA.
Gay marriage was imposed on CT and MA by courts alone.
Either Prop 8 and DOMA are upheld or our foundational system of government -- the married family unit -- will be destroyed as will the self-governability of the US with it.
Traditional America MUST win this.
FReegards!
With the state involved, at least in the modern era, the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time. And thats it, thats all it will ever be. Combine that with the fact many have been conditioned to think marriage comes from and is defined by the state and you have what we have today. It was always a danger. Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.
It’s just a shame the state has the power to punish those faiths that don’t think little pieces of paper from the state necessarily makes anyone more or less married.
Freegards
A good answer here: http://uclue.com/?xq=379
Toward the bottom of this one: http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/21.28/
This misses the mention of actual name of the laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence
There are lots of articles on the subject, the practice of licensing was not universal in all municipalities in the US until this- “In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.”
This is a good article as well: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken86.html
The federal government took a while to react to the growing threat to marriage posed by the Mormon polygamy movement, but by 1862 had passed legislation directed at polygamy.
Thank you for the citation. I'll look it up.
The word marriage does not appear there but the intent is there. There is good and there is evil. God gives his instructions and we are to obey if we want to please Him, have His favor, and prosper. Divorce came along after a time. We are not animals to have a litter and turn them out after they become able to walk and talk. Why would we? Children are the perfect recipients of love. There is a change in our heart after we have children and we desire to care for, nurture, and protect our children. The whole concept of gay relations is sick. Something is wrong. God knows our true motivations.
In gay marriages there are no children. Nor will there be any children. Impossible! Nothing is to be on the level with God but our HOLY LORD and His son Jesus Christ.
Our doing evil and calling it good will not change God's opinion of our behavior, and our heart.
Lust is not love. Brotherly love is genuinely desiring good for our brethren. Not using them as a sexual object.
We are becoming a nation FAR from our LORD and Savior.
Do any of us want to spend eternity in HELL?
Consider well how we respond to the commandments of God.
God is not mocked.
‘There, before an overflow crowd, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said: I know opponents of gay marriage say it will lead to polygamy. Well, Im for that.
‘Turleys shocking comments were wildly cheered by the room full of journalists, liberal congressional aides, and federal law clerks. True to his word, Prof. Turley has gone to court trying to overturn bans on polygamy.’
At least Turley has the virtue of consistency. Unlike those libs who are pushing for “gender-neutral marriage” but are against polygamy. Once the 1 male-1 female legal requirement is abolished, why would the same liberal/libertarian person have any trouble with the numerical requirement being changed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.