Posted on 07/05/2015 11:29:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
“Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.”
– John 15:20
The push back has begun. Christian business owners, lawyers, parents, judges, county clerks, organizations, universities, hospitals, adoption agencies and other individuals and groups have been given an ultimatum by five unelected, unaccountable liberals in Washington, D.C.: “You must now obey us and disobey God. You must pretend, with us, that sin-based same-sex ‘marriage’ is an actual thing.”
To which we say, “Not on your life.”
“Or our own.”
Absolute truth is a stubborn thing. Attempts at marital alchemy notwithstanding, the highly contentious, wholly contemptible 5-4 “gay marriage” opinion (and that’s all it is, an opinion) released last week by five pagan extremists in black robes is altogether illegitimate and should be treated as such.
From a moral, biological and legal standpoint, the court’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges is a complete farce. It’s an absurd missive, a bohemian word salad that was roundly, and rightly, condemned by the court’s four dissenting justices. “The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie,” mocked Justice Scalia.
These “five lawyers,” as Chief Justice John Roberts called them, can no more suspend the laws of natural marriage, than can they suspend the laws of gravity. “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution,” wrote Roberts. “It had nothing to do with it.”
This opinion, which has been branded “the Dred Scott of marriage,” has not changed, one iota, the fixed and immovable reality that the institution of marriage, an institution as old as mankind itself, is, and shall forever remain, centrally defined by its binary male-female requirement.
Indeed, as the four dissenting justices noted, the majority failed, at every level, from a precedential, historical, moral and, perhaps most importantly, a constitutional standpoint, to make the case for redefining marriage – something no man can do.
So how should we Christians react to this haughtiness – to this rebellion against God?
God’s word tells us how to react: “But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’” (Acts 5:29)
Many of us have long warned that this day would come, and it has arrived. In the Spirit of Daniel the prophet and MLK the reverend, we Christians must now engage, as relates our peaceful response to the imposition of counterfeit same-sex “marriage,” in widespread civil disobedience. It’s the right thing to do. In fact, it’s a sin if we don’t. “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” (James 4:17)
There are those who will prefer the path of least resistance and will cite, out of context, various Scriptures in order to avoid the possible persecution that may come as a result of obedience to God. For example: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1)
To be clear, under our constitutional republican form of government, “We the People” are “the governing authorities,” and our elected officials in Congress and the White House are the hired help. They are subject to us, and we are all subject to God, Who is the Final Authority.
These nine unelected, unaccountable justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are appointed and confirmed by the elected officials we hire to represent us. Five of the nine have now presumed to defy both the sovereign will of tens of millions of “We the People” who engaged the constitutional process and voted to defend the immutable definition of marriage, as well as, and more importantly, the sovereign will of God Almighty, the very Author of marriage itself.
Central to Christianity, and clearly delineated throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is the unambiguous and timeless proposition that any sexual practice outside the bonds of true man-woman marriage constitutes sexual immorality and results in separation from God. This, of course, includes sexual acting out between members of the same sex, whether or not such acting out is tied to the novel notion of so-called “same-sex marriage.”
So let’s see if we can make this abundantly clear. Christians, true Christians – regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands – will not, indeed cannot, participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful. This is both our constitutionally affirmed human right and our Christian duty.
It is not so much that Christians wish, willy-nilly, to call homosexual behavior, polyamory, fornication, adultery, bestiality, incest or any other disordered sexual proclivity “sinful.” It is, rather, that we must. For the true Christian, God’s objective truths will always trump man’s subjective desires.
And so this opinion, let’s call it “Kennedy’s folly,” will result in, must necessarily result in, widespread civil disobedience – disobedience of the sort we haven’t seen since the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and ’60s.
For 2,000 years, whenever such conflicts have arisen, Christians have placed the laws of God above the laws of man.
What makes you think we’re about to change now?
As many in the early church refused to bow a knee to Caesar in worship, so, too, will many modern Christians refuse, under any circumstances, to obey any court opinion or man-made law that presumes to make sin obligatory.
If the ancient church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, was able to face the lions in hopeful anticipation of joining Jesus, then we, too, under the same Spirit, will face anything today’s pagan left can threaten.
In the ongoing culture war, it seems there are no rules of engagement. The secular left will accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. That is to say, the pagans demand that we Christians abandon the biblical worldview altogether, and adopt their own.
This will never happen.
In his “letter from the Birmingham jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. famously declared, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” he explained. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”
An unjust law is, in point of fact, lawlessness.
One can imagine nothing more “out of harmony with the moral law,” than the twisted and oxymoronic notion of so-called “same-sex marriage.”
And so, Mr. Kennedy, our answer is no.
Come what may, we will not obey your unjust lawlessness.
Peace must be sought first. Then, if peaceful means fail....
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism .-Karl Marx (and Saul Alinsky)..
Jesus would say to you:” Put away your sword.”
Groovey negotiate with them.. keep them busy....
While the real needful bloody work is commenced..
The progressives will release POWER ONLY from their cold dead hands..
MOLON LABE..
Prison is a choice. A poor one.
I am a grandmother, for instance. Did you mean to call me a coward?
Depends... are you armed?.. Willing to defend yourself?..
I have read the comments so far. It seems to me that that the pagan leftists will use the force of law to compel respect and obedience to their reprobate fantasies by continuing their tactic of lawsuits against Christian businesses and, if they control the Executive Branch, by legal harassment by the Department of Justice. They will obtain court judgments and put Christian business people out of business. They will sue churches and they will win their lawsuits in a corrupt judicial system.
The political parties in Washington DC will do nothing to reduce their own power and perks, so I do not put any hope in them or in a new President, (however desirable that may be) to be willing or able to fix the problem at the Federal level.
The one political solution I see remaining that has some chance at succeeding is the States rising up in an Article V Convention and putting these federal lawless tyrants in their proper place, as our subjects, not our masters.
Not that a few million people in Washington DC for a couple of weeks creating a ruckus would be a bad thing, but the real solution to these insane Supreme Court decisions and other lawless Acts of and out-of-control Executive and it bureaucracies is to overturn them and rein them in with Constitutional Amendments that will restore those powers that rightfully belong to the States to the States.
I spent some time in the 80's attempting to save babies and I spent some time in jail for it so I'm not afraid of it anymore. Plus I'm getting too old to be afraid in general. I think I may have helped save a few lives. In the grand scheme of politics it hasn't seemed to matter very much, but politics was not the main point of it anyway; the object was simply to physically get between the abortionist and the baby so that the abortionist could not kill the baby. I am sure it did make a difference to any who may have been saved from being chopped up by an abortionist. And many Christians continue their efforts on the front lines to save one life at a time. The wholesale slaughter continues, however, and the cries to Heaven over it still fall on deaf ears in Washington DC. We ought to have risen up en masse 40 years ago to put a stop to it but we did not. I am as guilty as the next person of passivity in the face of this evil.
I don't know if there still remains a sufficiently moral and religious people in America, but at least we could still appeal to their desire for power at the State level to restore their rightfull powers to themselves.
Just my two cents.
Cordially,
Somebody needs to bust that connection wide open.
It has been busted open...
Some/most turn their heads refuse to face the reality..
Easy to find out whats going on.. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW..
However; KNOWING demands certain activities.. unless you’re a coward..
which is my point..
We all want to be lead but when given direction every rebels because they don’t want anyone telling them what to do. Yep, we’re pretty pathetic sheeple.....
The biggest forest fire starts with ONE SPARK...
start sparkling..
You (or I) can call them names under our breath, as I certainly do, but the "social change" we want (that wonderful Marxist euphemism) involves salesmanship to those who haven't yet faced the issues, realized their implications for their own lives, and decided to act.
Imagine how Paul Revere and the other Sons of Liberty felt, most of the time, before finally a whopping one-third of the colonists swung over to the Patriot side and began to take action.
Start with an easy target; the MSM.
At this point what difference does it make?
The next step should be nullification by our lesser magistrates. To protect the citizens under their purvue.
(that wonderful Marxist euphemism) involves salesmanship
Closeing argument in the sale; SHIT or get off the Pot..
Not so. In the colonies before the revolution, as Britain increased the level of usurpations/abuses, the colonists increased the level of disobedience. All along they continued their efforts to work through the British parliament. All to no avail, of course, but they did try.
The final abuses mentioned in the Declaration of Independence were regarding the lives of the colonists being unjustly taken by the crown, either through their own soldiers or covertly through schemes with the AmerIndians.
When unjust deaths/murders started, the revolution started.
Finally, SamuraiScot is correct that the period of civil disobedience builds popular support as they see the injustice of the attacks by the government on its own people.
Divorce and declaration of indepencdence, with seceding autonomous states would be a start, which would be in fact a return to what America should have been about.
Will they fight Civil War for the gays and disobeying the gays? I do not think so, but too many wusses have made divorce illegal under Federal Ayatollah shariah as expressed through gay marriage.
The Tea Party brought it home to loyalist and non loyalists together..
dressed as indians.. if they had Molitov Cocktails..
it could have been much different..
damn indians committed NOT civil disobedience BUT ESPIONAGE..
their “tribe” was a foreign givernment.. damn savages..
I disagree with classic civil disobedience. It assumes that large numbers of people will break the law and in so doing, force a reaction and that reaction will have positive results.
Unfortunately in America circa 2015, prisons are an industry. Prisoners are a necessary input. The kleptocrats would happily throw half the population in prison while taxing the other half for their care. Civil disobedience only works with a somewhat moral opponent, not one who would jump for joy at the opportunity to send people to jail.
Going to prison for violating caesar’s edicts is not cowardly. Just stupid. Caesar couldn’t care less what you think or what any of us think. Nor could he be bothered to care about a few more prisoners. “The more the merrier” is the thought process caesar uses when it comes to jails and prisoners.
“Folks, this is all happening very quickly. Get yourselves right with God.”
Yup.
Seems to me that Christians need to become wise as serpents. A really, really smart guy had something to say about that a long time ago.
When righteousness and Godliness have become criminal acts, the righteous and Godly should plan on being criminals. Not many criminals that I’ve seen are in the habit of advertising their criminality. They go underground. They deal only with trusted customers. They only employ trusted people. They have an escape strategy. Etc.
What, are you an apologist for Brad Avarkian? The bakers did not refuse to sell cakes to "gay" customers as such, but only refused to cater a "gay" wedding. They have made it clear that the same customers would have been sold birthday cakes or lots of cupcakes with no problem. That an unelected bureaucrat in Oregon with an animus against Christians pretends he can't see the difference is no reason for anyone here at FR to not understand the difference.
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.