The California Marriage Amendment
Nov 12, 2008
Though Barack Obama won the recent vote in California, that state also voted 53 to 47% to define "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. The gay-lesbian movement was outraged, calling it a violation of their civil rights.
Recently, some of their people raided a church in Michigan, violating the civil rights of the Christians. To their credit, the Christians appear to have responded in the spirit of Christ.
Civil rights are like all other rights in that they are given by our Creator, not by governments. Therefore, if you want to know if a particular "right" exists at all, you cannot merely claim it on your own, or expect the government to grant it to you. You have to go to Scripture to find it there. One would be hard pressed to find there a "right of gay marriage," to say nothing of the private act itself.
In 1884 the Supreme Court gave a ruling in the case of Brushaber Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. 111 US 746:
"These inherent RIGHTS have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new EVANGEL [Gospel] of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident,' that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement, 'that all men are endowed,' not by edicts of Emperors or decrees of Parliament or Acts of Congress, but 'by their CREATOR, with certain inalienable rights,' that is, rights which cannot be bartered away or given away or taken away except in punishment of crime; 'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these,' not grant them but secure them, 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'."
In the same case later, the Supreme Court Justice stated:
"I cannot believe that what is termed in the Declaration of Independence a God-given and an inalienable right, can be thus ruthlessly taken from the citizen, or that there can be any abridgment of that right . . ."
So it is plain from the long-established Supreme Court ruling in 1884 that only God gives rights, and that governments have been established, not to grant rights, but to secure them--that is, to enforce them and make sure that these God-given rights are not unjustly removed from anyone.
Did God give men the right to have a gay or lesbian marriage? No, and one would be hard pressed to find ANY religion that would say that God granted such a right. Except, of course, for the fact that Secular Humanism was given the status of a religion back in the early 1960's (in order to have tax-exempt status). But this would merely pit the Christian God against the Secular Humanist "god," which is actually man himself.
This whole question of gay-lesbian "marriage" is really about the Declaration of Independence. It is about whether or not that Declaration is still valid in a court of law today. The suspension of the Constitution on June 5, 1933 does not necessarily mean that the Declaration of Independence was suspended. The Declaration stands ABOVE the Constitution, because the Constitution was passed under the authority of the Declaration.
Yet since 1933 we have seen many politicians and regular people claiming RIGHTS as if they were granted by Acts of Congress or by Emperors (i.e., by presidents issuing Executive Orders).
Marriage itself is a religious term, invented by God and instituted by Him. To secularize it is to steal the term for one's own use or benefit. If gays and lesbians want to have a sexual relationship, biblical law defines that as a sin in the eyes of God. Human governments may or may not agree with God. But to call it "marriage" is another matter, because government does not have the right to redefine "marriage" apart from its biblical definition.
This is now complicated by the fact that there are certain "secular" privileges being granted to those exercising their God-given "marriage right." For example, there are family insurance policies granted by insurance companies. There is also the issue of adopting children. Do children have the God-given right to be raised by a father and a mother?
Most of these issues have recently been called into question simply because this nation has come into captivity by an ungodly entity called Mystery Babylon. Our new masters pretend that our original Constitution still exists, but they claim veto power over it whenever it conflicts with their own man-made laws and authority. So the real question today is whether Babylon will allow gay or lesbian marriage.
To fight this change without first overthrowing Mystery Babylon is ultimately a losing proposition. Babylon has only to begin teaching first graders that gay and lesbian marriage is okay, and within a generation, they will have produced a generation that will agree with this new moral system. The Church should certainly compete with Babylon by teaching the biblical view; however, the Church is at a clear disadvantage, because its monetary resources are not unlimited. Christians have to fund their own competition--the very schools teaching Babylonian morality. The playing field is not level at all.
Many years ago Christians began teaching that God's law had been put away and that it no longer defined sin--except where we agreed with it, of course. In other words, the Church put itself in the place of God and gave itself the "right" to edit God. Note what Pope Boniface VIII wrote in Unam Sanctum:
"Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to change times and times, to alter and abrogate laws, to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ; for where Christ biddeth Peter put up his sword, and admonishes his disciples not to use any outward force in avenging themselves, do not I, Pope Nicolas, [using a previous pope as his authority] writing to the bishops of France, exhort them to draw out their material swords?
"And whereas Christ was present Himself at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, do not I, Pope Martin, in my distinction, inhibit the spiritual clergy to be present at marriage feasts, and also to marry?
"Moreover, where Christ biddeth us to lend without hope of gain, do not I, Pope Martin, give dispensation to do the same? What should I speak of murder, making it to be no murder or homicide to slay them that be excommunicated?
"Likewise against the law of nature, item against the apostles, also against the canons of the apostles, I can and do dispense, for where in their canon command a priest for fornication to be deposed, I through the authority of Sylvester, do alter the rigour of their constitution, considering the minds and bodies also of men to be weaker than they were then."
The Church now objects hypocritically, citing the very biblical law that they had already overturned by papal authority. We cannot have it both ways. If we will not have God to rule us, then man will fill the void. The Church first overturned the "canons" (laws) of Christ and the apostles through the authority of various popes cited above. Then God saw to it that these were overthrown and replaced by Babylonians.
And now we object to this? Are we upset by the usurpation of divine authority or by the fact that Babylonians replaced the earlier usurpers? Do we really want God to rule us? Or have we rejected God's rule, even as Saul did (1 Sam. 8:7)? Stop trying to get the Babylonians to repent before the Christians repent. The Babylonians are only doing their job to bring judgment on the Church.
Dr. Stephen Jones