Federal Judge: ‘Discard’ God’s Word on Marriage


Who do more harm to the country—fat-head judges, or the slimy politicians who appoint them?

Last week a federal judge—that is, a creature appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate—ruled that Pennsylvania’s marriage protection laws, and all other state laws reserving marriage to a man and a woman, must be cast away. In his exact words, “[I]t is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.”

With those words, Judge John Jones III joins himself to all the other heathen egomaniacs who’ve tried to make their word bigger than God’s. He thinks marriage, as God ordained it, and as the human race has known it for untold thousands of years, is a bad thing that ought to be replaced: and America has been a bad country for not rushing to replace it.

Everywhere you look, state and federal judges make war on Christianity, battling to overthrow the Christian—and, except for pockets of polygamy, universally human—construction of marriage and the family. As this is the very foundation of society, we view their efforts with both alarm and deep disgust.

But these judges didn’t just spring up from the earth like pokeweed. Chief executives appointed them, and legislatures confirmed them. And where did those executives and legislators come from? We the people, to our shame, elected them.

Judges nowadays, as is glaringly obvious, believe they can do anything they please: and who can blame them for thinking so? Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to remove from the courts’ jurisdiction all sorts of issues—including the definition of marriage—but that authority has never, ever been invoked. And it never will be, because the villains in Congress rely on judges to do dirty work that they would never dare to do themselves. They could also impeach out-of-control judges like this Mr. Jones, but they don’t do that, either.

So we have arrived at the bizarre scenario of a country of 300 million people at the mercy of a micro-constituency of homosexual activists, to whom our bureaucrats and judges and elected representatives hand their hearts’ desires on a silver platter. If you oppose it, you are branded a “hater,” derided as being “on the wrong side of history,” and stand a good chance of being punished by the loss of your job or the destruction of your business—by your government.

We are talking about a perverted moral vision that did not exist 25 years ago. Suddenly, in the blink of an eye, the word of God Himself, and unbroken thousands of years of human experience, are shouted down as evil, and their exact opposite held up to us as good.

I wonder how hard God laughs when we ask Him to bless America.

What can we do? Our country’s own leaders are waging war on our fundamental way of life. They have all the tools they need: the courts, the White House, and the Senate; the media and Hollywood; the schools, the teachers’ unions, and the university; corrupt, apostate churches; and the unelected bureaucrats as henchmen.

But they do not have God’s blessing on their work, and that’s what will undo them.

We are in for a bad time. We are being dragged into a dark age of moral chaos, and confusion over the nature of our most basic human institutions. Our society might fail. Lawless leaders, for whom law is whatever they say it is on any given afternoon, are a menace to our liberty, our social order, and our economy. We will not be the first civilization that has wrecked itself. But we will be the first to do it with so much going for us, otherwise.

What can we do?

I would rather be on the ash heap of history, with God’s word, than on a judge’s bench without it.

First we pray, unceasingly. Maybe God will hear us, and intervene to save us. He may even save our country, if He has any further use for it.

After prayer, all we can do is stand firm. We know that same-sex “marriages” are not marriages, even as we know abortion is not merely “choice.” We get out of churches that accept it, and let them wither on the vine.

We refuse to say what these lawless judges want us to say, refuse to think what they want us to think, refuse to do what they want us to do. Our consciences belong to God and to ourselves, and not to any government.

Finally, the abrupt removal of some millions of Christian children from the anti-Christian public schools would please God and show the world that we mean business.

It would also put a very nasty hole in Satan’s pocketbook.

BarbWire Books is pleased to announce

Be Spent

Winning the Fight for Freedom's Survival

America stands at the edge of suicide. There is a struggle within our soul that is more dangerous than any external threat we face. We are walking down a path that puts us in direct conflict with the very God we relied on to establish this great nation. Is there a more frightening thought? This book is an invitation to discover your role within God's plan for America; to be part of a movement of renewal; to Be Spent in service to God and your neighbor. Only that type of serious, somber, deliberate, sacrificial commitment to God has the power to rekindle the love of truth necessary for freedom's survival in our land.


Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • patrick wagner

    If Americans haven’t woken up yet to the fact that it is the ruling elite minority who are the extremists, racists, homophobes, sexists and all the other “…ists” you can think of then the majority will continue to get their minority ideas about every dimension of life forced on them, and very soon they will not be able to do anything about it.

    • L1011

      Well…you can always pray. Maybe someday it will work.

    • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

      I’m betting money that the phrase “trilateral commission” gets mentioned a lot in his bunker.

      • L1011

        And FEMA Camps, Agenda 21, and water fluoridation.

  • Baltimatt

    Feel the Christian love.

    We seem to have discarded God’s Word on marrying after a divorce.

    • thisoldspouse

      Yes, we have.

      But does deflection somehow absolve you of your sin?

      • Baltimatt

        What does “sin” have to do with civil law?

        • Matthew T. Mason

          And what does that have to do with leopards?

          • Baltimatt

            Absolutely nothing, which is why sin should not be a consideration in writing law.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Absolutely nothing indeed. Which is why your above post is a non-sequitur.

          • Baltimatt

            Less of a non-sequitur than this silly article.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            And do you have any idea what you are talking about?

          • garybryson

            More so than you ever will.

        • thisoldspouse

          What does morality have to do with civil law?

          Or do you actually think that morality has nothing to do with law?

          • Christopher E.

            What does morality have to do with civil law?

            You’d have to agree it plays a pretty fair role.

            You’d also have to agree that without religious beliefs and doctrine to say otherwise, there’s nothing immoral about gay people having relationships and getting married.

          • thisoldspouse

            Nature, design, and objective norms disagree.

          • Christopher E.

            Nature does not disagree: homosexuality exists in nature. Naturally.

            “Design” is a religious belief.

            Which objective norms, specifically, do you think make it immoral for two gay people to be in a relationship?

      • garybryson

        Since there’s no such thing as sin, there is no deflection in his post.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Wow. Thanks for admitting what I suspected about you all along.

          • garybryson

            Stated that I am an atheist long ago in my postings. Try to keep up matty.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            It also means there are no moral boundaries to you. Nothing is sacred, nothing is safe.

            Which makes me awfully frightened for your children. They should be removed from your home immediately.

          • garybryson

            I’m frightened for both you and spouser’s kids as they are being indoctrinated into a belief that majic men do indeed exist. Try again matty.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            This is not about me. This is about abhorrent psychopaths like you.

          • garybryson

            My atheism makes mer an abhorrent psychopath? My kids are healthy, smart, well adjusted and do well in school. Your mythology has nothing to do with being a good parent. Your mythology is not taught in our home. I will not indoctrinate my kids to turn out like you or spouser or some of the others who post here. They can go to church and find their god, if so desired, when they are older. The only thing abhorrent around here is the way you and your ilk respond on this site! Spouser telling me to rape kids and you telling me my kids should be removed..riiight. Clean up your own back yard you mental midget and when you do and become more of a man…..come see me., Matty.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            My atheism makes mer an abhorrent psychopath?

            No, your complete lack of moral standards of any kind makes you an abhorrent psychopath.

            You have said elsewhere you would rather see children taught homosexuality than morality. Here, you said there’s no such thing as “sin.”

            Someone who is as morally vacant as you is liable to do anything. Which makes you dangerous to society.

            So I am going to amend what I said previously: It’s not your kids that need to be removed, but you.

          • Steven Schwartz

            And people wonder why we think that Christians don’t respect others’ freedom of beliefs… Here we have prima facie evidence.
            You clearly view your “morality” as absolute, and desire to impose it upon others; I see no reason to grant you any more respect than you grant other people, and given that *they* do not want to remove you, or your kids, but are willing to let you believe as you will, it’s pretty clear who doesn’t believe in freedom, here.

            By the way — what sort of “removal” did you ahve in mind?

          • garybryson

            You don’t know anything about my morality. Your sky daddy isnt needed in order to know right from wrong. People like you are pathetic. You need and invisible magic man to hold your feet to the fire in order to be a good person which obviously isnt working by reading your comments. you sir are no christian. BTW- remove me matty, would love an in person meet and greet!

          • M Doyle

            Morality comes from empathy for others, not from religion.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Morality comes from something other than personal choice.

          • M Doyle

            I have no idea what you are referring to. Even many mammals have a moral code. It’s about empathy for others.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            I have no idea what you are referring to.

            Of course not. Which is the problem.

          • Steven Schwartz

            You seem to think that morals can only be handed down from some Source from Above; this is not an assumption that other people hold.

            If you prefer to call them “ethical” boundaries, derived from general principles, you can — but it means that there are safe things; just not sacred things. 😉

            They should be removed from your home immediately.

            And this is why people view many Christians’ claim of persecution with skepticism — they’re so quick to persecute others who do not agree with them.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You seem to think that morals can only be handed down from some Source from Above; this is not an assumption that other people hold.

            Morality is not defined by individual choice. It’s just that simple.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Morality is not defined by individual choice. It’s just that simple.

            Given a complete lack of evidence for your point, and previous discussions of consensus morality, I fail to see how this is a rebuttal of my point.

          • Daniel S

            So, what you’re saying is that people are only moral if they follow religious rules?

            Wouldn’t you rather have someone do the moral thing, because it is the right and moral thing to do instead of out of fear that it will upset God? The person who uses God to direct their morals is not a free thinking person, they are following the “rules” because they are told to.

            Stealing, murder, adultery, and telling lies are a few of the immoral actions that do not need a supreme being to make them immoral. I can give you valid and just reasons that all of those things are wrong without having to bring God into it. If that is possible, why do we need God to dictate morality?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Stealing, murder, adultery, and telling lies are a few of the immoral actions that do not need a supreme being to make them immoral. I can give you valid and just reasons that all of those things are wrong without having to bring God into it.

            Oh? Pray tell.

        • thisoldspouse

          So, go rape a child then. The pictures are probably getting boring to you anyway.

          • garybryson

            Thanks for sharing your christian love with me. Makes being an atheist that much more relevant.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Drop the non-sequiturs and act like a man.

          • Brett Koehler

            I know that raping a child is wrong without having to be told it’s wrong by some religion. If you can’t figure out why something like that is wrong without religion then I sincerly hope you stay in church.

          • Mark C.

            If you homos know it’s wrong, then why do you persist in doing it?

          • Steven Schwartz

            I always worry at the way some religious people presume that, if you don’t accept their particular god’s authority as a source for morality, and the fear of punishment, you will go on some mad rampage.

            It speaks rather worrisomely about what their own internal state is like. 😉

          • Christopher E.

            So, go rape a child then.

            Please, please don’t ever have a crisis of faith and stop believing in the Christian religion.

            Because seriously, if “sinning against God” is the only reason you think raping a child is bad, I’m kind of horrified at the idea of you loose on the streets with your sole moral compass having been busted.

          • seala

            That comment sure shows the love of Christ, NOT

      • usorthem3

        Your religion, not everyone’s. Your “god”, not everyone’s. Your sin, not everyone’s. Per the 1st Amendment I don’t have to care what your deity says or thinks as Christianity is not claimed supreme over others in the USA.

  • QuestionsEverything

    “Who do more harm to the country—fat-head judges, or the slimy politicians who appoint them?” (probably should be, “Who does more harm to this country-“, but I digress)

    At least Lee agrees that George W Bush was a slimy politician. After all, Jones was appointed to the bench by Bush in 2002.

    Besides, marriage existed long before Moses supposedly wrote one word of the Old Testament.

  • Walt NYC

    Nowhere in his decision did the judge even reference God, nor should he have. The laws that were in place were “Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws,” not “God’s Marriage Laws.” There’s a reason for that. We don’t live in a theocracy. Laws are not enacted based on any religion’s beliefs. If they were, it would go against everything the founding fathers envisioned for America. Judge Jones’ decision went as follows:

    “The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, ours would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of ‘separate but equal.’…In the sixty years since Brown (v. Board of Education) was decided, ‘separate’ has thankfully faded into history and ‘equal’ remains. Similarly, in future generations the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage. We are better people than these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.”

    Absolutely NOTHING about God’s word on marriage. It’s unfortunate that the Christian persecution complex forces them to see every step toward fairness and equality as an affront to their religious beliefs. It’s ALL about them.

    • thisoldspouse

      Nor do we live in a Gayocracy.

      Keep your perverted doctrine out of our government.

      • garybryson

        Equal rights is perverted doctrine? You really do hate the constitution dont ya?

      • Walt NYC

        The key word would be “our.” It’s your government and it’s my government. Same-sex marriage takes absolutely NOTHING away from you. It doesn’t hurt you in any way and it never will. You can’t make something illegal simply because you don’t like it.

      • Christopher E.

        Yeah, per Walt’s point, keyword our.

        If you think homosexuality is wrong and immoral, or that gay and lesbian people don’t deserve fair and equal treatment under the laws, I have news for you*:

        You’re in the minority.

        * Has not actually been “news” for a few years now.

      • Baltimatt

        Nobody’s trying to ban opposite-sex marriage.

        • Jane Doe

          Give it time. Soon ANYTHING moral and good will be banned and made illegal. It’s all part of the Alinsky’s “Rules for Radials” agenda to transform AmeriKa into something unrecognizable. Whoever can’t see where our Banana Republic is heading is willfully BLIND.

          • Baltimatt


      • usorthem3

        Keep your religion out of government.

        Marriage licenses are issued by the state, NOT the church. NO religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal, valid or recognized.

        Ronald Reagan- “We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we
        mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must
        remain, separate.

        All are free to believe or not believe, all are
        free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and
        should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief.

        At the
        same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of
        religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking
        this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral.”

        • Keith Johnson

          I just posted something about this… the reading of which will probably make you happy.

    • patrick wagner

      “How strangely will the tools of a tyrant prevent the plain meaning of words.” [Samuel Adams in a letter to John Pitts 21January 1776] The word “marriage” is a Christian word describing a Christian concept, the US legal system (branch) has for years used the Christian word “marriage” and also used the Christian code of ethics (tree trunk) as a foundation from which to form their own code. If, however, you are going to start cutting the branch that you are standing on somewhere between you and where the branch is attached to the tree trunk, then the word loses its meaning. Keep adding new and different meanings to the word and pretty soon the word is meaningless. You know, something like the words “multi-cultural”, or “racism”, they are meaningless now, you can use them to mean whatever you want at any level you want for whatever purpose you want. Political strength and force will prevail in what the strong want these words to mean now. The questions I have for the judge are:- why do individuals want to steal a word with a designated and understood meaning and try and make it mean something else? Why not make up your own word for what you want to do? Why are individuals trying to force new and different meanings and implications on to existing words when there is whole new open post-Christian book for new words and meanings to associate themselves to and with? They couldn’t have an ulterior motive could they? If this is a Christian persecution complex then I have one.

      • Steven Schwartz

        The word “marriage” is a Christian word describing a Christian concept,

        Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others would disagree. It’s an *English-language* word describing a concept common across many different cultures.

        • patrick wagner

          And I believe that Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s and Buddhists would have the same problem with one of their judges trying to corrupt their understood meaning of the word.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Nice deflection, but you didn’t refute his point, friend.

          • patrick wagner

            Muslim legal systems (branch) have for years drawn on the Muslim code of ethics (tree trunk) as a foundation from which to form their own. If the same branch cutting exercise is executed then the word will lose its meaning for Muslims. No deflection was intended, my point was that when words lose their meanings it is pointless to debate them any longer because you may be debating different concepts.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            The government looks at the word “marriage” as a legal word, not a religious one. And the legality of the word is not diminished legally when extending its benefits to same sex couples. If the word has lost its meaning to you, then YOU are the one who needs to come up with a new word, not the government.

          • patrick wagner

            So if the government decide tomorrow to come up with a new meaning for a word you have based your religious concepts, legal concepts, your business and all other dimensions of your life on, completely undermining all of your understanding and the way other people understand that same word, you would be quite happy to come up with a new word because they are in a better position to enforce their meaning of the word? And then, let’s say another government takes over next year and they decide to change the meaning of your new word or the meaning of the previous word back again, you would be quite happy to go back and reverse all your past usage of both words? This still leads to meaninglessness for both words.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Your theoretical argument needs some grounding in reality. The answer to your first question is simple:

            You have no choice because the majority of Americans (most of them heterosexual) disagree with you on this.

            Your second questions is just silly and not worth even answering.

            The word “meaningless” is subjective, not objective. The vast majority of people feel the word marriage has meaning, regardless of your opinion. And in this country, that’s what matters.

          • Steven Schwartz

            So if the government decide tomorrow to come up with a new meaning for a word

            I will note that it’s an *expanded* meaning.

            It’s not like they are changing “marriage” to mean “the process of registering your car’. 😉

            Words change meaning over time — “Computer” used to be a job, after all, rather than a machine.

            To go back to your original comment…

            Why are individuals trying to force new and different meanings and implications on to existing words when there is whole new open post-Christian book for new words and meanings to associate themselves to and with?

            Because, as has been established repeatedly, “separate but equal” is hardly ever equal.

            When one small change can do everything that would otherwise require a *massive* amount of work, and be a constant and ongoing issue, why not make that change?

            Say that, for example, it was decided to call what we now think of as “marriage” for anyone but the currently-defined “tradition” (since that has changed, since, say, Loving vs. Virginia) “Filbert.”

            Now we need to rewrite *every* law that refers to “marriage” to include the new word, and make it clear that all people now described as “married” are, in fact, “filberted”. Then we need to make sure that *no* law after that point refers to “marriage” — because otherwise there would now be a distinction between being “married” and being “filberted”.

            Any private buisness that now distinguishes between “married” groups and “filberted” groups is either a) free to discriminate as they please, which becomes an equal protection issue or b) forced to maintain the clear legal connection between the words.

            All this work, so that people can go “Oh, but *this* word is important to me, so *you people* need to go find a new word for what is, functionally, the same as what my word applies to, save for one difference.”

            Not worth it.

          • QuestionsEverything

            “So if the government decide tomorrow to come up with a new meaning for a word you have based your religious concepts, legal concepts, your business and all other dimensions of your life on, completely undermining all of your understanding and the way other people understand that same word, you would be quite happy to come up with a new word because they are in a better position to enforce their meaning of the word?”

            Are you implying that you have based your religious concepts, legal concepts, your business and all other dimensions of your life, on your understanding of what the word “marriage” means?

          • Keith Johnson

            I just posted about this very concept… I think it’ll make you smile, and it might make you cheer.

          • Steven Schwartz

            with one of their judges

            Part of the point of living in a multi-cultural society is that they’re all “our” judges. They designate different things — subtly different, perhaps, or not-so-subtly. After all, there are Christians who support SSM. 😉

            The point is you do not get to claim ownership of the word or the concept.

          • Keith Johnson

            I just posted a pretty good treatise on this. I think it’s worth your read…

          • Inis_Magrath

            As a Jew I will say that Jews are smart enough to know that a civil legal definition of a word can be different than a religious definition. We embrace complexity and nuance without difficulty. I can’t speak to how Christians deal with it, but I will say this: Deal with it.

          • patrick wagner

            As a Jew, where are you based? I was wondering how different the secular definition of the word “marriage” is to the religious definition in Israel?

      • QuestionsEverything

        “The word “marriage” is a Christian word describing a Christian concept”

        The concept of marriage has existed long before the advent of the Christian religion, so to state that it is a “Christian word describing a Christian concept”, is not only inaccurate but also dishonest.

      • Dan

        Marriage has never been exclusive to Christians. It has existed in various forms far beyond the 8 types found in the bible, around the world and across time, including same sex couples.

        Removal of the gender restriction did not change what marriage means legally to opposite sex couples.

    • Dan

      Thanks for the quote.
      Not only does it expose the lie of the article, it helps explain why tradition and prejudice are not sufficient for denial of liberty and equal protections of the law.

  • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

    Did anyone else smell “desperation” in that article?

    • thisoldspouse

      No, I just smell sulfur in these comments.

      • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

        For “an old spouse” you are witty, my friend. Based on the “tone” of some of your recent posts, I’m sensing that you, like most in the anti-gay group have resigned yourselves to the fact that marriage equality is coming to all 50 states. You no longer call for “stopping it”. Would I be correct?

      • garybryson

        OOoooooo, the old fire and brimstone routine? Never fails to get a laugh out of me..lOL!

    • Dan

      The reliance on demeaning pejoratives, dehumanization, and fear of world destruction simply for treating others as you treat yorself, is clear fear mongering.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    What is or is not “God’s Word” is highly disputed. In any case, the Constitution makes no reference to “God’s Word” or the Bible, nor should it. The judge, just like others before him, based his decision on the Constitution, its Amendments, and the interpretations provided by the Supreme Court in previous decisions. This is no more an “activist judge” than other judges who have redefined a person to include a corporation.

    • M Doyle

      There is no god.

    • Keith Johnson

      Anyone who uses the phrase “Activist Judge” has clearly not passed a 4th-grade civics class.

  • M Doyle

    So, the commenting rules do not allow name calling, but this article and others are full of name calling. I guess it only works for you when you are the one throwing vile insults. Hypocrites.

  • BillTheCat45

    Yes, please take your mythical sky god offspring out of public schools. They creep all of the other kids out, seriously.

  • usorthem3

    God also commanded that all non believers be put to death. 2 Chronicles 15 13 so when does that all begin happening to appease and glorify your deity?

  • Joe

    When writing our laws why must we base those laws on a book that tells us that the earth is flat, disk shaped object, that it is attached to pillars that fix the earth’s place in the universe. Furthermore, the Bible tells us that the sky is a solid substance (possibly made of metal) protecting the earth from an ocean of water that is above the sky. According to the Bible the sun, moon and stars are on the inside of this dome sky. The sun is the greatest light of these, that the moon is its own light source and that the stars are just tiny points of light fixed to the sky, not suns in their own right. The literal word of the Bible tells us that there is no light greater than the sun, not even R136a1 – the brightest known star in the universe (which is 265 times more massive than our own sun).

    Behold, the earth and the universe according to the literal word of the Bible:

    Put aside the big bang or evolution. The claims the Bible made above are insane. If they weren’t the entire space program – from the Voyager spacecraft to the Mars rovers to the moon landing to GPS satellites are all fake. Either the Bible is true or our space program is true. They can’t both be true.

  • MGS

    I like how you talk about the slimy politicians who appoint them and then talk about the PA marriage change, when it was a slimy republican who advocated for him and put him in office. Oh the slimy irony.

  • ConservativeSurge

    Nailed it. But too bad the sodomites have taken over, so this country can’t be delivered.

    • ErickMN

      And how hilarious that you are so miserable about it. You are welcome to leave.

  • Tiger

    So our society is going to crumble because we are beginning to allow a minority group the ability to marry whomever they please? Who would have thought that treating people equally would have such destructive consequences.

    Or.. maybe the author of this article is a bit out of touch of reality.

  • Keith Johnson

    crux of the issue is that, for our purposes, there are two completely
    separate “kinds” of marriage. There are actually four kinds of marriage,
    but the first two aren’t germane to this discussion… but here they
    are anyway because the definition of a religious marriage is predicated
    on the definition of one of the first two types.

    Type 1 –
    Emotional Marriage – The emotional bond that people feel for one
    another. This is the feeling of being “soul mates.” This is Romeo and
    Juliet… Because we believe in free will, this type is something that
    not even God gets a say in.

    Type 2 – Spiritual Marriage – (If
    you’re an atheist, you don’t buy into this one) Recognition by God that
    people are bonded. This is basically God saying, “You’re soul mates.”

    Type 3 – Religious Marriage – Public recognition by an organized
    establishment of religion that, according to its doctrines and dogma, a
    spiritual marriage has taken place.

    Type 4 – Legal Marriage – A
    civil contract between people that affords rights and requires
    responsibilities. This is the piece of paper that you file at the county
    clerks office that makes you a “spouse” in the eyes of the law.

    The whole reason that we have all the issues right now is that for the
    past 400 years or so (maybe more…), we’ve allowed religious officiants
    to perform both a Type 3 and a Type 4 marriage *at the same time.*
    Think about it. When you get married in a church (synagogue, temple,
    whatever), the priest (rabbi, minister, whatever) says, “By the power
    vested in me by the Roman Catholic Church (or whatever), *and* the State
    of (whatever state you’re in), I now pronounce you (something).”


    You saw that word, right?

    They’re two separate things. When you get married by a Justice of the
    Peace (or whatever secular officiant), all they say is “By the power
    vested in me by the State of (whatever state you’re in), I now pronounce
    you (something).”

    It’s easy to see. It’s simple. The reason
    it gets complicated is that there are a whole lot of people out there
    who feel that their power and control are being threatened… and there
    are bigots and haters out there… who are attempting to *willfully*
    misconstrue, confuse, and merge the Type 3 and Type 4 marriages so they
    can prevent *legal* status and rights for people with whom they disagree
    (or hate or whatever). The use of the phrase “Traditional Marriage” is
    exactly this sort of attempt to construe Type 3 and Type 4 marriages
    into a single thing thus trying to lay moral authority over a civil

    The truth is that Type 3 and Type 4 are completely
    separate, they have *nothing* in common. And once you see truth of that,
    everything else can be made to make sense with no one at fault, no one
    to blame, no bad guys. We solve the whole mess by taking one, calm step
    backward, and just looking at the issue.

    Ok, so here’s the deal
    with gay marriage. There have been, in the USA, gay marriages for
    decades or more. Various churches have been performing gay marriages for
    a long time. Because they are Type 3 marriages, they carried no force
    under the law.

    Now with this marriage equality stuff going
    around, let’s consider what the courts can actually rule on. They can’t
    rule on a Type 1 marriage… nor a Type 2 for obvious free will, and
    “can’t tell God what to do” reasons. The 1st Amendment precludes the
    courts from ruling a Type 3 marriage with certain very particular
    exceptions that are covered by other other legal constructs (that I’ll
    cover in a bit).

    The only kind of marriage that the courts can
    consider is the Type 4 marriage, which is nothing but a civil contract
    that affords rights and requires responsibilities.

    Hear that.
    The whole gay marriage thing, as far as the US courts are concerned is a
    simple contracts case. A 1st year law student could look at gay
    marriage as the simple contracts case that it is and apply the 1st, 5th,
    and 14th Amendments, and Brown v Board of Education’s “separate is
    inherently unequal” and Loving v Virginia’s “Marriage is one of the
    ‘basic civil rights of man,'” to get to the inevitable, inescapable
    conclusion that gay marriage (of Type 4) is the right call.

    Please understand, there is absolutely no moral, ethical, emotional,
    spiritual, or any other kind of judgment on the merits of a Type 4
    marriage. It’s a legal contract. That’s all it is. It’s nothing but a
    legal contract that affords rights and requires responsibilities. There
    is no moral component to a legal contract.

    That’s not to say
    that entering into a contract of marriage isn’t a solemn occasion. It
    is. It should be. But just because it’s loaded with gravitas, doesn’t
    give it a moral bent. And by that token, it also cannot, therefore, have
    an immoral component. There is nothing moral or immoral about a Type 4

    Now, let’s talk about the “Slippery Slope”
    argument… because it’s important. Some folks will argue that if gay
    folks can legally get married, then a man can marry a little boy, or his
    dog, or a chicken, or, in the case of Mayor West on Family Guy, his
    left hand. My personal choice for this type of marriage is a life-sized,
    cardboard cutout of Katee Sackhoff. I’d marry that piece of rigid paper
    in a second. Yum. See, if you open it up to the Gays, where will it

    The proponents of gay marriage treat this question as an
    insult to their loving relationships because they feel it attempts to
    equate them with those other things and they don’t like it. Well gay
    marriage proponents, suck it up. Slippery Slope is an important
    principle in jurisprudence and it needs to be addressed.

    good news for rational folks is that there is, in fact, a simple and
    well defined legal concept that acts as a perfect backstop to the
    Slippery Slope. It’s called “Consent.” A little boy can’t legally give
    consent… nor an animal of any kind… not even a cardboard cutout nor a
    piece of anatomy. Consent is the backstop to the Slippery Slope.

    So let’s get to the contention that people will push to have churches
    forced to perform gay marriages against their doctrines and dogma…

    Let me give you an example from my own life that will illustrate my
    point about religious freedom regarding performing marriages using an
    example that is so normal and accepted and absolutely ubiquitous that
    once I share it everyone will say, “Oh… yeah… it is like that…”

    I’m Catholic. I know, I accept your condolences. When I was young, I
    met a great girl fell in love and got married. Seven years later, my
    wife and I split. We got a divorce. Lucky me, I met another really great
    girl, fell head-over-heels in love and wanted to get married…

    I’m Catholic. Did I mention that? According to the doctrines and dogma
    of the Roman Catholic Church, “until death us do part.” According to the
    beliefs of the Catholics, I’m still married to that woman back in
    Michigan, and I will be for quite a while, God willing.

    the question: What do you think the American Legal System would do if I
    sued the Catholic Church to force them to perform a marriage between
    this new (awesome) girl and me… to perform a Type 3 marriage that’s
    against their doctrines and dogma?

    Go on, you can say it.
    They’d laugh me out of the building. If I appealed? More giggles. Take
    it all the way to the California Supreme Court? Guffaws! Decide that
    this is a Constitutional issue and go to the US Supreme Court? They
    would tell me that according to the 1st Amendment to the US
    Constitution, the court can’t tell the Catholic Church what constitutes a
    marriage for the Catholic Church… and yet more laughing at me would
    be had by all.

    You can see that, right? It’s already incredibly
    well settled law that the courts can’t tell religious institutions what
    makes up a Type 3 marriage.

    So relax. Gays won’t be able to
    use the force of the Law to require organized establishments of religion
    to perform Type 3 marriages which are against their doctrines and dogma
    in exactly the same way I can’t force the Catholic Church to marry me
    and my new wife.

    Now let’s talk about something that the
    courts will be able to tell organized establishments of religion. Here’s
    another perfectly well established, no-one-complains-about-it-at-all, everyone-gets-it example, using me (but not an actual example, just hypothetical), that will show something “interesting.”

    Let’s say that I got a great job working as a janitor for the Catholic
    church across the street from me. It pays well and comes with awesome
    benefits… medical with no copay, including dental and eye care… for
    my whole family, my spouse and my kid.

    Ah Hah! If you’ve been
    reading, you know that according to the Catholics’ doctrines and dogma,
    my spouse lives in Michigan. According to the laws in the state of
    California (and the nation), my spouse lives across the street from the
    church with me.

    Here’s the question: To whom does the Church give the spousal benefits?

    You all know the answer… they don’t even blink as they put my legal
    spouse’s information all over the forms. It doesn’t hurt them, and they
    don’t protest or try to sue me. Everyone knows this. Nobody questions
    it. Nobody fights it. Why?

    The answer is so simple and clear
    that it’ll make your head spin. Oh, and by the way, this is also the
    answer to the whole religious exemptions for health care thing… ready
    for the answer?

    The reason my current wife gets the spousal
    benefits is that, when the Church is functioning as a *business*, it
    must comply with local, state and federal laws. When the Church is
    functioning as a religious organization, it follows its doctrines and
    dogma, protected by the 1st Amendment.

    This is true of *any* religious institution in the US. Everyone understands it, no one complains. It’s the way it is.

    It will continue to be that way with gay marriage. Here’s an example
    using my friends, Adam and Steven: Adam and Steven get married at the
    Hollywood United Methodist Church in 2013, perfectly legal, Type 3 and
    Type 4 marriages. In 2014, Adam gets a job as a janitor for a Catholic
    church in Los Angeles. It’s a great job that pays well and has great
    benefits… 401k, medical (including dental and eye care), for his
    spouse and kids. Great. The Church is required to consider Steven to be
    the spouse because, since it’s acting like a business instead of a
    religious institution with regard to its relationship with Adam, the
    Church must comply with California law. Adam and Steven have a Type 4
    marriage which provides legal rights. One of those legal rights is the
    right to be considered each others “spouse” in all legal business
    conducted within the state.

    You can see that, right? Adam’s
    situation with the Catholic Church is exactly the same as mine. We both
    have legal marriages that the Church is required to recognize because
    the Church is functioning as a business, and we both have marriages that
    the Church is not at all required to recognize in any way socially.

    In conclusion, gay marriage is coming. It’s coming for the whole nation.

    The world will go on.

    You’re safe and unthreatened; be happy.

    • patrick wagner

      Thank you for your treatise. I have to confess though that in my limited thinking I am not yet thinking beyond thecorruption of the original meaning and value of individual words. I wouldn’t claim to know the meaning of the American legal system’s interpretation of the words “justice” or “legal” any more, never mind individual judges or politicians interpretations. I would never try to claim the definition of any word, I am too busy doing my best always to clarify the original (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or whatever) meaning and definition of what existing word is being used to describe things and why they were used. Obviously I don’t have the time or the resources to investigate, as deeply and as much as I would like to, the words used in every religion, holy book of every culture and language.

      Legal systems are drawn from historic cultures, cultures are drawn from religions, religions are drawn from historic stories which are formed from words, verbal and written words (Bible, Koran etc.). God speaks (with words) the universe into being, and He uses words to reveal mysteries about Himself. Legal documents and political documents have through
      time claimed these words and corrupted their meanings for expediency or fashionable motives, so for me it is pointless for different individuals to debate any topic using words which may have different meanings and concepts to each individual doing the debating.

      Irrespective of whether foreign languages use the same word “marriage” for different things, this is my concern. If you take a non-emotional word like “another”. Depending on the motive for using the word, the word could be used for “another version of the same”, the word could also be used for “another different version”. Question – why not use either the words
      “new” or “different” instead of the word “another”? Answer – ignorance of the other words “new” and “different” or indifference towards whether a new or different is desired.

      Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:25 are clear that the word “man” and the word “woman” are involved in the word “marriage”. Already, with the advent of genetic manipulation, there is manoeuvre room in those two words, “man” and “woman” but the original Jewish and Christian motive for a definite meaning of the word “marriage” was used throughout the Bible to reveal a mystery – God’s Church and God’s relationship to His Church. (see Ephesians 5:25 – 5:33). There is no wiggle-room for different interpretations in Ephesians 5:31 – “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they shall be one” simply because God wanted to reveal and create, without wiggle-room, definitely and clearly, in the minds of His disciples what His Church is, and what the relationship between Him and His Church is.

      Indifference or ignorance to the meaning of the word “marriage” cannot be used as a reason for using it. Indifference cannot be an excuse – because
      you can simply use another word. Ignorance cannot be an excuse – because both Christians and non-Christians know the clear historic definition of the word. The lack of respect for God, Christianity and its history or simply laziness of the American legal system can be the only excuses for not inventing a new word for a different form of relationship. It is quite possible and very quick and easy (with existing IT technology) to create and give a new word the same legal definition and implications in any system as any another existing word. The only motive and result for introducing any difference of meaning for an existing word “marriage”, with its historical and religious implications, is obfuscation (deliberately make
      something confusing or difficult to understand, or deception). So, sorry, as a disciple of Christ I still feel that the meaning of the word “marriage” is threatened, and thus God’s attempts to reveal the mystery of His Church and His relationship threatened with it.

      • Keith Johnson

        The only thing I take away from your reply is that any words in Bible are not allowed to be used by Man… If you can’t see the insanity of that, I can’t have a discussion with you. Think of all the words Man can’t use if your argument has *any* validity:

        Garden, Paradise, Destruction, Love, Fire, Bread, Wine, Lamp, Oil, Blessed, Slave, Child, Angel, Afraid, Flood, Glory, Happiness…

        The fact that you start off by thanking my for this thing I observe, then claim lack of authority to judge its merits because you choose to transfer your authority to someone you need to be all-knowing… your only reason for doing that is to undermine my authority in the presentation.

        I reject your theft of my authority to make an observation.

        Here’s the Jude0-Christian flaw in your philosophy.

        There is a reason God made Man… So that He could share His Love… Man was made with Free Will specifically because if it’s not freely given, it’s not love. Part of Free Will is the necessity of holding ones own authority and being responsible (and being held responsible for ones own thoughts and actions).

        The very act of surrendering your own mind and will in the manner you have precludes the love you feel from *actually* being freely given.

        How much faith does an angel have?

        None, an angel has no faith, and angel knows.

        How much love does an angel have for God?

        None, love must be freely given, and angels have no free will. They serve Him; they do not love Him.

        Your observations make you much more an angel than a Man.

        I’d rather be a Man.

  • partiZancritic

    BarbWire, get rid of these homosexualists. En mass and immediate bans is the solution for en mass jamming. A constant stream of negativity and supporter harassment is the prescribed tactic for these activists, don’t you realize this? Stand up to them, for goodness sake! Then you’ll get more people participating in, and constructively developing your commentary threads. As it is, they have succeeded in properly defacing and smearing every single article you have on your site. Each article is accompanied by reams of hateful and Christophobic speech, which is what they want to associate your articles with as they ensure search engines work for their cause.

  • JH

    I dare say, this guy are quite mad at nothing…

  • Jane Doe

    No surprise here! Bad is rapidly becoming “good” and vice versa. There is a diabolical agenda to transform AmeriKa into something unrecognizable. And I can only imagine that TRADITIONAL marriage will soon be illegal, as EVERYTHING moral and good will be replaced with the IMMORAL. Whoever can’t see where our Banana Republic (and eventually the entire globe) is heading is willfully BLIND.