A Huge White Snarl Flapping Behind You

This is not so much another “I told you so” but rather another “I tried to tell you so.”

The other day I related how, in my debate with Andrew Sullivan, I tried to show that after same-sex mirage had a foothold in our society, the next folks in line, using all the same arguments, would be the polygamists. And here we are, unlike other functions of modern government, way ahead of schedule.

But I also argued something else, even more “out there.” I said that, given the premises we are all being harangued into adopting, there would be no saying no to bi-sexual marriages. In that chain of letters LGBTQ, why are the B’s left out of this grand expansion of marriage rights? Must be the haters.

The response to this argument has usually been something like, “He clearly doesn’t know what a bisexual is. What a maroon.” Ah, but I do know, and I also know that if somebody wants marital expression for that sexual identity, this requires, at a minimum two other people, one of each sex. And because the extra spouses involved don’t have an obligation to have their third squeeze be the shared third somebody, the whole thing spirals into chaos. What begins as a menage a trois turns into a plain old menagerie.

And so the other day something happened in North Dakota, a little something that vindicates me entirely. Now normally I would refrain from using phrases like “vindicates me entirely” out of a concern that I not fall into spiritual pride, but because vindication on this issue, with these points, only results in me being called an idiot, I feel it is a risk I can take.

What happened was this. A dude wanted to get a marriage license in North Dakota to marry a lady. He was already married to another guy back in another state that allows it. But North Dakota doesn’t recognize same sex mirages, and good on them. This means that he was free to marry the girl in North Dakota without running any risk of being charged with bigamy. But now, suppose he moves back to the state that allowed his first marriage, and he takes HER with him? That state does recognize legal marriages performed in North Dakota. And this leads to the question that I am sure is on everyone’s mind — what will happen when the three of them try to sign up for Obamacare before the deadline?

The answer to that pressing question is an answer that proves that in at least one area we have achieved true equality in the eyes of the law. When they sign up for Obamacare, all three of them, nothing will happen, just like with regular folks.

So here it comes — a Christmas word to the faithless. I am using the word faithless in both senses. I am speaking to those who do not believe, and I am speaking to those who are being disobedient to what they actually do know (Rom. 1:19-20). Ultimately the two categories are only one, but I am speaking to those who are without faith and those trying to throw it away, wanting to pretend they never had it.

The Bible says that when folly gets to this point, it is not an instance of us escaping from God’s hands, but rather a case of us falling into His hands. The wrath of God is defined in Romans 1 as God giving us up, giving us over to our lusts. When He does this, we run headlong and destroy ourselves. This is the wrath of God upon us. It is not a case of us behaving badly in ways that will eventually incur the wrath of God, but rather a proof that we have already dragged the wrath of God down upon our own heads. It is upon us now.

You conduct parades in the street celebrating your ignorance of what it means to be male and female, and it turns out that this ignorance means that you don’t know what a human being is. Assume for a moment that your class assignment came from Pope’s Essay on Man — “Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man.” If that is the class you are enrolled in, the bad news is that you are flunking it — on the level of a chemistry major not knowing what a molecule is. This is how the blindness descends. Blindness, when it descends, falls upon the eyes. Feminists don’t know what a woman is, and humanists don’t know what a human is. This is like a geologist not knowing what a rock is, but you can get away with it for a short time if you are prepared to respond to every challenge from the haters with “because shut up.”

When you are in a free fall, there is no arbitrary place you can choose and say “thus far and no farther.” It is your judicial system that is in the middle of a bad parachute accident. You are the ones headed for the ground with a huge white snarl flapping behind you. You no longer have the option of saying that you want to stop now, before it gets troublesome. You should have thought of that before jumping out of the plane.

There is nothing left that you can do. All your presidents, your generals, your intelligence officials, your politicians, your solons, your pundits, your poets, your songwriters, your movie directors, your activists, your community organizers, and your chattering classes are, all together, headed for that sickening sound of impact.
I said there is nothing you can do, but by that I meant there is nothing for you to do from within your own bag of tricks. You are done. You are dead. It is all over.

But there is one thing you can do. You can repent — not because it isn’t hopeless, but because it is. You can pray — not because that is something desperate people always do for no good reason, but rather because it is something that desperate people do for very good reason indeed.

You must repent of your sins the way the Bible defines them. Central to your sinning has been your loss of understanding of what a human being is. You have hated God, and so you have hated the image of God. So repent of your evolutionism, your promiscuity, your autonomy, your philosophies. You must pray to the true God, and not to an idol. You may not pray to the vapory and generic God found in our civil liturgies. You must pray to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the Father of mercies.

In short, America must return to Jesus. It is not complicated.

Share on Facebook242Tweet about this on Twitter8Share on Google+3Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

31 comments on “A Huge White Snarl Flapping Behind You

  1. Was this not a hypothetical case upon which the North Dakota AG filed an opinion?  Given, the reality would probably soon follow the hypothetical anyways.

  2. Amen and Amen! With all this talk about continuationism and now this fiery sermon, you might be getting accused of being Pentecostal soon. Okay, probably not, but it sure felt like a revival sermon. ————-Okay, serious question time. It seems to me that based on the Bible your position is spot on. But, based on the constitution there seems to be some wiggle room and that is really the reason (along with unfettered sin) that marriage is falling apart here. Perhaps the roots of this folly is sown in the document itself. I remember reading about how the Puritans opposed the constitution as not being a good foundation. Would you agree? I guess I am asking if the founding document deserves a little blame for this mess for allowing the secular activists room to push. (Please, nobody shoot me, I love my country, but I am curious about how our laws intersect with the Law of God.) Thanks!

  3. DW, I believe this is definitely an example of “I tried to tell you so”. My thought process on this subject was greatly altered after watching your “Sexual By Design” a year or so ago. This isn’t about making a cute argument or ruffling feathers. This is the logical, natural progression of the same sex marriage sinkhole. Be it 3 or more adults, children, or a favorite pet, the course has been laid. Now, as you, I have to work on not feeling a prideful vindication as I watch this secular circus play out.

  4. Was this not a hypothetical case upon which the North Dakota AG filed an opinion?

    Nope, real case.  I couldn’t gather whether he was still married to the guy and brought him with him, or whether they were separated.  The most likely outcome, were he to move back to whatever state and run afoul of the bigamy law, would be that it is challenged, goes up to the supreme court, and they strike down all of DOMA, rendering his second marriage void.

  5. Wesley - 
    This is a real situation and not hypothetical.  A man married to another man in another state, came to the Burleigh County recorder’s office and requested a marriage application to marry a woman.  He didn’t want to commit a criminal violation on the application by checking the box “single/never married.”  The county attorney requested an opinion from the ND State AG, who opined (1) he is currently “not married” under ND law, therefore he can marry a woman and (2) he would not be committing a State crime by checking the box.  Article: http://www.wdaz.com/event/article/id/21317/group/homepage/, AG’s opinion: http://www.ag.nd.gov/Opinions/2013/Letter/2013-L-06.pdf  

  6. Ahh… gotcha.


    The Breitbart article wasn’t terribly clear on that.


    Thanks for the correction!

  7. Pastor Wilson, I watched the debate yesterday after finding the link in the comments and would agree with the poster who described it as an exercise in frustration. ____________________________________________________________________________
    The bit about Sullivan’s point that while a polygamist can at least marry someone, a gay man can’t marry anyone caught my attention, and I appreciated the way you tried to push the point that in fact both men have the same unwelcome choice available to them: a marriage that doesn’t fulfill their natural desires.
    It reminded me of a point that Neil Boortz made a year or so ago, that gay and straight men were actually treated equally under the (then) current law, in that neither was allowed to marry another man. The fact that the straight man didn’t actually want to do so was irrelevant to how the law restricted his behavior.
    We’ve now gotten to a place where Equal Treatment Under The Law is coming to mean that the law enshrines whatever it is that a person wants to do, and as you point out here, once you take that leap, there’s no rational place to stop.

  8. Excellent post Pastor Douglas, as (mostly) usual.
    Your logic construct is admirable and resistless.
    Here in Australia we had the High Court (our Supreme Court) just last week overturn the A.C.T.’s (where I live) same sex “marriage” laws due to them conflicting with the federal law.  As part of that ruling though, the High Court also said that the Federal Parliament  can pass a law allowing same sex “marriage” so that basically now it’s just a matter of ‘political will’.
    While we’re not quite in free fall yet the hatch door is open and the view looks inviting. Thankfully we are blessed with a conservative Catholic prime minister (and yes I do mean blessed) who has recently won an election with a substantial majority and while some in his party are campaigning for a conscience vote on “marriage equality”, his views are clear (he doesn’t support it) and seem to be unchanging. 
    Although a parliamentary conscience vote might be what the ‘gay marriage lobby’ here are pushing for in order to achieve their goal (not even close to a certainty if they were granted one) what they really should be given is a constitutional referendum. Something I would ardently advocate.
    I have absolutely no doubt as to the outcome of that vote.

  9. I guess I still don’t follow the slippery slope logic. Same-sex marriage is about redefining the definition of marriage. Polygamy is about wanting multiple marriages at once. The bisexual guy falls into both camps. All of these seem quite slippery and dangerous, but I guess I still don’t see how they’re on the same slope, unless that slope is just a general “When you move from the idea of one heterosexual marriage at a time then things get crazy”. ////But while there has never existed something like same-sex marriage because it is a contradiction of terms, there has existed cases of men having multiple marriages at once (Solomon really did have hundreds of wives, for example, while Joe and Bob aren’t really married.) Both scenarios up until recently have been illegal in the U.S., but one is based on the dictionary while the other is based on history, thus I don’t follow the slope. Thoughts?…

  10. Steven,
    The biblical definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
    1m + 1f = married union.
    The issue is one of authority. If you reject the biblical definition/formula by changing one element, why stop there? 
    If I have no authority to tell 2 males that they can’t be married, then why tell 1 male and 2 females that they can’t all be married? The issue is not the slippery slope. The issue is the fact if the homosexual marriage arguments prove persuasive, why shouldn’t the polygamists be able to use the same arguments? If it makes them happy, isn’t it bigoted, right-winged, and hateful of me to tell them no?
    What reason do we really have for being concerned other than the fact that the bible defines marriage one way.

  11. If America repents will we still hear the sickening sound of impact? Or will the sickening sound of impact cause America to repent? If the Lord has abandoned our society to it’s lusts as a judgement, then when will a time come to restore our nation? How much misery will it take before the collective knee bends? Will it ever bend?

  12. Dear friends and brethren,
    I think we are missing the plain and simple, indeed — the biblical — problem and solution at once, here.  It is certain that true and heartfelt repentance is needed, of that there can be no doubt.  But, it is we — the Church at large, the church which most regrettably includes us Reformed types — who needs to repent!!  Over the past century or so, we ourselves have fallen far away from the biblical definition of marriage, that of one man covenantally bound to one woman until death parts the two.  It has been us, my dear people, that has left our first love, that of believing what the Word calls us to, though it may be difficult, painful, against all cultural currents.  When we redefine marriage as anything other than what God does — and we have — we lose our standing to define marriage at all.  It is that void, that vacuum, which has permitted, encouraged, and caused those we call perverted by whatever acronym we choose, to put their redefinition into the cultural norm.  As Mr. Darcy pressed in ‘Pride and Prejudice’, “I must be allowed to insist on this.  The fault is mine, and so must the remedy be.  It was through my mistaken pride, …”  Unless and until the Church returns to a biblical conviction of the permanence of marriage, as it has been from the beginning, we are the bumbling hypocrites in this tragedy.  We turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the million aborted marriages per year America permits, and do absolutely nothing about it.  Our people participate in these abominations no less so than do rank pagans.  “So here it comes — a Christmas word to the faithless.”  Christians, repent and return to God’s beautiful design for the felicity of one man and one woman, lovingly linked together by God’s gracious covenant of marriage.  It is NOT a contract, and no preaching from our pulpits, not even our Reformed pulpits, and not even our CREC pulpits, can make it so.  God spoke marriage into existence in the Garden of Eden, and the ultimate marriage of Christ and His Bride will be felicitous throughout eternity to come.  And, of His lovingkindness to His Bride, there shall be no end.  This is so desperately critical because it is the Gospel.  There is nothing in the visible world which so vividly portrays our REAL belief  about the Gospel than how we act in our role as husbands (and wives.)  Whatever else we may do in our lives, whatever vocation we may have, our actions and beliefs in this realm preach our fundamental understanding of Christ to the watching world.  So, men, let us imitate Christ in our marriages and love our wives as Christ loves the Church, Who shall never ever forsake or leave her.  Is our case hopeless?? Not really!  ” … there is one thing you can do. You can repent — not because it isn’t hopeless, but because it is. You can pray — not because that is something desperate people always do for no good reason, but rather because it is something that desperate people do for very good reason indeed.”  Yes, God is willing to forgive US if and when we repent.  But, until then, we must not marvel at the continued unraveling of that which we first began.

  13. I do think there will be  alimit to the types of ‘marriage’ people will pursue.  We see that people want same-sex marriage.  They’ll want polygamy.  They’ll probably want one or two other forms in keeping with trends and perverse religiouns.  But it has its limits.  People will not seek to marry an entire group, for example.  They can do sexual things here and there with different people when they want.  They’re not going to want to form marriages out of all that.  So this will stop at some point.  And I don’t think bestiality is going to pass.  I think the worst aspect of this is the further breakdown it will have on community and the country, though. 

  14. Looks like Phil Robertson (of “Duck Dynasty”) has run afoul of the homosexual Tolerance Inquisition “buzzsaw”, and must now stand trial.  How dare he articulate particulars of his Christian faith, in public, on his own time?
    If homosexuals are so opposed to homophobia, why do their organizations keep calling for people’s heads?  What’s with all the hate, torches and pitchforks?  It’s difficult to imagine a more effective way to induce homophobia than to cause more and more people to be in constant fear of losing their jobs for sharing their religious beliefs on their own time.
    The Robertsons have never been shy about their commitment to plain Christian Scripture.  This is not some secret that A&E is just now discovering.  So what’s the problem now?  Clearly it’s fear– fear of backlash from homosexual groups who are on the warpath and out for blood.  In other words, A&E execs and sponsors have become homophobes.  It seems they’ve been given every reason to be so.

  15. If the Robertsons all do the same thing (which I am hoping they will) A&E will have to decide if they are willing to sacrifice their most popular show over A&E’s principles.

  16. The pedophile community will very shortly borrow some of the homosexual rhetoric and start protesting that they were born that way, and that it isn’t merely an aberration. That further more, it is discrimination to prohibit them from exercising their desires equally con others. If I’m not mistaken it is already beginning.
    As a disclaimer, I do not believe the average homosexual will be any happier about this development than we are. In fact, I would expect that many will be more furious that their own mantra is being used in this way. I do not believe the average homosexual sinner approves of sexual relations with minors to any different extent than the average heterosexual sinner.

    Once Pandora’s Box has been opened, it is so hard to shut it, even once the negative consequences that go with it rear their ugly heads.

  17. “When they sign up for Obamacare, all three of them, nothing will happen, just like with regular folks.”


  18. I have no better of a track record when it comes to future-prediction than anyone, but I don’t think we’ll get polygamy.  Gay marriage was preceded by massive change in social attitudes, and there isn’t any of that with regards to polygamy.  Most liberals are ambivalent to negative on it, usually because it is viewed as retrograde or too complicated.  Leftists, especially feminists, tend to hate it because of it being viewed as a tool of patriarchal oppression.  Regular people in the mushy middle don’t really view gay marriage as a qualitative change in what marriage is because our idea of romantic love centers on two people.  So polygamy does represent a qualitative change that they aren’t necessarily going to get behind.  Of course conservatives don’t like it either.  So the only real constituency for this is Mormons, and I don’t know how highly motivated they are about it. 

  19. katecho, excellent observation re: the stockholm syndrome of the liberal (and essential) homophobes. And I wonder in particular how many more times I will be asked why we christians make such a big deal about homosexuality and not all the other things.
    Also, how in the world did you manage those paragraph breaks?

  20. Tim, I get that same-sex marriage is attempting to subvert the authority of the Bible as to what a marriage is. But is that what the polygamist is up to? The argument of this post, and your comment as well, suggest that what the polygamist is after is some sort of three-way marriage where everybody’s name is on the same license. I’ve always understood polygamy to be having several biblically defined marriages going on at once, several 1 man & 1 woman marriages simultaneously. The polygamist is therefore much closer to the guy who gets married and divorced over and over than he is to the guy who “married” another dude. And while I certainly am not on board with polygamy, the truth is is that David had several wives and it didn’t seem to be a big deal. Immature? Perhaps. Unwise? Probably. But not an abomination. This is why I still sort of see the same-sex thing and polygamy as apples and oranges.

  21. I think polygamy and homosexuality are departures from teh creational intent.  In that regard, they are both sinful and have no place in the CHristian life.  To draw a distinction between them is pointless.  After all, the idea we find throughout the words of Jesus is that wrong is wrong and it begins inside us.  Hardness of heart goes before it. 

  22. Steven,
    Maybe this will help :) In the debate with Andrew Sullivan, Doug was attempting to point out the inconsistencies in Andrew’s worldview.  His argument was presuppositional in form.  Sullivan was arguing for gay marriage.  His basic argument was something along the lines of, “it’s two consenting adults! It makes us happy! Why deny us the same rights and privileges that straight people have?”  Doug pressed him on the point by asking if he supported polygamy.  Sullivan does not support polygamy.  As a result, the question has to be asked of Sullivan, “what possible grounds do you have for affirming gay marriage and denying polygamy?”  Can’t the polygamists say that same basic thing, “it’s three consenting adults! It makes us happy! Why deny us the same rights and privileges that monogamist people have?”  The point of the exercise isn’t  to argue for the slippery slope, the point is to point out the inconsistency of Sullivan’s worldview.   The Christian can at least take his stand on an authority outside himself, “God created them male and female,” “therefore, A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (not husband) and the two shall become one flesh.”  As a result, this is a specific argument made to a specific person that sought to point out the inconsistencies of his worldview.  The point is not to suggest a specific motive for the polygamist agenda.  I do think a biblical case can be made against polygamy, but that is another issue.  
    As I understand you, you believe that this argument breaks down because a polygamist is not seeking to redefine marriage, but to argue for multiple legitimate simultaneous marriages.  I do believe this still involves a denial of the biblical formula (1+1=1).  However, this is not the point that Doug is trying to make (as I understand him) he is simply appealing to Sullivan’s innate distaste for polygamy and poking at his inconsistencies.  Isn’t it hateful of you to tell the polygamist no? Can’t the polygamist use your same basic argument to defend multiple marriages?  And then… If the basic homosexual arguments prove valid, I predict that those same arguments will be used in favor of polygamy and we will be powerless to resist them.  
    Hope that makes sense,

  23. Technically, and using the libertines’ definition of marriage, the North Dakota situation ~is~ polygamy,  because the guy is attempting to have more than one marriage. 


    Polygyny (i.e. a man marrying more than one woman), it seems to me, would have its spiritual root in greed as well as ingratitude, rather than just in ingratitude as sodomy does.

  24. Matt, even if polygamy doesn’t have the same dubious “cultural mandate” that supporters of gay marriage claim, the slippery slope lies not in cultural acceptance as much as legal recognition.  The legal case that’s being constructed for polygamy uses gay marriage’s overthrow of the one man-one woman definition as its foundation.  Even broadly unpopular sexual expressions could have their day in the sun, legally.  What fun.

  25. Wow, POWERFULLY CORRECT!  The next sewer level this country will sink to will be to allow pedefilia.  Some horses patoot will want the age of ‘knowledge and acceptance’ be lowered to somewhere around 14.  Then we’ll have the Muslims marching to be able to ‘marry’ 12 year olds like they do in their country of origin.  Forced marriages of children and rapes will become an everyday event.  We are letting ourselves be bullied by the perverse, and we are surely now under Gods judgement.  

  26. And how ironic that progressives imagine all of this to be an advancement upon former affairs.  We’re moving back to a time in the history of the West that was known for its barbarism.  Of course barbaric circumstances still exist in areas of the world outside the West.  We’re travelling full circle!

  27. The bigger polygamy issue will be from the Muslims. where according to Islamic Law, a man can have up to four wives. The Sharia types will be pushing it, not for polygamy’s sake but the furtherance of Islam in the United States.

  28. Yes, Europe has already been dealing with legal issues in relation to cultural complexity.  Shariah law is a case in point.  So polygamy can become an issue with certain Mormon sects, for instance.  It can become a matter of “freedom of religion.”

  29. From what little I have heard of polygyny, it is only practiced in the most poor of places to protect land and inheritance.

  30. Robert, I think you’re confusing your terms. Polygyny is widespread — multiple wives of one husband. Polygamy is any form of multiple marriage. Polyandry is multiple husbands of one wife. The poorest don’t practice polygyny because 1) most men can’t support multiple families and 2) the rich men snap up all the women.
    Legal polygamy has exactly the same argument in favor of it as same sex marriage — extralegal polygamy is becoming increasingly common in the U.S. (and I’m not talking about  fringe Mormon “cheating” but about the “informal harem” situation existing in the underclass) and legalizing it will (supposedly) regularize the relationship and protect the individuals involved. I’m waiting for this argument to become current.

  31. Thanks Tim, that is helpful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>