This last week a federal judge struck down Virginia’s ban on same sex mirages, and just a few days before that, the same indignity was performed for Kentucky. It should be apparent by now, at least, that these elites don’t care what the people believe, or how they vote. They are going to impose their worldview regardless.
On top of that, they use the people’s conservatism in order to accomplish this. This is how it works. The conservative impulse to not mess around with marriage is an impulse that applies to more institutions than just marriage. It also applies to the desire to not mess around with federal judges, with the “way things are.” So the oxymoron of same sex mirage is stuffed down our throats, and so this is why our eyes look like those of an overreaching ostrich trying to swallow a basketball.
But we are well past the point where principled disobedience became necessary. Following Calvin’s doctrine of the lesser magistrate, this is how it should work. The legislature of Kentucky, or Virginia, or any other state that this is being done to, should pass a measure requiring the governor to just say no. The governor should sign it, and then inform the feds that he has instructed the clerks of every country court house in the state to refuse to issue any mirage licenses. It doesn’t matter what the federal judge says — we the people of the great state of “whichever one it is” need to become insufficiently docile and compliant.
No. It has a wonderful ring to it.
This has happened elsewhere, on different issues. It is happening now with Washington and Colorado saying that smoking dope is okay with them. This has been successful because they are doing what the current federales wish they could do, and will do when they get the chance. Washington and Colorado are just a couple of steps ahead of Eric Holder.
It also happened back in the days of school desegregation. But when George Wallace stood in the doorway of the schoolhouse in order to keep the black kids out, his stance was a losing proposition. Whatever you say about the constitutional issues involved, you lose a lot of ground for your case when you are fighting for your constitutional right to continue to do something appalling. The feds were overreaching then too, but that didn’t keep them from having the moral high ground. Every bigot who fought the feds over that particular issue was just helping them pave the way for this. Sin breeds sin, both in imitation and reaction.
But with this issue, the feds would not have the constitutional arguments, and they would not have any moral high ground whatever. They like to pretend, whenever they are in the middle of one of their warp spasms of tolerance, that theirs is a high and lofty pursuit, but what they are really after is the establishment of the new religion of intolerance, with priests trained in their new divinity at Harvard and Yale. They are intolerant of many things — the law of God, revealed in His book and in His world, not to mention the presence of confessing Christians. They are also intolerant of the Constitution, at least of any feature of it that is out there in the plain light of day. They like the stuff that they can find here and there in the penumbrae, but that’s a subject for another time. They have one thing in mind — the enslavement of a once free nation.
There is no shame in declining to go along with this. And there is a good deal of shame in thinking that Romans 13 means obedience to this kind of gathering corruption. It means nothing of the kind. It is time for us to be asking our governors and legislators when they are going to fulfill their obligation to protect us. When are they going to simply say no?
It is ironic that this has happened in Virginia and Kentucky, the two states for which the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were named. I recommend your readers look up those resolutions and give them a read. This sort of rebellion you advocate is more conservative than many people think.
I would really, REALLY, appreciate you fleshing out your thoughts on Romans 13. I have been thinking about this whole submission to authority thing for quite a while, and I’m stumped. I kind of feel like we’re in 1930’s Germany, and something real bad is coming…
Not only are they intolerant of the Constitution, they are also ignorant concerning its content.
the Federal Judge in the VA case quoted the DoI, and thought that she was quoting the Constitution.
Magistrates defying their higher ups is called federalism, not civil disobedience. The fact that disobedience by ordinary citizens is unthinkable here (no really, what would it look like to disobey?) is a signal that this should never have been a political issue in the first place.
That is what the illegals want O to do, ignore the law he swore to uphold and open the border.
I second the request by Antithacus.
Our response must be succinct, correct and capable of deflecting the inevitable rhetorical strike by the pagans.
I will add that the attacks will come from two directions. The Pagans and the Laotians–so we need two ripostes.
Sorry, Laodicians–not Laotions–need more coffee.
Let’s be clear, resistance to these black-robed and suited lawless ones is NOT rebellion in any way, shape, manner or form! They are the ones in rebellion against God and the Constitution! They’ve been mounting their insurgency for some time now, and, as Pr. Wilson says, it’s high time for our state and local leaders to tell them to pound sand!
But let’s not kid ourselves! At some point, Right may need some Might – and the willingness to use it – in order to keep these tyrants at bay!
As much as I am in sympathy with your view, I must tell you as a native of South Carolina that we have tried this course of a couple of times – once in my lifetime, separated by a hundred years from the previous attempt – and, in case the news is late to Moscow, it has not gone well for us. That we did both in the service of an unworthy cause has only tainted the process further for anyone else who tries. The Moral Majority is no more, in more ways than one. We have lost the battle politically. The only… Read more »
I’m reminded of King’s letter from a Birmingham jail when he said… I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An… Read more »
When the Dred Scott decision came down, President Lincoln said “no,” and he was right to do so. But I don’t really expect any of our state governors to have that kind of courage, mostly because I don’t believe any of them have a true, deep-rooted moral and spiritual conviction that gay “marriage” is profoundly wrong, has no basis in law, and is ruinous to our cultural and civilizational fabric, along with every other assault on marriage that we are currently waging.
“The governor should sign it, and then inform the feds that he has instructed the clerks of every country court house in the state to refuse to issue any mirage licenses” So I take he should also tell them to inquire about the circumstances of any heterosexual remarriages to make sure they’re in compliance with Luke 16:18 and Matthew 5:32, right? Nah, didn’t think so. Michael writes: “gay “marriage” is profoundly wrong, has no basis in law, and is ruinous to our cultural and civilizational fabric” Ruinous how? Would you like to back that up with facts or… Read more »
We will not be ruled by you.
Here’s a couple of sermons Doug preached when we went through Romans 13, as a couple of you expressed interest.
James, the Christian position is that marriage can occur sinfully, but gay “marriage” doesn’t exist. // While it may be useful to sanctify an institution, it is not compulsory to do so at the same time one is rejecting an oxymoron.
“the Christian position is that marriage can occur sinfully, but gay “marriage” doesn’t exist”
To be precise, this is the position of YOUR Christian sect.
Other Christians have interpreted scripture differently, and continue to do so.
It may be instructive to note that with slavery, and with interracial marriage, and with segregation, Christian sects also interpreted the word of God differently. Many found support for slavery in the Word of God. Many found that Scripture forbade interracial marriage. And so on.
So maybe less hubris here, huh?
James: Incest marriage and polygamy don’t make the sky explode either. That isn’t evidence for its moral uprightness.
@James Bradshaw – ” So I take he should also tell them to inquire about the circumstances of any heterosexual remarriages …” Well, yeah, if those remarriages are ordered by a Federal judge. Is “gay” marriage is ruinous to our cultural and civilizational fabric? I don’t know. I think it’s more like if our cultural and civilizational fabric hadn’t already been ruined we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Beth writes: ” Christian position is that marriage can occur sinfully, but gay “marriage” doesn’t exist” You can believe what you like. The fact of the matter is that civil marriage is a legal construct that entails a number of rights and obligations for the parties entering into it. You don’t have to like it just as you don’t have to like the fact that the government grants tax exemptions to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and puts them, for its purposes, on the same level as “True Christian” sects (whatever that means). Pretending something is true doesn’t make it so,… Read more »
Mike Gantt, amen to your remarks. I have been thinking a good deal about how we got to this place. I have reached two conclusions. First, once gay marriage was successfully presented as a civil rights issue, we were done. That was the decisive victory for the other side. Second, I think this is simply the last, largely symbolic, victory for the other side, in war which we lost back in the 1970s. In the 1970s, the culture accepted divorce on demand, and heterosexuals living together outside of marriage. With divorce accepted, and living together accepted, how can gay marriage… Read more »
James Bradshaw. Thank you for your intelligent remarks and questions. It takes courage to come to a site like this, and to express an opinion which you have to know will be rejected by most of the people here. Thank you also for remaining civil and on point in your remarks; we have too much bitterness and hatred expressed on these issues. I wanted to reply to a few of your remarks. First, please do not think that Christians are simply opposed to gay marriage. Bible-believing Christians are also opposed to adultery, divorce and heterosexuals living together, practices which are… Read more »
Mr. Gibson, I do not want to misrepresent your position, so I will advance in good faith that
you concur with my next. With that said, I think that preaching and modeling love must include Christ’s admonition to go and sin no more. Preaching Christ crucified includes the preaching the reason for the need of the cross.
Delurking. I understand, but have to respectfully disagree, with what you said. The Bible is clear on the subject of homosexuality. While there are organizations which call themselves Christian which disagree, those are also Churches which have rejected the Bible in many other ways. This is not an open, or an unclear, issue to Bible-believing Christians. As for slavery and similar issues, let me remind you that the Abolitionist movement against slavery was largely lead by Evangelical Christians. One of our great leaders, William Wilberforce, persuaded the British Empire, at the height of its power, to outlaw the world… Read more »
RFB. Of course.
Where did the idea come from that the US Supreme Court is a “higher magistrate” vis-a-vis a state? as opposed to, say, an equal one, a coordinate one, or even, a lower one?
G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “The really courageous man is he who defies tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the first flowers.”
On the issue of homosexuality, we were not courageous when we needed to be and so we find ourselves on the losing side of this war.
Rick Gibson, I think you are probably correct as to how we got to this place. However, I’m not sure the answer at this point is to “model” anything. We had probably just as will give up trying to make friends by showing the world how sweet we are. Rather, what the church needs to do is re-discover holiness. Don’t expect a positive reaction from the world, but we will get their attention (2 Peter 4:4). Of course there is a more fundamental motivation than that for holiness and it is that our God is Holy and calls us to holiness. We… Read more »
I think Logos Bible Software is broke.
Okay, the fault is mine – 1 Peter 4:4 – for those who haven’t already figured it out.
Tim H. The civil war is what madethe SCOTUS think they were the top dog. Be advised, every clerk who follows such a course of action will be sued. at least.
Could or should this same principled disobedience be used by governors in the area of abortion? What would that look like?
What is the key phrase in Romans1? It is ‘knowing God..’ The homosexual onslaught is a judgment on The Church, on those who knew God. All sin is inexcusable, but it is forgivable (Lewis) and we who are born again have that power and authority to forgive sin on earth. Indeed, we ourselves will not be forgiven if we do not.
James, I am not exactly certain what you are saying with your response. I was pointing out that while it may or may not be prudent or useful to oppose marriage performed sub-optimally, this does not speak to opposing men who define things that do not exist. If the state gives out a certificate of marriage to 2 men they may well obtain tax, health or other state benefits. That will likely happen. But they are still not married nor will they ever be so. Thus one can denounce the state for making nonsensical law. // To offer a parallel,… Read more »
delurking, while it is true that God is who he is and our knowledge of him is finite; if Christianity is true (which I affirm) there are many things that we can be certain of. If one denies that Jesus rose physically from the dead then he has rejected God’s testimony of him. It may be unclear as to whether Matthew was written before or after Mark, but it is not unclear that God is eternal. Marriage is clearly defined biblically as a male and a female. One does not get gay marriage without taking a chainsaw to the Bible. … Read more »
See Connecticut gun registration defiance. Molan Labe, heathen
The war was won at Calvary. Man up.
“If you want special exemptions from our nation’s laws, ” Same land mass, different country. You fight for yours, I will fight for mine.
You have some strange idea of tyranny if you think it means that you don’t get to force other people to live by the dictates of your religion. If federal judges were requiring Christians to enter same sex marriages, then you’d have a point. But that’s not what is happening; what is happening that — oh, the horror! — federal judges are saying that you don’t get to tell your neighbors how to live. If that’s all you have to complain about, then everyone should be so persecuted.
I was a bit gruff there, let me temper that. I don’t think surrender and running away is a good strategy.
@eric, we hashed this out in the cake thread. My answer/responses are the same. I am sure somebody on the thread will come up with some legal reasoning, strategy whatever in rebuttal to your points–I don’t care. This is about who will rule us–God or man. You choose man, I choose God.
Eric, you will then find no objection to three people or more getting legally married. The silly part is that in the 1960’s and ’70 when homosexuality was coming to the forefront of society, the liberal hue and cry was that marriage served no purpose and was “just a piece of paper”. Legal marriage has never been about ‘two people who love each other’. It has always been about fathers being responsible for their offspring and the protection of women and children. It would still be about those things but for the fact that our society has abandoned all sense… Read more »
I agree, we have hashed this out before: We can’t be blind about these things. Laws lead to coercion. Look at Hobby Lobby, the adoption service in Mass described above etc etc. Worse still I see the high school kids who struggle with these temptations encouraged to explore them, by whom, their teachers! All of this legitimizing sin has an impact on our children. It has and it will continue to do so, unless we turn away from it, not embrace it.
Melody, well said. Liberal marriage was never about a piece of paper until the Left decided that it needed to be.
Eric, you said; “…federal judges are saying that you don’t get to tell your neighbors how to live.” Of course we shouldn’t tell our neighbors how to live. However, when federal laws change, or are attempting to be changed, and when our taxes may become part of the equation regarding the expansion of government benefits and entitlements, then at least at some level, the citizenry will take notice and seek their representation in the process too. Wouldn’t you say that’s fair and reasonable? All of us participate in the shaping of our society and culture, and I agree it can be messy… Read more »
Melody and Timothy, There is so much to what both of you have said about the underbelly of the homosexual movement. In my lifetime I have seen the 3.8% of our population that is gay carry more and more power because of the women who follow them. Women who are in desperate need of male leadership, love and attention. So many men have stood by while their wives, daughters and sisters look elsewhere for leadership….a familiar story isn’t it? So Timothy when I see you write, “Man-up,” I truly believe that will go farther than most protests we can make.… Read more »
I fully agree, Doug. I have written a concise work on the doctrine of the lesser magistrates. It is gaining a hearing from people across our nation. May the Lord stir the hearts of many!
Dan, the practical problem is that unless you abolish taxation altogether, pretty much everyone is going to end up paying taxes for stuff they don’t approve of. That’s part of living in society. I object to all the money spent on the Iraq War, but I don’t have a conscience opt-out that allows me to not subsidize it. My taxes go into the same large pot that yours do, and Congress then decides how it will be spent, and nobody ever gets everything they want.
And Dan, I don’t think Christians should be excluded from the process. I think you have the same free speech rights as everyone else. I don’t think your views should ultimately be adopted, but that’s a separate question.