Connect with us

Ignite the Pulpit

Marriage and the larger war

Published

on

Do the American people really accept homosexual or same sex marriage?

On June 26, 2015, five members of the Supreme Court of the United States severely weakened marriage in the United States. At least one of the five, and likely more (maybe all five), knew exactly what they were doing. They did not act like impartial judges. They flew their true colors. Rainbow colors? Not necessarily. They flew the colors of the left. And the left aims to destroy marriage. After that they can destroy the rest of society.

Activists avow: they won’t stop with marriage

The Ten Commandments, the foundation of the rule of law. And a symbol of Who will win the marriage war in the end.

The Ten Commandments, on parchment By Jekuthiel Sofer, 1768. An emulation of a display at the Esnoga synagogue in Amsterdam.

Leo Hohmann at WND gives some of the details. He starts by quoting an op-ed from The Nation. Three activists declared war against any person who disagrees with them. They also will attack any school, church, business, or other institution whose owners, managers, or staff disagree with them. A piece of paper saying two men, or two women, have a marriage, won’t satisfy them. If anyone disagrees with that, if any person refuses to recognize such a “marriage,” that person has discriminated against them. And they want to punish that person, or have some authority punish them.

The Nation also has this op-ed from a Zoë Carpenter. She writes almost incoherently. But her headline made this much plain: she does not accept religious liberty as valid. She calls it “the next tactic in the right’s fight against [SSRSB] marriage.”

That can mean only one thing. The activists will use SSRSB “marriage” as a wedge against faith.

The next step: “disestablish marriage.” Masha Gessen already said that, in an interview with ABC Radio. She said candidly she saw no reason to define any two adults as a marriage, or even to select two adults as the “parents” of any child.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why you have to designate two of them as a legally sanctioned couple.

That could mean she plumps for a commune. In that commune, no adult member would have exclusive intimate rights to any other adult member. (Alvin Toffler, in Future Shock, called that, too, along with SSRSB “marriage.”) It could also mean all children would grow up, not with any pair or even any cluster of adults, but in a government crèche.

No common ground with the left

Daniel Greenfield, alias “Sultan Knish,” reminds us: we can find no common ground with the left. The left do not want compromise. They want only to destroy.

Every conservative thinker tries [at least once] to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it’s criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.

David Harsanyi, writing at The Federalist, already laments trying to find this common ground. He admits: he supported SSRSB marriage. He thought the SSRSB activists only wanted “equal treatment.” Now he knows better. Already he can see “the self-righteous mobs…defaming anyone who [won’t] embrace [their] new definition of marriage.” He also sees “the administrative state” taking over society. He sees those same activists, now they have their way about marriage, turning against religious freedom. (He correctly catches the ACLU no longer supporting any laws to “restore” religious freedom.)

He should have thought of all that before. And he should have thought about the God Who ordained marriage. Then again, too few conservatives want to tell the world, in a bold and forthright way, that God exists, God made us, and God expects us to follow His laws. (Or at least acknowledge we’re going to foul up, and need Someone to save us.) Consider Governor John Kasich (R-Ohio), likely candidate for President. He respects only those parts of the Bible that talk about material charity.

Fighting back

To any regular or semi-regular reader of CNAV: do you wonder why CNAV has a tab with the label “Creation Corner”? Do you ask yourself why CNAV does speak, as boldly and forthrightly as we do frequently, about a literal six-day Creation, a literal Biblical Flood, and literal signs of the Flood event one can see today? (Not to mention that maybe the Flood event had a sequel, about 1400 years later, that we call the Biblical Famine?) You now have the reason. We do it to show positively that God exists. Too many conservatives believe only in a cloudy God. To fight back effectively, one must believe, deep down in the heart, in a God Who, when He says He will do a thing, does it, exactly as He said He would. And Who, when He says He did a thing, however violent a thing we speak of, in fact did it, exactly as He described it.

Franklin Graham understands this. Like many users of and visitors to Facebook, he saw all the users who added rainbow-colored striped backgrounds to their avatars. (This editor did not change his avatar at all. Later Facebook admitted they created the program to help users change their avatar backgrounds, as an experiment in mass social conditioning. Ivan Pavlov and B. F. Skinner, send in your curricula vitarum!) Graham sharply reminded everyone where that rainbow sign came from. God set the rainbow in the sky after the Flood waters receded, and Noah and his family disembarked from their great life-ship (Hebrew tevah, that most translators render “ark”). God pledged then He would never again use water to punish the people of the world. But that did not mean He would never judge the world. In fact, says Graham, He will. This will end badly for those activists who think they can destroy the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

County clerks, and even Attorneys General, have not waited for Divine Judgment to fall. One county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, said she would sooner never sign a marriage license again, than sign one for two men or two women. (Another clerk will quit her job rather than sign such licenses.)

In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote his official opinion that no county clerk need sign such a license, and no justice of the peace or judge need officiate at such a marriage. Other attorneys general will at least delay any such marriage licenses while they do their legal research. (See also this piece in The Hill.)

The Left thought they had an overwhelming victory. They now have a war. And as Franklin Graham reminded everyone (citing the Apostle John, of course), they cannot win. No one can win against God.

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

CATEGORY:Ignite the Pulpit
6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. jturow

    July 2, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    Traitor. Supreme court ruled and your small mind disagrees, so…waaa!

    • Terry A. Hurlbut

      July 2, 2015 at 8:25 pm

      If you seriously are going to charge me with an offense tantamount to murder, you’d better have your two witnesses. Because, Lord knows, if you made a charge of treason or any other criminal offense, and that charge proved false, you’d have a lot to answer for. In California (so said Vincent T. Bugliosi before he died), you’d face the same penalty as did the person you falsely accused. Care to reconsider?

  2. jturow

    July 3, 2015 at 1:51 am

    Traitor. Witnesses are everyone who reads your site – you hate gay people more than you love the constitution. “War” because you don’t like what the court says.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut

      July 3, 2015 at 5:23 am

      You define “hate” as “oppose the goals of.” I reject that.

  3. jturow

    July 5, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    “I don’t hate gay people.” – words I do not ever expect Terry Hurlbut to write. Maybe Terry will prove me wrong :)

    • Terry A. Hurlbut

      July 5, 2015 at 6:53 pm

      That’s because you define the verb “to hate” with a peculiar twist. To you, any person who would tell a sick man (especially this special kind of sickness) he is not sick, hates that person. That some people invert (that is, turn upside-down) their sexual preferences to ease some kind of searing psychic pain, moves me only to pity. That they and others invert basic social precepts – now that moves me to outrage.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Trending