Who ought to decide whether two men or two women can marry each other in Iowa?  Even Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin make conflicting statements over 1) Where jurisdiction lies on the issue of marriage and 2) What should be done about it.   These are actually two different questions.

When people say the Iowa Supreme Court has stepped out of its jurisdiction and the people should get to decide the question instead, they are only half right.  Indeed, no court has a right to re-define marriage.  But neither do the people have such a right.

Though a large number of states have held referendum votes on the issue of marriage in recent years, not a single one has voted to overturn Biblical marriage.  Not one.  So one could argue referendums or initiatives are the best way to decide this.  But what happens when the first state votes for “gay marriage”?  Then will you say it was good for the people to decide?  Will you shrug your shoulders and say “Oh well, the people decided”?  Would you seriously argue that no court could strike down such a decision by the people?  Or that the legislators should let the people’s decision stand?  If a courageous U.S. president issued an executive order striking down all state laws allowing such a thing, would you not applaud that president?

The point in this is that no one has the right to “change” what God has ordained: Not the people, not the judges, not the legislators, not the Obama White House.  Nobody.

So do we just throw our hands up in the air and give up?  Do we throw in the towel?  No, of course not.  Quite the opposite is true.  Just as no one has the right to engage in mischief by decree, every one of us ought to use all the power within our means to thwart the efforts to destroy our nation and incur God’s Judgment.

We should certainly oust the Justices who gave us these diabolical laws in Iowa and around the country. We should join Bob Vander Plaats and vote “no” on retention.  In other states, impeach unjust judges.  Replace legislators and governors who won’t stand firm against this onslaught of evil.  Petition.  Vote.  Protest.

Each one of these truths applies not only to marriage, but to the protection of unborn children. Ron Paul and Glenn Beck are both wrong: Some things transcend the Constitution.  The attacks on marriage and the murder of unborn children draw lines in the sand we dare not cross over.

12 comments
  1. I’m in complete agreement with this article. If homosexual (fake) “marriage” were to become the “law of the land” we would have the uncompromised obligation to not recognize it in any sphere of life; public or private.

    What is even more vexing to me is the fall-back position many supposed conservatives take on “civil unions,” as if we win if civil unions – “equal” to marriage in every substantive way – are mandated but marriage is preserved. This is like saying that we win if burglars break into our house but are stopped at the bedroom door.

  2. Everyone realizes that currently, Americans have to ask permission of, and pay a fee to, the Government for the ‘right’ to be married?

    Is this how a free society should operate?

    The other major issue is, marriage grants special financial privileges, and immunities, that being unmarried does not.

    Should a free society treat Married persons differently than unmarried?

    If the Secular financial incentives were removed from the Religious Act of Marriage, many of the reasons Homosexuals have for wanting to be married would be removed.

  3. Traditional Marriage is a religious sacrament. Government has no business being involved in religious sacraments just as religious sacraments have no business in government.

    Government issued licenses serve to extend government benefits. One such relationship is labeled “marriage” and has forever denoted the legal (not religious) establishment of a relationship commitment entered into between a male & female.

    There are other civil and business related licenses that are used to “legally” establish relationships for the purposes of designating a government recognized status and to determine access to government benefits (taxes, regulation, etc).

    Instead of redefining something that is already “written in stone” historically, same-sex couples (or adult/child or human/animal/inanimate object/whatever) legal relationships can define their own “term” to denote their establishment of a legal relationship commitment.

    Otherwise, if same-sex couples insist on redefining the historical and established definition of “marriage” to something new, then can I legally change my race to “White” if I *really* enjoy Pat Boone’s music?

  4. “If a courageous U.S. president issued an executive order striking down all state laws allowing such a thing, would you not applaud that president?”

    NO! Absolutely not. Because this would again be the case of the President overstepping his authority. As we have seen, once that precedence is set there is no turning back – each succeeding President simply grabs more and more power and reduces individual liberty.

    And actually I think Ron Paul is right – as well as, in a way, Mr. Shedlock. This is an issue that does transcend the Constitution. There is no reason for the government to be involved in it at all through licensing or recognizing it. So, yes, these judges should be voted out and that is our prerogative as voters. But that doesn’t mean that elected officials can act outside of the rule of law. That’s just a recipe for disaster. Change the law – we have methods of doing that.

  5. arriage is multi-form, and over time has changed dramaticly. It is a union that creates life and nutures life, but yet no one denies a union between a man and woman past child-bearing age is a marriage. Follow the advise of Gamaliel, and wait and see how this developes

  6. arriage is multi-form, and over time has changed dramaticly. It is a union that creates life and nutures life, but yet no one denies a union between a man and woman past child-bearing age is a marriage. Follow the advise of Gamaliel, and wait and see how this developes

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Iowa Governor-Elect Terry Branstad names Mark Schouten as director of Office of Drug Control Policy

(URBANDALE) – Gov.-elect Terry Branstad announced today that Mark Schouten will serve…

Governor Branstad, Public School Options Only?

I just received something in the mail today from Iowans for Public…

Here I Stand: Doctrine of God

I started this series last week standing on the Scriptures which are …

Pence Amendment Defunding Planned Parenthood Passes House 240-185

Congressman Mike Pence’s (R-IN) amendment that eliminates federal funds for Planned Parenthood…