Back to Basics

In case you’re wondering, I’m using the word “cannot” properly in the above title. No, I don’t mean “same-sex couples should not marry” — rather, they aren’t capable of doing so. What am I talking about?

Barack Obama’s coming out party notwithstanding, the question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot.

For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist.

This isn’t just semantics. If social engineers insist on pushing faux marriage, we must demand that they first attempt to redefine the institution.

“Have you gone off your rocker, Duke?! This is precisely what we’re fighting!” some will now say.

Actually, no, it isn’t.

This is because there is no widely accepted and professed alternative definition to fight. For the Left has not sought to redefine marriage.

They are “undefining” it.

After all, what is the Left’s argument? They don’t focus on definitions any more than the Right does; they don’t say, consistently and boldly, “Marriage is the union between any two adults; therefore, there is no reason to exclude same-sex couples.” They won’t tread there.

There are a couple of reasons why. First, leftists are confused: They never have a clear vision of what they want to create, only what they want to destroy (i.e., the status quo). Second, redefining marriage would be a tactical disaster for them, as they’d relinquish a huge hammer they pummel the opposition with: the accusation that traditionalists are being “exclusive” and “discriminatory” and are denying people rights. For if you establish boundaries — anywhere — you’re excluding and discriminating against whoever lies beyond them.

So leftists won’t offer any alternative definition; instead, they simply imply that the right definition is wrong. And this is where they lose the debate. For if you cannot say what marriage is, how can you be so sure about what it isn’t?

This failure to redefine marriage also puts the lie to the Left’s claim that their actions won’t lead to the recognition of other conceptions of “marriage,” from polygamy to inter-species unions (yes, this does happen). This isn’t as silly as it sounds. Remember that an undefinition excludes nothing. If you refuse to establish boundaries, then the sky — or Hades — is the limit.

Thus, while the Left’s focus on rights helps them win the immediate marriage battle, it also ensures the loss of civilization. After all, once you undefine something, you have destroyed it — at least in people’s minds. For if something exists, if it is real, it is a certain thing and thus can be defined. “Bird” refers to a specific creature, but if “bird” could mean fish, insect, chair or pepperoni pizza — if it could mean anything — the term would lose meaning. Likewise, if marriage can mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing. It will simply be a “something” and be destroyed as a meaningful institution.

To understand the implications of this, realize that marriage exists not as a “right” that brings self-fulfillment but to stabilize the family. It encourages men and women to fulfill their obligations to each other and their children.

​

Just when you thought there was no way possible to cover or subdue the record of five trillion in debt and the most joblessness since the depression, the master politician starts making announcements that catch the attention, not just of the country, but of the entire world.

Biblically based ministers of the gospel have resented the fact that in the daily news cycle the issue of America’s moral decline has consistently been placed on the back burner and the economy was all that was ever discussed. Along comes Barack Obama who manages to put the so called ‘hot button’ issues back on the front burner and brings them up to a boil in record time. With a dismal record of his own, the distraction is at least getting him plenty of attention, which in politics, will do fine if you haven’t much else to go on.

Oddly, Mr. Obama may have overstepped the bounds of his own devices. He pulled out the very worst subject, at the very worst time, with his recent announcement that he is up for gay marriage. Don’t look now, but Obama’s best advisors have forgotten to tell him that the issue of marriage is not just a political issue; it has its roots in our biblical foundations, traditions, the laws of nature and the very moral underpinnings of the nation.

This is the pot we don’t want anyone to boil, much less to pull it to the front of the stove, to boil over, just for a political distraction to be used to bolster a sagging campaign.

Creating a circus like element to his campaign was augmented by the now famous cover of Newsweek magazine that depicts Obama with a rainbow colored halo over his head. Although the halo or the ‘nimbus’ is not something ever mentioned in the bible; it is part of the art world and has been used for many centuries. Christian art began the use of the halo around the fourth century AD.

What brings this particular circus attraction to the very border of blasphemy is the fact that while not biblical it is commonly accepted that the halo represents the presence of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life.

God does not change his moral laws and he doesn’t care what LGBT social engineers are trying to mold into shape for the last day’s twists and turns in the social fabric of this, or any other nation. If marriage was declared to take place only between one man and one woman, it is a declaration that supersedes any from the past, present or future – it is a law from the realm of eternity. It is a law, accepted or not, that God declares we will all answer to at some time in our lives, be it now or later.

Even worse is the fact, that while all sins are forgivable – one is not. The sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is so abominable, that it cannot be forgiven. (Mt 12: 31) It is the easiest sin to identify because it is one of the most perverse. It is attributing evil to the Holy Spirit.

Only days after the Vice President announced he was comfortable with same sex marriages; President Obama announced his newly revised (Evolved) position on gay marriage. The debate has been whether Joe Biden forced the Presidents proclamation and boxed him in, but it may be that he used Biden to test the waters before he un-closeted his new position on the issue.

No one can argue with the polls that show that a majority of people between ages 18-29 would side with gay marriage, even as most between ages 29-60 would reject gay marriage completely. Mr. Obama is busy trying to persuade the youth who have all the PC gab and Steve Jobs gadgets to gather in his camp. Most of those in the other age group are jumping ship before it hits the iceberg at full speed. The result of this awakening in the political realm; will be made known on November 6, 2012.

It goes without saying that since there is little chance or enough time between now and November 6, to enact a gay marriage bill or executive order that Mr. Obama has managed to buy the gay community’s vote for the mere price of a well timed statement.

In the realm of prophecy this is not surprising because a generation is predicted to come before the rise of all ‘last days’ portents that will be all but void of conscience, traditional morality and completely in rebellion against God’s revealed word.

All the business of polls, trends and evolving viewpoints take nothing away from the prophetic message or the moral teachings of the Bible. In fact, they only accent and punctuate the promises that solidly declare that in the days of that generation the world will change beyond recognition, but it will not end well.

The spirit of anti-Christ precedes the coming of the man who the Bible refers to as the Anti-Christ. All this requires that a generation of militant non-believers be present to welcome in the man and willfully and exuberantly give him the rule over the entire world.

Under this man ignoring God’s laws will become normal, but that will quickly capitulate to active open resistance against any that refuse to bend under the rule of anti-Christ. The troublesome non-compliant believers will eventually be put to death.

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Rev 13: 7)

Even as the prophesied generation is forming; they will be denying that anything like that could ever happen – Witness today!

Like young people drawn to the noise of the party, an unsuspecting world will hear what their lack of morality falls into sync with, and will be drawn up like the sucking of a mammoth tornado.

I have warned for over half my lifetime that the generation spoken of in writ, has been forming and with the President’s proclamation, there is little chance for error.

With Europe chomping at the bit for one strong ruler and America falling prey to the liberal Godless mindset in its choices for leaders, the stage is set. Time is short.

They’ve shoveled some huge piles of BS at us before, but this has to be one of the bigger ones:

Vice President Joe Biden apologized to President Barack Obama for making remarks that prompted the president to disclose his support for same-sex marriage before he planned to, according to an administration official.

Biden delivered the apology to the president yesterday morning, before Obama gave an interview to ABC News in which he said he’s had a change of heart and now supports legal gay marriage, the official said.

Biden’s remarks in a May 6 broadcast of NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he is “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage forced the president to speed up his timetable for revealing his position, administration officials said.

What a total load of Pelosi. They had this carefully choreographed from the start, and the media lapped it up as always. It was no accident.

So they want us to believe that President “Gutsy Call” with his backbone like a ramrod — the same president who single-handedly took down the world’s most wanted terrorist — altered his position just because his big-mouth Veep couldn’t keep his yap in check on TV show?

Based on this excuse, it’s a good thing Biden didn’t say the administration was going to nuke England, or else Obama would have had no choice but to follow through with it.

But hey, we haven’t been talking about the economy for a few minutes, and that was the whole point. Mission Accomplished… temporarily.

Gay marriage opponents have won bans or amendments 32 times on ballot measures since 1998. Joe Biden, like his boss, doesn’t seem to care much for the general consensus of voters around the country and he seemed even a bit cocky in his announcement that he is okay with men who want to marry men, and women that want to marry women.

Biden ignored the 4,000 year old solid scriptural teaching to offer his all new definition of marriage to NBC’s Meet the Press, Sunday May 6, 2012 at Mellon Auditorium in Washington.

Biden told his audience that – “marriage should be about being loyal to someone you love, whether that marriage is between a man and a woman, two men or two women.”

With such a high official of the U. S. government chiming in with both his good attitude and an entirely new definition of marriage, we are caught between Biden and Jesus and must now decide who we are more disappointed with.

Should we feel bad that Jesus said “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh,” (Mt 19: 4, 5) that he may have forgotten to tell us that if Albert and Andrew should want to leave home and tie the knot that they too would become one flesh?

Or should we feel bad that Joe Biden has singlehandedly devised a way to infringe on the first amendment separation of powers, thousands of years of tradition, hundreds of scriptural teachings and references and the will of the people in 32 states to make a pop culture pleasing, pompous and completely perverse statement – with supplemental definitions attached?

Obama, it is said, is presently holding off on making any statements about the ‘wedge’ or ‘hot button’ issue, but it has been reported that his view of same sex marriage is “evolving.” We needn’t try to guess that in an election year his aspirations for power are surely tempering his pronouncement on the issue.

What of these leaders that are not content to lead the country into prosperity, safety and exceptionalism, but are found tinkering with the social fiber, the moral underpinnings and the very religious and scriptural teachings of the Living God. Why is this happening now?

The great “apostasy” (falling away) predicted by the Bible for the last days is not just about the churches or the believers. It has to do with every major aspect of life on the planet earth. Government, social order (or the lack of it) traditional matters of culture, education and general society will all be profoundly altered as we enter into the period the scriptures call the “Last Days”

The church is busy debating whether to open up to the gay agenda, fighting over when the rapture will take place and preaching the watered down gospel of prosperity and happiness for all, while the antichrist spirit, as predicted, is raging throughout the nations of the earth.

The foundations are shaken; the disobedience soon turns to rebellion and active anti-Christian behavior.

The Associated Press reports, “NC voters approve amendment on gay marriage.”

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.

In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama’s cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.

Meanwhile, supporters had run their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham, who at 93 remains influential even though his last crusade was in 2005, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

Both sides spent a combined $3 million on their campaigns.

And at the Raleigh News & Observer, “Latest results show marriage amendment up 60 percent to 40 percent“:

RALEIGH North Carolina has become the 31st state to add an amendment on marriage to its constitution, with voters banning same-sex marriage and barring legal recognition of unmarried couples by state and local governments.

North Carolina is the last state in the south to add such an amendment, and supporters hoped for a resounding victory.

Incomplete returns show the amendment up 59.72 percent to 40.28 percent. Some large counties, including Durham and Mecklenburg have not reported results.

Primary turnout was heavy. Though there were many other races on the ballot, including primaries for statewide offices and congressional seats, the amendment appeared to drive much of the political discussion.

Marriage rights for gay couples has been a topic of national debate this year, and North Carolina’s amendment and the campaigns for and against it drew international attention.

North Carolinians think of the state as progressive, but that’s within the context of the rest of the South, said Andrew Taylor, a political scientist at N.C. State University. “This is a socially conservative state,” he said.

The state has a 16-year-old law banning same-sex marriage.

At least two other states will be voting on gay marriage rights in November. Minnesota has a constitutional amendment on its ballot. Maine has a referendum to allow same-sex marriage. Voters in Maryland and Washington state may be asked to affirm new state laws allowing same-sex marriage.

Money from national interest groups poured into North Carolina. The National Organization for Marriage contributed $425,000 to the Vote for Marriage campaign, according to the latest reports, and the Human Rights Campaign and its affiliates contributed nearly $500,000 to the opposition Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families.

Vote for Marriage raised more than $1 million, and the Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families raised more than $2 million.

And now the progs are having epic hissy fits on Twitter, for example, Chris Kromm, “NEWS: NC officially joins ranks of bigoted states whose neanderthal laws will be overturned by courts in coming years.”

And lesbian radical Pam Spaulding is on Twitter as well. The cries of bigotry and homophobia are going to be deafening.

Only last Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that California’s voter-approved Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman—was unconstitutional.

Already it seems like old news, but the implications of marriage redefined are anything but old news. Left in the court decision’s wake are the implications of homosexual “marriage,” some of which are obvious.

A universal and divinely ordered institution, marriage also is legally recognized by the state. Marriage is a public legal act and the foundation that orders society, builds families, and supports the rearing of children. Marriage is a social contract between complementary sexes, and children greatly benefit from such unions. Generally, children living with their married, biological parents are physically safer and report better emotional health than children who don’t. They engage in fewer risky behaviors, including substance abuse and delinquency. They’re less likely to have premarital sex or to become pregnant out of wedlock.

Marriage is a relationship of opposites. In redefining it to include people of the same sex, marriage is rendered meaningless, and children are deprived of a normal family. Children from same-sex unions, begat through a known or unknown sperm donor or womb, are deprived of what they long for, even if they can’t articulate it: a mother and father, not two mothers or two fathers.

Allowing courts to redefine marriage as between two men or two women will lead to courts further expanding the definition of marriage. Do you think it’s silly to suggest homosexual “marriage” paves the way to legal recognition of polygamous and incestuous relationships? Not long ago, the mere thought of homosexuals openly declaring their behavior normal seemed just as ludicrous. Now they claim marriage is a civil right, a matter of equality.

Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, wrote that once the equality principle is codified, “the next step will be to use the law to stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation.” Homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else, and restricting marriage to one man and one woman doesn’t deprive them of any. But as Gallagher notes, redefining marriage certainly will deprive us of ours.

Homosexuals argue that “marriage” between two men or two women is like interracial marriage. They attempt to co-opt the historic struggle to combat legal racial segregation. The two are not even close. Loving v. Virginia (1967) lifted the racial restriction on heterosexual marriage. Government segregation was about maintaining a subordinate class of citizens based on race, and no one can claim, with a straight face, that homosexuals in the United States are a subordinate class.

The implications of marriage redefined are neither harmless nor alarmist. They are tangible and happening right now. Christians should speak out loudly and often against this wholesale reordering of society while we still can. If we continue down this path, marriage will be meaningless.

Only last Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that California’s voter-approved Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman—was unconstitutional.

Already it seems like old news, but the implications of marriage redefined are anything but old news. Left in the court decision’s wake are the implications of homosexual “marriage,” some of which are obvious.

A universal and divinely ordered institution, marriage also is legally recognized by the state. Marriage is a public legal act and the foundation that orders society, builds families, and supports the rearing of children. Marriage is a social contract between complementary sexes, and children greatly benefit from such unions. Generally, children living with their married, biological parents are physically safer and report better emotional health than children who don’t. They engage in fewer risky behaviors, including substance abuse and delinquency. They’re less likely to have premarital sex or to become pregnant out of wedlock.

Marriage is a relationship of opposites. In redefining it to include people of the same sex, marriage is rendered meaningless, and children are deprived of a normal family. Children from same-sex unions, begat through a known or unknown sperm donor or womb, are deprived of what they long for, even if they can’t articulate it: a mother and father, not two mothers or two fathers.

Allowing courts to redefine marriage as between two men or two women will lead to courts further expanding the definition of marriage. Do you think it’s silly to suggest homosexual “marriage” paves the way to legal recognition of polygamous and incestuous relationships? Not long ago, the mere thought of homosexuals openly declaring their behavior normal seemed just as ludicrous. Now they claim marriage is a civil right, a matter of equality.

Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, wrote that once the equality principle is codified, “the next step will be to use the law to stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation.” Homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else, and restricting marriage to one man and one woman doesn’t deprive them of any. But as Gallagher notes, redefining marriage certainly will deprive us of ours.

Homosexuals argue that “marriage” between two men or two women is like interracial marriage. They attempt to co-opt the historic struggle to combat legal racial segregation. The two are not even close. Loving v. Virginia (1967) lifted the racial restriction on heterosexual marriage. Government segregation was about maintaining a subordinate class of citizens based on race, and no one can claim, with a straight face, that homosexuals in the United States are a subordinate class.

The implications of marriage redefined are neither harmless nor alarmist. They are tangible and happening right now. Christians should speak out loudly and often against this wholesale reordering of society while we still can. If we continue down this path, marriage will be meaningless.

Folks, this has nothing to do with politics, but I feel compelled to share it with you. Mary and I attended a wonderful wedding. A friend of mine of thirty years lost his wife to cancer. After his devastating loss, God blessed him to meet a lovely lady. They fell in love, decided to marry and he asked me to be his best man.

Like many Americans, the Obama economy has wreaked havoc on my friend, the groom’s, finances. The wedding was modest, and yet, elegant and creative. The ceremony took place in the exquisite garden of a 100 year old hotel. The reception was inside the hotel’s historic charming dining room.

Interestingly, while it was not a big budget “blowout” wedding, it was one of the most, if not the most, loveliest I have ever attended; happy, fun and upbeat. I think the magic ingredient was “love”; not love the emotion. I am talking about love the attitude.

It was obvious the wedding couple’s thirty or so guests really liked them and wished them well in this new chapter of their lives. Their wedding was not about impressive this or that. It was about family and friends genuinely supporting the happy couple; resulting in a relaxing, warm and pleasant atmosphere.

Contrast my friend’s wedding to what I saw on TV when flipping through the channels. A youth woman was critiquing her girlfriend’s expensive wedding. She made one snotty comment after another. She thought this was tacky and what on earth was the wedding couple thinking when they made certain choices.

I realize it is human nature to critique events. But, I thought the young woman on TV gave an extremely harsh critique of her friend’s wedding. I thought, “Wow, with friends like her, who needs enemies?”

Big lavish weddings can be wonderful. I am simply commenting on the unique simple elegance, beauty and heartfelt “vibe” of my friend’s wedding. It was great.

At the wedding, Mary and I were introduced to a woman whom I will call “Jane.” It appeared smiling was not in this woman’s DNA. When Jane unenthusiastically shook my hand, she looked downward avoiding eye contact.

If I were a person with “issues,” I could have internalized Jane’s unfriendly body language concluding, “This racist white woman does not like black people.”

I sensed it was not about me, but about her and how she felt about herself. I thought, “This woman is very insecure.” My wife, Mary, also noticed Jane’s unfriendly vibe.

Without Mary and I consulting each other, we made Jane our mission. We exploited every opportunity to pull Jane into the little conservations which happen at such events.

Feeling a little more comfortable, Jane confined to Mary that she felt apprehensive about attending the wedding. She was the date of a friend of the bride and did not know anyone. This was totally out of her comfort zone.

By the end of the reception, Jane, Mary, myself and several of the other guests were good friends; laughing, joking and having a great time.