Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Monday, November 3, 2008

What Ever Happened to Separation of Church and State?

The state should have no business in the affairs of a sacred institution like marriage.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Does Any State Constitution Give “Couples” A Right to do Anything?

On November 4th, Californians again will vote on whether to keep marriage defined between one man and one woman. If Prop. 8 fails, California will follow the State of Connecticut granting gay couples (plural) the right (singular) to marry. And my question is this, I thought state constitutions granted rights to individuals and not couples? Does any state constitution give “couples” a right to do anything? I'm no law expert by any means so please educate me.

However, I believe those that wish Prop. 8 to fail (a "NO" vote), the basis then of demanding that every "couple" be given the same right to marry is a loaded one. How could they possibly believe that a prohibition on SAME-FAMILY marriage or poligamy be constitutional?

And in regards to marriage rights, where in the Constitution--state or federal-- guarantees the right for everyone to marry anyone? Doesn't it only guarantee that the definition of marriage decided on by the people, will be applied to every person equally? The "Seperate but Not Equal" term (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka May 17, 1954) is totally irrelavant in this case of Same-Sex Marriage. The color of skin you were born with does not compare to one's choice of sexual orientation. There isn't enough scientific data to prove it either. But let's leave that topic for another day.

So, where does this "right to marry" come from? To quote from William J Federer, on his article, "Three Secular Reasons Why America Should be Under God", he makes the following points,
"Why is marriage so significant in the eye of the individual and the state? These ideas have origins. And they just didn’t pop into existence when the Constitution of the United States was drafted. Let’s go back a bit further, the Declaration states "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men." In other words, rights come from God and government's job is to protect your rights. In his Inaugural Address, 1961, President John F. Kennedy put it this way: "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." But if there is no God, where can the rights come from except from the "generosity of the State." The State, then, becomes the new god. And what the State "giveth," the State can "taketh awayeth."
And to add, Christians in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples, really need to read their copy of the scriptures. Specifically the following scripture, 1 Corinthians 6:9,
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders,".
Bigotry? Intolerance, by all means no! For one, on the surface, it's a matter of survival. As Justice Peter T. Zarella, a Conneticut judge who was in the minority in recent 4-to-3 decision, suggested in his dissenting opinion, “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,"

What do you say? Thank you for reading. God bless. (Excuse any grammatical errors. It's late here on the West Coast!)

"This" Generation or "That" Generation? What Did Jesus Really Mean?

Continuing with the topic of
Gary DeMar writes in "Is Jesus Coming Soon?" page 20, "Like all of Scripture, Matthew 24 cannot be understood fully without surveying it's context which flows from chapter 23." He continues, "Furthermore, the prophetic words Jesus spoke in chapter 24 are directly related to the events describe in chapter 23". Just to note, this is how Matt 24:34 reads using the ESV translation,
"Truly, I say to you, [His Disciples] this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." ("things": temple destruction, signs leading up to the end of the age [of old covenant], persecution, etc.)
And this is the way traditional evangelical dispensational churches read Matt 24:34,
"THE generation that 'sees' these things will not pass till all is fulfilled."
Here are some problems when it's read that way; "First, projecting this passage into a future fulfillment ignores its clear, literal interpretation. Jesus said, 'this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.' Some try to get around the clear meaning of the phrase by claiming that there was a partial fulfillment in A.D. 70 but there will be a greater or secondary fulfillment sometime in our future.
"This is not the plain and literal reading of the text."
'All these things' were clearly to take place within the 'this generation' time frame. The text does not support the interpretation that there is a gap between the A.D. 70 events and some future events two thousand years from the time when Jesus first made the prophecy. ' This generation' and 'all these things' are tied together. There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse to lead us to believe in some type of 'double fulfillment' where these events repeat themselves in a future tribulation period with a rebuilt temple."

And to add, many of my pre-trib, dispensational brothers like to quote this fortune-cookie theology,
"If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense lest you come up with nonsense."
I then ask them, "Then why don't you apply that to your own literal reading of the Scriptures? Especially when it comes to Matthew 24, Ezekiel 38 & 39."

Let scripture interpret scripture. What do you say? Thanks for reading. God Bless.