Current Status: -posted

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Who Owns Marriage, Indeed



Today I watched the above sermon beginning to end, and I would like to provide some feedback based upon what I observed. First off, I appreciate this video being posted by a good friend of mine, Mr. Randy Dye. Randy has been instrumental in the movement to restore liberty to this land. He is a fellow patriot. Though I may not fully agree with the end activity promoted by this video, I'm thankful for this man, his family, and the fact that this church is wanting to at least "do something."

During the first three quarters of the sermon, the pastor, referencing scripture all the way, speaks out about what the Bible says marriage should be and it is indeed clear that marriage was ordained by God to strictly be between a man and a woman. He pounds this home and I agree and support the stance and the Biblical perspective 100%. I applaud his taking a stand, and actually wanting to get involved. Like it is said near the end of the clip, the church has been sitting for far too long. However there are some deeper issues which are addressed only briefly by the woman at the end of this video which I believe are VERY important, and should be looked at a little closer. I think a lot of Christians are voting for this amendment out of excitement at the rare opportunity of standing up for what they believe in, and also excitement because they believe it fights something they know is wrong. Yet, I also believe that this excitement is overpowering their ability to "look before they leap" -- to first consider the consequences of allowing the government to continue sticking its nose into business which it ought not be in in the first place. Twice during this video (4:40 & 52:15) it is mentioned that before the government ever got involved, God alone had ordained marriage for his people. The woman at the end says, "...from Adam and Eve, they were married. It was not legislation. It was not a marriage license. It was God." Later again at the 53 and 54 minute marks she brings up several of the government sanctioned "benefits" that didn't even exist prior to the government being involved. Amen! So, we see here, bright and clear, a very important ROOT issue. But when you compare this to the ultimate "action" promoted by this sermon, there appears to be a contradiction. To me it looks like we are saying that it's a God thing, but yet we are participating in a venue which says otherwise. We're saying that it's a marriage because God says it is, and yet we care greatly that the government also promotes one or the other. And we think that there is actual authority placed in the form of a vote to say one way or another, when it's really up to God. Make sense? It's kind of like we're serving two masters here.

Toward the end the pastor here tells the story about Bob Jones losing their tax exempt status and at 48:20 he says that, "if this passes, folks....there's a chance...that this would be a hate crime if I were to preach this sermon today...we would lose our tax exempt status and we'd have to pay $30,000-$40,000 to the government." Firstly, I think this 501c3 status would be a fantastic thing to lose! This is a root issue that ought to be discussed. Would the church be having this problem if it weren't a 501c3 church and its pulpit was no longer under restriction by the government? Stay with me, this gets a little technical. If you read the 501c3 (non-profit) paperwork, you will see that even the IRS admits that churches are tax exempt by their very nature, pursuant to IRS Publication 526, and IRS Code § 170(c)(2)(B). So why is a 501c3 status even required? It's not! Again, let's dig a little deeper. I'm also wondering if by preaching about the marriage amendment in the first place, this in and of itself is a violation of the 501c3 status agreement. See section VIII, part 2a & 2b of IRS form 1023 which requests Form 5768 to be filled out. Then check out Form 5768. Under the general instructions you see the words, "Section 501(c)(3) states that an organization exempt under that section will lose its tax-exempt status and its qualification to receive deductive charitable contributions if a substantial part of its activities are carried on to influence legislation." In other words, you want to affect change? Fine, you are no longer tax exempt. Now, does a single sermon qualify as "substantial?" I'm not so sure. But the point is, the power to influence what is preached behind the pulpit is in the hands of the government. And it ought not be that way. The 501(c)3 status is bad for churches. Check out HushMoney.org. They've got some great information on this topic.

The pastor also says that they would "have to" pay the government thousands of dollars, but if it does become a hate crime to preach against homosexuality, shouldn't churches be the first to resist such payments/tyranny? If we're going to start "fighting" things, we really need to get this "have to" attitude out of our minds. NO, we don't HAVE TO. We should fear God, not the government (our servant). It's not easy, but at some point, we've got to draw the line and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

I believe many Christians are being deceived by things like this simply because it appears on its surface to support their beliefs. However, we need to ask ourselves whether this amendment coincides with the Constitution's original intent and limited powers that we have delegated to the government. Do we want to further confirm, by our vote, that the government DOES indeed have a place in the institution of marriage?

At minute mark 53:00 the above video states, "it comes down, simply, to money." Homosexual couples want those "privileges" and "benefits" which our government has granted to heterosexual couples. So, if these benefits did not exist, would the 'gay agenda' be clamoring for them? Again, if we would tell the government (our servant) not to get involved in marriage AT ALL, this 'special treatment' would not exist, for anyone! If I were to vote, that's what I would vote for -- to get the government out of marriage altogether. I believe that then, the push for legally attacking the traditional marriage would not be as strong, and the opposition would not have as much need to do so. The attacks would only exist within our society through immorality, which they always will, until God returns. No law can change that.

I don't believe any law will ever stop immorality or homosexual unions. They have existed from the dawn of mankind. The heart of man is desperately wicked and repentance must start in the soul. I don't think any of this should be in the hands of the government. In my 30 years I've seen that group of folks mess up far too many things to be trusted with something like this.

You cannot legislate morality, and there are plenty of other ways to affect change in society without building another fence around it.

Voting is only one method by which we protect our liberties. Asserting our rights is another. This is where the legal system comes into play. I call it resistance with a legal foundation. In August of 2009, after much study, thought and prayer, my future wife and I asserted our right to be married through the vehicle of a covenant marriage. We did this without the permission of the government because we believe this right is inherent and God given, and because we believe God would not be pleased if we participated in asking permission for something He ordained in the first place. A state-licensed marriage does NOT a marriage make. God created this institution and so we believe that it is no right of the government to interfere. We've had to face personal sacrifice as a result of our decisions. In fact, the de facto NC state government does not recognize our marriage, in much the same way as they do not currently recognize a homosexual marriage, with or without the passing of this amendment. Yet, we are married in God's eyes regardless of these supposed "man made" laws. As you can see, the government didn't stop US from getting married, and they certainly won't be able to stop homosexuals from coming together either.

By voting for the marriage amendment, no matter how badly we want to "defeat" the opposition, I believe that with this vote, we would only be sending a message that we DO want the government involved in this institution. From most Christians' standpoints, not supporting this amendment will not be a popular choice. I have no doubt that by opposing this amendment, we may be labelled similarly to those who support homosexuality. But that's okay. I believe that when the government comes up with some "law" that seems beneficial to your own viewpoint, it takes far more guts to recognize the government shouldn't get involved in it at all than to vote out of benefit for your own cause.

10 comments:

Sara said...

This was very well stated, Cliff. I think it's also important to note (as we've talked about previously) that the state of NC already bans same-sex marriages (Statute §51‑1.2 states that "marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.").

So, why a constitutional amendment? Why now? I think the amendment has broader implications, and a longer arm than any of us realize. A vote for this amendment is not a vote for marriage. It's a vote for further government encroachments on our liberties.

Another thought I had.... isn't the grand intention of a constitution (state or federal) to restrict the government?? This amendment restricts the individuals, which is by its very nature unconstitutional.

Anyway.... sorry my thoughts are kind of all over the place. I just see so many things that are WRONG with this amendment, and it saddens me that Christians above all others are so quick to push the government to do the job of the church. As you said, you can't legislate morality.

Betty Tilley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Betty Tilley said...

There has always been a government even in biblical days. Christians have always had to obey Government Authority unless it went against Gods Law. Taxes have always been paid. The Bible speaks very clearly about the relationship between the believer and the government. We are to obey governmental authorities and the government is to treat us justly and fairly. Even when the government does not live up to its role, we are still to live up to ours. Finally, when the government asks us to do something that is in direct disobedience to God’s Word, we are to disobey the government in faithful confidence of the Lord’s power to protect us.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
I know in the beginning there was not a formal written marriage liscense. The law that was put into place that states you have to have a liscense to get married is it really going against God word? God speaks about sex outside of marriage as being a sin. What constitutes marriage? Just living together and having sex? As far as some saying there has been homosexual marriages from the beginning of time, that is not true becuase God does not recognize that as a marriage. Now how does the marriage admendment go against God Law? All it does is states that Marriage is between One man and one woman and Gods law also states that. Thats all this admendment says so how can anyone say it is wrong? If the law already bans same sex marriage then why be against this?
There is always going to be a governement until the end. We have to make wise choices as to who we vote in to make the right decisions. When we vote for or against issue for example, we vote for same sex marrige which God is against Gods Law, we are saying to God I believe you are wrong and I am going to go against your word. After all Lord it is so much accepted in the church today. Unfortunately the government is always going to be making decision for the people and we are the ones that are responsible for voting who we think will be honest.
I respect your opinion and thought about this issue. I certianly do not mean to offend you in anyway. I have always had great repect for you.

Bill Randell said...

The Amendment is stated thus: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Now it is clear what is wanted in the first statement, but why the last? Civil courts exists already to determine contractual rights between parties. Is there some kind of new jurisdiction being created here? It seems so, but it is highly undefined save for the fact that it is included in the Amendment. Such an inclusion creates an inference that sodomites can, via this legislation, contract with each other to create their own "marriage" and the courts will have authority to determine the consequences of the "marriage." It is, to me, a back door authorization for sodomites to engage in a "contract for marriage," and this piece of legislation authorizes it.

I agree with you Cliff, that the government has no business being involved in such matters. But I disagree with you on the concept that you cannot legislate morality.

All "law" is the moral interpretation or representation of the foundational beliefs of the culture in which the government is established. It cannot be otherwise.

The problem we will soon be facing in this "multicultural" society will be whose cultural beliefs will take the forefront and form the base of the laws that will be enacted to further that culture. It will create culture or ethnic wars as one culture becomes able, above the others, to force the issue.

"Multiculturalism" cannot survive; one culture will always dominate the other and enforce its "wisdom" upon the defeated.

It has already been seen in our own country under the guise of secular humanism. The heavy handed push of these folks can be seen clearly in the authorization of abortion, taking prayer out of school, and the very fact that we are preparing to vote on an issue outside the venue of the government.

The "Christian" culture brought here by our forefathers is being ousted and the change in the laws is reflecting the new culture. All of it being a change in the moral dogma of those who perpetuate its ideals. It cannot be otherwise.

Well, I suppose this is more than a comment, but I appreciate being allowed this time

Bill Randell

NCPatriot said...

Betty,

And I've always had respect for you as well, and appreciation for everything you do. Like I say in the post, I am sure that there will be many Christian friends who will not agree with me on this issue. A few years ago, I became involved in the founding of a local study group with the purpose of seeking out and learning more about our founding documents and jurisprudence, the study and philosophy of law. With what I have learned in mind, I cannot agree with many of the modern day concepts that Christians have about government and our relationship and responsibilities to it.

I'd like to speak to a few of your thoughts below. Regardless of how fruitful the debate, I appreciate good conversation! I really am glad you decided to speak up and speak out, and I'm glad I have good friends like you :-)

----------------------------------
RESPONSE IN 3 PARTS AS FOLLOWS
----------------------------------

NCPatriot said...

REPLY TO BETTY TILLEY: PART 1 OF 3:

There has always been a government even in biblical days. Christians have always had to obey Government Authority unless it went against Gods Law.

True. Except in times of total anarchy, there has always been a government. And yes, Romans 13 says let every soul be subject to the higher powers. However, in our Constitutional Republic, as it was founded and intended to be, God is the highest authority, then His laws, then His people, then the Constitution, and THEN FINALLY the government -- our servants, who derive their orders from us. In our system, when comparing man to the government, we the people are the higher authority. The government actually answers to us, and we are responsible for its actions. Not unless there is a crime (injury to another's life, liberty, or property) to be punished, should this government's authority ever exceed that of our own. There is also a philosophy of a reciprocal agreement which exists between government and people. The December 18, 1776 North-Carolina Constitution states, "Whereas Allegiance and Protection are in their Nature reciprocal and the one should of Right be refused, when the other is withdrawn.." This means that when a government no longer is doing its job of protecting our liberties, we no longer owe it our allegiance. It's not that this is evil or wrong to disobey our government, it's that it is actually our DUTY as its masters. This is the way law originally was written in this country.

Taxes have always been paid.

This is also true. Though this may be a bit off-topic, I do want to mention a few issues that deal with the modern day taxation which many do not realize:

-The 16th Amendment which supposedly authorizes an income tax was never properly ratified and is in total contradiction to the intentions of the Constitution. If you do a study into this amendment, you'll find that some very sneaky and immoral things were done to bring it to life.

-Even the IRS will tell you that the income tax is "voluntary." It's actually kind of strange because though it says this in many of their documents, when you talk to the "guy at the top", he'll tell you, "yep, it's voluntary, but you have to volunteer." We like to call this "mandatory volunteerism." Really strange, but again...something is seriously amiss here.

-Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution says "No state shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.." In other words, our true currency is supposed to be gold and silver coin. The founders realized that in order to maintain accountability in our currency, we should have a currency which follows Biblical standards. The Bible says in Proverbs 20:10, "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord." This refers to the measurement of items which are exchanged for goods and services. I believe it brings to light an important message that Americans are missing today regarding our monetary system. We currently have a system which uses paper money with no intrinsic value which we then trade for items of actual value. I believe this is wrong and that it has caused many problems. The national debt is a perfect example, as our money supply has been so artificially increased over time, it has lead us to this point. Again, we the people, are responsible for our servant's actions.

I could go on and on with this topic. But to make a long story short, we need to take a serious look at taxation. Just because this government body says it, or even demands it, does not necessarily make it law or "authority" that we should give in to.

NCPatriot said...

REPLY TO BETTY TILLEY: PART 2 OF 3:

The Bible speaks very clearly about the relationship between the believer and the government. We are to obey governmental authorities and the government is to treat us justly and fairly. Even when the government does not live up to its role, we are still to live up to ours. Finally, when the government asks us to do something that is in direct disobedience to God’s Word, we are to disobey the government in faithful confidence of the Lord’s power to protect us.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.


I think I spoke pretty well to this above. But again, in our Constitutional Republic, we are the masters and are responsible for the actions of those put in place to serve and protect our liberties, not the other way around. To live up to our role in this system is to fulfill that allegiance/reciprocity agreement. When they stop fulfilling their role, we owe no allegiance. We should obey the laws, and in this land the law is the Constitution. Supreme court case Norton v. Shelby County, 6 S.Ct. 1121 states, "an unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Therefore an unconstitutional act purporting to create an office gives no validity to the acts of a person acting under color of its authority." From this we can see that if something is unconstitutional, we owe no obedience to that act.

I know in the beginning there was not a formal written marriage liscense. The law that was put into place that states you have to have a liscense to get married is it really going against God word? God speaks about sex outside of marriage as being a sin. What constitutes marriage? Just living together and having sex?

Of course not. Sara and I were married through the vehicle of a Covenant Marriage. This is how it used to be done. Marriages, births and many other things used to be handled by the church and the government did not get involved. The foundation of our wedding is a covenant between us and God. That's it -- no government was needed, because God ordained it! I think it is also important here to know the definition of the word "license". Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves, why should it be illegal to marry without the State's permission? Take a look -- If the government is supposed to be our servant, with the purpose of protecting our liberties, and they, by being under us, are also under God, then why would they need for us to ask their permission to do something which God intended in the first place? And where would they even get the authority? Isn't that kind of a slap in the face to the one who authorizes this in the first place?

Also, in the blog, I don't think I ever said that not getting a marriage license was against God's word, but only that "we believed that God would not be pleased if we had participated in asking permission for something He ordained in the first place." We couldn't turn our backs on what we had learned, and so after much thought and prayer on the topic, we decided that it would be best not to obtain a license.

NCPatriot said...

REPLY TO BETTY TILLEY: PART 3 OF 3:

As far as some saying there has been homosexual marriages from the beginning of time, that is not true becuase God does not recognize that as a marriage.

I'm glad you mentioned this. As I wrote the post, I tried to use the word "homosexual unions" instead, because I agree with you here. I guess this one slipped. I've corrected the typo.

Now how does the marriage admendment go against God Law? All it does is states that Marriage is between One man and one woman and Gods law also states that. Thats all this admendment says so how can anyone say it is wrong? If the law already bans same sex marriage then why be against this?

I don't think I ever stated that the marriage amendment went against God's law. My position is simply that this amendment would further "confirm, by our vote, that the government DOES indeed have a place in the institution of marriage," a philosophy that I would disagree with, as stated above.

So, if the "law" already bans same sex marriage, then why is this amendment even necessary? Does it more "firmly" establish this recognition by the government? And if I don't believe the government should have any involvement in marriage, why then would I want an amendment that only further confirms this involvement? Bill also brings up some interesting points about this Amendment that I believe require more attention.

There is always going to be a governement until the end. We have to make wise choices as to who we vote in to make the right decisions. When we vote for or against issue for example, we vote for same sex marrige which God is againstGid Law, we are saying to God I believe you are wrong and I am going to go against your word.

So because I believe marriage is ordained by God and God alone, and that it is not for the government to be involved with, I am going against God's Word? Where does the Bible indicate that it is God's intention for the government to involve itself in the institution of marriage?

After all Lord it is so much accepted in the church today. Unfortunately the government is always going to be making decision for the people and we are the ones that are responsible for voting who we think will be honest.

That is exactly what I believe to be the crux of the problem that we have in America today. We look to a governing body to make these decisions for us, when it is in fact our responsibility, especially the responsibility of Christians, to understand and educate ourselves on the way our system of government in America is "supposed" to work. With that knowledge comes the responsibility of affecting change in our country outside of the voting booth.

Betty Tilley said...

Hey Cliff Thanks for your response. Just curious. Do you vote at all?

NCPatriot said...

Betty, thanks for asking. I do vote, but currently only in the de jure state. I believe these two posts may help to better explain my position on voting and participating in the de facto system:

http://muncyweb.blogspot.com/2011/06/voters-registration-cancelled.html
http://muncyweb.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-voting-isnt-answer-what-is.html

Please understand that while this is my position, and is a legal argument which I have taken on, it doesn't mean that I go around to people currently voting in the system telling them they should stop. If people believe that change can be had through a vote in the current system, they should follow their conscience. Just as I would hope that those voting wouldn't try to tell me that their way is the only way to affect change. It is simply my goal to shed light on other "out of the box" solutions which I sincerely believe could be more successful than those consistently tried in years past. I believe that there are more ways to affect change, and I've chosen to take an active role in promoting the knowledge and assertion of rights and the upholding of the law, and to inform people about this method. Perhaps by working together, with many methods, we can defeat this disrespect for the law that overtook our Union over 140 years ago, and continues to ruin the country today.