This is topic Civil unions and the Church in forum Bible Topics & Study at Christian Message Boards.

To visit this topic, use this URL:;f=1;t=008118

Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on :
Civil Unions and the Church.....
"They" wan't separation of church and state and at the same time "Marriage" of state to church? Now these "civil union" chits can be used as harassment tools of Terror to the local Full Bible Church and its members. I say if it's a "civil union" let a local judge be the instrument of finalization. The Body of Christ is not under any obligation to have this type of belief system forced upon it. If they want to play church, do it on their dime find one that will cater to this cult's Anti-Biblical beliefs.

Was studying this today. Here are some points of History....In the former instance of this desecration being ordained, the power to legislate had been seized by those who would be restrained in nothing that they imagined to do; and, in a day specified in their ordinance, "no other marriage whatsoever within the Commonwealth," but such as should be contracted under the Parish Registrar's Certificate of his publication of Banns, and before a Justice of the Peace, "should be held or accounted a marriage according to the law of England [See the Ordinance.]." But the national principle is not yet sufficiently prostrated to make us again ripe for so arbitrary and irreligious and imposition, and therefore, by the law just come in force, you are left to form your own judgments, whether marriage is a mere civil contract, or a Divine institution – whether it shall be celebrated with or without any offices of religion – whether the Church, the Conventicle, or the Register-office, shall be the place of celebration – and whether the Clergyman of the Parish, the Dissenting Teacher, or the superintendent Registrar, shall officiate on the occasion.

In the relation in which I stand, and have long stood, toward you, my beloved brethren, and in a matter wherein your interests, both in time and eternity, are not lightly concerned, it would betray a very culpable indifference to my own responsibilities, were I to allow this new order of things to be brought into operation with our subjecting the questions at issue to a scriptural inquiry, and putting before you the strong reasons which should guide your conduct, "as persons professing godliness," and pledged, by your baptismal stipulations, to maintain in all things "a conversation becoming the Gospel of Christ."

This is from The Rev. Henry Handley Norris was a British clergyman who served as Rector of South Hackney in Middlesex County, England. Rev. Norris married Catherine Henrietta Powell in 1805. Their marriage lasted for forty-five years until his death in December of 1850. In this sermon, Norris marks the recent passage of a new law on marriage by providing a detailed look at the marriage institution from a Biblical perspective. He painstakingly progresses through the scriptures in establishing his point that marriage is most importantly a religious institution, and therefore it should never be relegated to a strictly civil character. Rev. Norris emphasizes that God created and established the marriage institution and therefore His intent and purposes should be followed by both religious and civil rulers. Rev. Norris' sermon provides an example of how 18th and 19th Century clergymen regularly instructed their congregations in a Biblical worldview
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on :
Christians all over this country are being put into positions where they must choose to either submit to the “new morality” or potentially lose their jobs. For Kim Davis, deciding to take a stand meant that she was thrown into prison.

From This Point Forward, Christians Are Going To Be Banned From Holding Many Jobs In America...
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on :
Jail Time for Christians: No Longer a Hypothesis

So this is how the game is played. Leftist operatives in the courts (supreme and state) create unconstitutional laws to further their anti-God agenda. Then, Leftists say those who disobey their lawless laws are not behaving like Christians and good Americans. Many on our side fall for it.
Posted by kornelius (Member # 15448) on :
It won't be long before other laws regarding God's Commandments
will be legislated against. The covert moves underway to prime the masses will make it a relatively easy step to officially set the nations up against God's Commandments and by so doing against God. I believe the Churches themselves will be spearhead this move.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on :
Obergefell v. Hodge, the supreme court decision that “legalized” same-sex marriage in all 50 states is not law. These are simply opinions. Congress, and Congress alone makes the laws of our land–not the president, and not the Supreme Court.

In the United States Constitution our founding fathers gave the American people a government of checks and balances–a government of three branches where none is all powerful. Our constitution clearly dictates which of the three branches makes the laws of our land, and what the duties of the other two branches are, regarding those laws.

Article I, Section 1 of the constitution states: “All legislative power [law-making power] herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States[.]”

According to our constitution then, all laws are made in the congress. This is how:

I. A congressman drafts a bill.

II. He submits it to the floor.

III. It is sent to a committee.

IV. It is discussed and sent back to the floor.

V. It is discussed and voted on.

VI. It passes.

VII. It is sent to the other house.

VIII. Same process.

IX. If it passes, it is sent to the president.

X. The president can sign the bill, veto it, or do nothing, in which case the bill becomes law after ten days.

There, that’s how congress makes laws–the condensed version.

Again I remind you, the first sentence of the constitution vests ALL legislative powers in a congress. That leaves nothing left for the Supreme court.

The Supreme Court’s function is to discover and apply the constitution and the laws of congress to the cases brought before them, and to strike down laws that violate the constitution. They are not to judge based on their personal bias. They are to judge based on the Constitution. Moreover, they have no jurisdiction unless a case is appealed to them. Even then, their opinions apply only to the case on which they have ruled–not to the entire country. Their opinions are not law!

It was highly illegal for them to force improper civil unions as marriage against DOMA!

It was highly improper for 2 gay judges not to recluse themselves from even voting.

Consider this, in 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in Dredd Scott v. Sanford that African Americans had no rights which white men were bound to respect. In 1927, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled in Buck v. Bell that mentally disabled women could be sterilized “for the protection and health of the State.”

Dredd Scott and Buck v. Bell have never been overturned. If Supreme court decisions carry the force of law, then why do African Americans have rights, and why aren’t we forcibly sterilizing every intellectually disabled woman? The answer is this: the Supreme Court does not make laws. Their decisions do not need to be overturned. They are just opinions. They are not law, and can be ignored as we have been rightly ignoring Dredd Scott and Buck v. Bell for decades.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0