Donald Hank
"Holy" matrimony administered by a Satanic state
By Donald Hank
Karl Denninger, who normally writes about secular stuff like economics, just wrote a particularly thought-provoking opinion piece on the Supreme Court decision by which that body, intended to be part of the judiciary, took a stab at legislating. Another one. The article was posted by Stephanie Jasky at FedUpUSA:
http://www.fedupusa.org/2015/06/scotus-steps-in-it-gay-marriage/
A long time ago, Steph had said that the notion of the government getting involved in marriage was a scam and that marriage should remain outside of government institutions.
The idea that Christians should just "shack up" sounded so outlandish – and also a bit libertarian, that I just filed it away, not knowing how to respond. I tended to disagree but didn't know why.
Since yesterday, this whole idea of cutting the government out of the marriage business takes on a whole new luster.
I am no longer in a position to disagree and can't think of any reason why I should.
After all, the government says that the marriage contract can be broken unilaterally under the so-called no-fault law. So unlike any other contract known in law, it is really not a contract at all, but only a scam, because it lacks enforcement potential. Worse, once you put your neck in the government's noose, and then once the other half files for and gets that divorce, the one with the most property before the marriage is the one who loses, often big time. Men generally lose anyway because mom gets the kids and juicy child support checks, which she is in no way obliged to spend on your kids. She can be the most abusive and negligent mom in the world but she will almost certainly get the kids and the monthly checks. That's hardwired into the system.
There is something, well, conservative about us conservatives. If it was done a certain way before when we were kids, then that is how it should be done now and forevermore. But what was done before was often part of a desperately wicked system. We just didn't see it.
It was called "holy matrimony," but it was contracted within the framework of a mostly atheistic state, which by now has gone full-bore Satanic. And even if the officials involved were not in their majority atheists, at least the laws that they were bound by were generally not in any way motivated by Christian principles.
So what was so holy about a marriage certificate?
Nothing. Not even if the ceremony was performed by a priest or pastor or whatever.
None of the Christian spirit of the officiating cleric was transferred to the legal document. Thus, the "matrimony" was not holy at all. It was a suckers' transaction, a contract of vows that the law had no intention of enforcing, a trap intended only to spread the wealth.
I do not make recommendations. However, I see no wrong whatsoever in a pastor performing a wedding in a church, particularly one that has freed itself of its 501(C) status, but without any involvement by the state whatsoever. You can try to stigmatize the children born in that arrangement as "illegitimate" if you like. But you can't fool kids. They know who mom and dad are and they will generally assign significantly more legitimacy to a good couple of parents than they will to any soulless state apparatus.
I realized a while back that the tax exemption for churches was merely a subterfuge to make religion subservient to the State.
There is no Biblical basis for this system, and its intended result is that pastors, a timid lot to begin with (with some notable exceptions, like Chuck Baldwin), are afraid to speak out against officially endorsed sin.
Now, since the abominable Supreme Court decision, Christians are at a crossroads.
We now have the opportunity and a compelling motive to break away from the Satanic state. Or we can just fold as we have always done in the past.
One thing is certain: unless we take drastic measures to protect marriage and traditional Christianity as a whole, your pastor or priest will someday be forced to perform gay weddings. Your marriage will then be on a par with something recognized since the earliest times as wicked. The symbolism is unavoidable.
And since a high percentage of clerics are liberal left-wingers or simply spiritually squishy to begin with, they will pretend that they are just being meek as bidden by Jesus. Aww, how sweet... it is not!
Pastors all over the US are boldly saying "no" to the Supreme Court abomination. But how many of them are willing to put their money where their mouth is and part with their precious tax deduction?
Those who do will certainly be part of that remnant of the end times as mentioned in the Bible. Sadly, the rest may well share the same fate as unbelievers in the Last Judgment.
© Donald Hank
June 29, 2015
Karl Denninger, who normally writes about secular stuff like economics, just wrote a particularly thought-provoking opinion piece on the Supreme Court decision by which that body, intended to be part of the judiciary, took a stab at legislating. Another one. The article was posted by Stephanie Jasky at FedUpUSA:
http://www.fedupusa.org/2015/06/scotus-steps-in-it-gay-marriage/
A long time ago, Steph had said that the notion of the government getting involved in marriage was a scam and that marriage should remain outside of government institutions.
The idea that Christians should just "shack up" sounded so outlandish – and also a bit libertarian, that I just filed it away, not knowing how to respond. I tended to disagree but didn't know why.
Since yesterday, this whole idea of cutting the government out of the marriage business takes on a whole new luster.
I am no longer in a position to disagree and can't think of any reason why I should.
After all, the government says that the marriage contract can be broken unilaterally under the so-called no-fault law. So unlike any other contract known in law, it is really not a contract at all, but only a scam, because it lacks enforcement potential. Worse, once you put your neck in the government's noose, and then once the other half files for and gets that divorce, the one with the most property before the marriage is the one who loses, often big time. Men generally lose anyway because mom gets the kids and juicy child support checks, which she is in no way obliged to spend on your kids. She can be the most abusive and negligent mom in the world but she will almost certainly get the kids and the monthly checks. That's hardwired into the system.
There is something, well, conservative about us conservatives. If it was done a certain way before when we were kids, then that is how it should be done now and forevermore. But what was done before was often part of a desperately wicked system. We just didn't see it.
It was called "holy matrimony," but it was contracted within the framework of a mostly atheistic state, which by now has gone full-bore Satanic. And even if the officials involved were not in their majority atheists, at least the laws that they were bound by were generally not in any way motivated by Christian principles.
So what was so holy about a marriage certificate?
Nothing. Not even if the ceremony was performed by a priest or pastor or whatever.
None of the Christian spirit of the officiating cleric was transferred to the legal document. Thus, the "matrimony" was not holy at all. It was a suckers' transaction, a contract of vows that the law had no intention of enforcing, a trap intended only to spread the wealth.
I do not make recommendations. However, I see no wrong whatsoever in a pastor performing a wedding in a church, particularly one that has freed itself of its 501(C) status, but without any involvement by the state whatsoever. You can try to stigmatize the children born in that arrangement as "illegitimate" if you like. But you can't fool kids. They know who mom and dad are and they will generally assign significantly more legitimacy to a good couple of parents than they will to any soulless state apparatus.
I realized a while back that the tax exemption for churches was merely a subterfuge to make religion subservient to the State.
There is no Biblical basis for this system, and its intended result is that pastors, a timid lot to begin with (with some notable exceptions, like Chuck Baldwin), are afraid to speak out against officially endorsed sin.
Now, since the abominable Supreme Court decision, Christians are at a crossroads.
We now have the opportunity and a compelling motive to break away from the Satanic state. Or we can just fold as we have always done in the past.
One thing is certain: unless we take drastic measures to protect marriage and traditional Christianity as a whole, your pastor or priest will someday be forced to perform gay weddings. Your marriage will then be on a par with something recognized since the earliest times as wicked. The symbolism is unavoidable.
And since a high percentage of clerics are liberal left-wingers or simply spiritually squishy to begin with, they will pretend that they are just being meek as bidden by Jesus. Aww, how sweet... it is not!
Pastors all over the US are boldly saying "no" to the Supreme Court abomination. But how many of them are willing to put their money where their mouth is and part with their precious tax deduction?
Those who do will certainly be part of that remnant of the end times as mentioned in the Bible. Sadly, the rest may well share the same fate as unbelievers in the Last Judgment.
© Donald Hank
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
