Should the government prohibit same-sex marriage?

[Felipe Rios]

I have been learning a lot about politics for the last 2 years since the Trump became president. All the commotion and controversies that came with the last election prompted me to study and learn politics and the philosophy behind each political party. I have always been a conservative because of my Christian values and I will remain a conservative till the end. However, as I learn about politics and the difference between Big Government and Limited Government I'm starting to realize that I'm a conservative not just because of my Christian values but because the "Conservative Parties" are big proponents of freedom. I'm learning that "freedom" is what gives any society the ability to pursuit their dreams and a life with happiness. A “free” society has more freedom, equality and rights than “socialist” society.

I listen to great forums, politicians and economists and my favorites are Milton Friedman, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens (Turning Point USA), Ben Shapiro, The Rubin Report and PragerU. I have learned a lot from their writings and YouTube videos.

I came a across a video by Dave Rubin from the Rubin Report where he interviews Charlie Kirk on "Trump, Drug War, and Gay Rights.” To my surprise, Charlie Kirk, who is a Christian and the founder of Turning Point USA, stated that he believed the government should allow homosexuals to get married only because the government should not be involved in that area of our lives. Charlie is also a proponent of legalizing drugs only because, once again, the government should not be telling us how we as citizens should live our lives.

I was very intrigued and surprised because I had never heard a conservative Christian involved in politics say that it should be okay for the government to allow same-sex marriage. I have been thinking about this subject for the last few months and I keep going back and forth on the subject so I feel that I need wisdom from well-grounded men like you. So my question is: Should the government allow same-sex marriage to occur in our country? Should we as Christians vote for or against it knowing that the bible is against it? Help please.

 

[Felipe Rios]

I posted this in the wrong Forum. How do I delete it?

 

[Reynolds]

I have been learning a lot about politics for the last 2 years since the Trump became president. All the commotion and controversies that came with the last election prompted me to study and learn politics and the philosophy behind each political party. I have always been a conservative because of my Christian values and I will remain a conservative till the end. However, as I learn about politics and the difference between Big Government and Limited Government I'm starting to realize that I'm a conservative not just because of my Christian values but because the "Conservative Parties" are big proponents of freedom. I'm learning that "freedom" is what gives any society the ability to pursuit their dreams and a life with happiness. A “free” society has more freedom, equality and rights than “socialist” society.

I listen to great forums, politicians and economists and my favorites are Milton Friedman, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens (Turning Point USA), Ben Shapiro, The Rubin Report and PragerU. I have learned a lot from their writings and YouTube videos.

I came a across a video by Dave Rubin from the Rubin Report where he interviews Charlie Kirk on "Trump, Drug War, and Gay Rights.” To my surprise, Charlie Kirk, who is a Christian and the founder of Turning Point USA, stated that he believed the government should allow homosexuals to get married only because the government should not be involved in that area of our lives. Charlie is also a proponent of legalizing drugs only because, once again, the government should not be telling us how we as citizens should live our lives.

I was very intrigued and surprised because I had never heard a conservative Christian involved in politics say that it should be okay for the government to allow same-sex marriage. I have been thinking about this subject for the last few months and I keep going back and forth on the subject so I feel that I need wisdom from well-grounded men like you. So my question is: Should the government allow same-sex marriage to occur in our country? Should we as Christians vote for or against it knowing that the bible is against it? Help please.

What he is saying is that government should not be involved at all in marriage. Marriage is a covenant before God. Neither the local, State, nor state governments should be involved at all in the process. I agree with that position. BUT since govt is involved in that process homosexual marriage should be illegal.

 

[Adonia]

Should the government allow same-sex marriage to occur in our country

The Federal Government has no business doing anything in this area. Marriage, same sex or otherwise, is not a Federal government enumerated power as defined by the U.S. Constitution. This issue (like abortion) lies with the state legislatures of the 50 sovereign states.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Christian liberty does not equate to social freedom. Liberty in Christ releases Christians from the bondage and consequence of sin.

I do not expect non-Christians who are in leadership positions in government to make laws based no Biblical teachings. I do however, expect such leaders to invoke Biblical principals when it is to their political advantage.

I have never been given the opportunity to vote on same-sex issues. I would oppose them given the chance. By doing so, I would be voting to limit the freedoms of those who support the opposing view.

Bottom line, the more tolerant a society, the more freedom it has. The ultimate outcome of which is self destruction.

A “free” society has more freedom, equality and rights than “socialist” society.

All forms of society have builtin limitations. Many of our historic limitations are being overridden in the name of tolerance.

Declaration of Independence: Preamble
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Have you done a critical analysis of the opening statement to the Declaration of Independence?

What "unalienable rights" are excluded and why? What is the source of the belief that all men are created equal? Why did the statement change from "We hold" to "their Creator"?

What kind of "life" did their creator endow them with? Physical, spiritual or eternal?

Are there any limits to the endowment of "liberty"? And what about "happiness"? Does that sanction a homosexual relationship if that is what it takes to make you happy?

The founders set us up for failure by appearing to base their values on Biblical principles when in fact the values they invoked are not Biblical.

 

[Yeshua1]

What he is saying is that government should not be involved at all in marriage. Marriage is a covenant before God. Neither the local, State, nor state governments should be involved at all in the process. I agree with that position. BUT since govt is involved in that process homosexual marriage should be illegal.

The concept of marriage is rooted into the Law of God, as he instituted it and he decided what constitutes a legal one, so he trumps the constitution, so yes, should ahve been banned!

 

[Covenanter]

All forms of sexual activity apart from marriage between one man and one woman are contrary to Scripture. Jesus explained that divorced was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts.

In a secular state, legislation, including permissive legislation, needs to deal with irregular behaviour that is not harmful to others.

What consenting adults do in private, including homosexuality has been the subject of harsh legislation. Now it's gone too far the other way, seven teaching young children in school behaviour that parents reject. Children are in all sorts of dysfunctional home situations.

The gay lobby has had an effect on legislation way beyond anything needed to end discrimination.

The situation can only be very harmful to our children, with ever-increasing immorality, and the resulting situation in which Christians will be unable to comply with state legislation, will reject "legal" marriage, and suffer expensive law suits by people who claim discrimination.

 

[Yeshua1]

All forms of sexual activity apart from marriage between one man and one woman are contrary to Scripture. Jesus explained that divorced was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts.

In a secular state, legislation, including permissive legislation, needs to deal with irregular behaviour that is not harmful to others.

What consenting adults do in private, including homosexuality has been the subject of harsh legislation. Now it's gone too far the other way, seven teaching young children in school behaviour that parents reject. Children are in all sorts of dysfunctional home situations.

The gay lobby has had an effect on legislation way beyond anything needed to end discrimination.

The situation can only be very harmful to our children, with ever-increasing immorality, and the resulting situation in which Christians will be unable to comply with state legislation, will reject "legal" marriage, and suffer expensive law suits by people who claim discrimination.

If this is not turned back, will be a day when Pastors must consent to do gay marriages, or else face going to jail, or massive fines that ruin the church.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I have always been a conservative because of my Christian values and I will remain a conservative till the end.

What if following Jesus requires you to move away from what the "conservative" movement has become? If you are of Christ, then your primary and fundamental identity needs to be that of a disciple of Jesus, with all other identities under the lordship of Jesus. Those secondary identities would include ethnic pride, social status, gender identity, sexuality, political preferences, economic status, religious preferences, etc.

To my surprise, Charlie Kirk, who is a Christian and the founder of Turning Point USA, stated that he believed the government should allow homosexuals to get married only because the government should not be involved in that area of our lives. Charlie is also a proponent of legalizing drugs only because, once again, the government should not be telling us how we as citizens should live our lives.

He sounds like a libertarian. While I agree with him on his point about marriage, I disagree with his naive view of drug use, since I am convinced libertarianism is far too optimistic about human nature.

Marriage was instituted by God and predates all other social institutions. The government may choose to recognize marriage, but it does not create a marriage. While it is helpful for the government to legally enforce fair decisions of inheritance and custody when a marriage is dissolved by consent or death, the government should not take upon itself the role of defining marriage. The primary reason the whole same-sex marriage movement gained so much ground so quickly is that Christians and social conservatives pushed to pass so-called "defense of marriage" laws that clearly put the government in control of defining marriage, declaring some citizens could not exercise their will to marry someone else of the same biological gender. That set up the legal justification for LGBTQ citizens to petition their government for equal treatment under the laws. It was entirely predictable (and was predicted by many), but many Christians insisted upon promoting their views on sexuality through the force of law.

Should the government allow same-sex marriage to occur in our country?

If the government is defining marriage, then the answer is obvious: Yes. If LGBTQ persons are citizens, then they should have the right to set up stable and legally-recognized relationships.

Should we as Christians vote for or against it knowing that the bible is against it?

I don't understand in what context Christians are expected to "vote for or against it." It is already the law of the land. Churches have the right to set their own rules for marriages, heterosexual or homosexual. The First Amendment protects Christians from facing legal jeopardy for refusing to marry anyone.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If this is not turned back, will be a day when Pastors must consent to do gay marriages, or else face going to jail, or massive fines that ruin the church.

Can you give a single example of this happening?

The First Amendment protects churches from having to marry anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, or choosing to marry everyone who comes along. Unless one is planning to do away with the First Amendment, then there is no legal issue.

 

[Alcott]

Can you give a single example of this happening?

The First Amendment protects churches from having to marry anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, or choosing to marry everyone who comes along. Unless one is planning to do away with the First Amendment, then there is no legal issue.

What there is is the government telling churches what they must or must not do, or else lose their tax exemptions. Large and most 'medium' sized congregations would survive this, but many small assemblies would not. So many people say that further constitutional amendments since 1789 have expanded and not reduced the rights recognized by the first 10. But that is not true of the Income Tax Amendment, which is why government bodies can examine a church's records, thus religious bodies have less freedom from government intrusion. Chief Justice Roberts has said that churches in the coming years face danger of loss of tax exemption if they don't recognize same-sex marriage. If you still think not-- just consider how many years ago-- 15? 20? 30?-- that it was not conceivable that any state or the fed would ever recognize that. It was an argument used in the 70's against the Equal Rights Amendment, and leftwingers consistently said the amendment would not allow same-sex marriage because that is not the definition of marriage. Well, maybe requiring churches to perform such marriages is the definition of religious freedom now-- but what about 15, 20, 30 years from now?

 

[Baptist Believer]

What there is is the government telling churches what they must or must not do, or else lose their tax exemptions.

Can you give any examples of this, other than the issue of endorsing political candidates?

But that is not true of the Income Tax Amendment, which is why government bodies can examine a church's records, thus religious bodies have less freedom from government intrusion.

Actually, churches are well protected against review of records. I suspect the only ones that have ever been reviewed are those organizations claiming to be churches that are clearly not. Again, I would like to hear of examples of the government demanding the review of church records.

Chief Justice Roberts has said that churches in the coming years face danger of loss of tax exemption if they don't recognize same-sex marriage.

That's actually a hypothetical from his dissent on OBERGEFELL v. HODGES regarding housing accommodations for same-sex married couples at religious colleges. That does not directly affect churches. Moreover, it is still a hypothetical and would only involve loss of federal dollars for the school. Unless churches are receiving federal dollars, the government has no say.

If you still think not-- just consider how many years ago-- 15? 20? 30?-- that it was not conceivable that any state or the fed would ever recognize that.

It was quite conceivable 15 years ago when so many people were trying to get "defense of marriage" laws passed. I pointed out to many what the eventual end of it would be, as well as other people.

Well, maybe requiring churches to perform such marriages is the definition of religious freedom now-- but what about 15, 20, 30 years from now?

If Baptists and other persons who support the separation of church and state are vigilant and don't trade the First Amendment away for political favors, we don't have much to worry about.

 

[Alcott]

Can you give any examples of this, other than the issue of endorsing political candidates?

Can you give any example of a church losing its tax exempt status for political (anti)endorsement other than that Pierce Creek case? There is currently the consideration of such loss for churches which have said they will provide refuge for undocumented immigrants. But that, like the political question, will almost surely not happen unless some body decides to throw it right in the face of the feds.

Actually, churches are well protected against review of records. I suspect the only ones that have ever been reviewed are those organizations claiming to be churches that are clearly not.

So if a church minister claims no income or so small that he owes no taxes, the church cannot be audited to make that determination when it's obvious he receives a good income from somewhere? {The legal issues here must be separated from the moral ones; and you like separation, don't you?]

That's actually a hypothetical from his dissent on OBERGEFELL v. HODGES regarding housing accommodations for same-sex married couples at religious colleges. That does not directly affect churches. Moreover, it is still a hypothetical and would only involve loss of federal dollars for the school. Unless churches are receiving federal dollars, the government has no say.

They

Alright, somehow the rest of this was deleted, and I have no time to redo it or continue. Freakin mad!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Can you give any example of a church losing its tax exempt status for political (anti)endorsement other than that Pierce Creek case?

You made an assertion and I asked for examples. Now you want me to provide corroboration for your assertions... That's not how it works.

There is currently the consideration of such loss for churches which have said they will provide refuge for undocumented immigrants. But that, like the political question, will almost surely not happen unless some body decides to throw it right in the face of the feds.

Even if that were done, they have a strong First Amendment case, as well as historical examples to cite.

So essentially, your assertion that "the government [is] telling churches what they must or must not do, or else lose their tax exemptions" is false.

So if a church minister claims no income or so small that he owes no taxes, the church cannot be audited to make that determination when it's obvious he receives a good income from somewhere?

The church cannot be audited, but the minister can be audited. The government can go into his bank accounts to determine where the money is coming from.

{The legal issues here must be separated from the moral ones; and you like separation, don't you?]

Certainly I support the institutional separation of church and state. I'm a Baptist, posting on Baptistboard, after all.

 

[Alcott]

You made an assertion and I asked for examples. Now you want me to provide corroboration for your assertions... That's not how it works.

I don't give a $(^* if that's not how it works. The fact that it has been used against a church at least once shows it is an applicable weapon to force churches to conform.

Even if that were done, they have a strong First Amendment case, as well as historical examples to cite.

So essentially, your assertion that "the government [is] telling churches what they must or must not do, or else lose their tax exemptions" is false.

If it was not false at least once, such could be again.

The church cannot be audited, but the minister can be audited. The government can go into his bank accounts to determine where the money is coming from.

Suppose he arranged to be paid in cash? Is such a crook just the 'price to pay' for that separation you're so obsessed with?

Certainly I support the institutional separation of church and state. I'm a Baptist, posting on Baptistboard, after all.

Well, Yeee-haw!!

 

[Baptist Believer]

I don't give a $(^* if that's not how it works. The fact that it has been used against a church at least once shows it is an applicable weapon to force churches to conform.

So you have one example, and that involved a church specifically targeting a candidate with a newspaper ad, not simply preaching the gospel and urging Christians to vote for candidates who embody moral principles and advocate for moral positions.

That single example in all of the history of church and state separation demonstrates that churches enjoy an enormous amount of constitutional protection.

If it was not false at least once, such could be again.

It is possible, but unlikely. Very few churches want to turn into an auxiliary organization of a political party.

Suppose he arranged to be paid in cash?

They would find he made cash deposits. And before you got there, even if he didn’t use banks and stuffed money into a mattress, the IRS would have to make their case another way.

Is such a crook just the 'price to pay' for that separation you're so obsessed with?

That’s a very minor cost of religious liberty through the separation of church and state.

By the way, I’m not “obsessed” with separation of church and state, but I find that it is a biblical principle — a position historically championed by the Baptist movement and others — that was secured for the United States through the work of Baptists, other Christians, and other religious minorities.

Well, Yeee-haw!!

Yep, it is something to celebrate.

 

[HankD]

Can you give a single example of this happening?

The First Amendment protects churches from having to marry anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, or choosing to marry everyone who comes along. Unless one is planning to do away with the First Amendment, then there is no legal issue.

I am old enough to remember that was the same feeling concerning abortion. In my day it was an horrific crime, now it is almost a standard procedure - elective abortion. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness , still protected?

 

[Wesley Briggman]

I am old enough to remember that was the same feeling concerning abortion. In my day it was an horrific crime, now it is almost a standard procedure - elective abortion. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness , still protected?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

From post #5

These so-called endowed rights applied to men by "their Creator'. Who is their creator? The woman seeking and abortion might in-fact be pursuing happiness as she defines it. Likewise, the homosexual or lesbian couple getting married might also be seeking happiness.

Who among mortal men can define happiness for another?

 

[HankD]

From post #5

These so-called endowed rights applied to men by "their Creator'. Who is their creator? The woman seeking and abortion might in-fact be pursuing happiness as she defines it. Likewise, the homosexual or lesbian couple getting married might also be seeking happiness.

Who among mortal men can define happiness for another?

Not among mortal men but God in heaven.

Psalm 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you give any examples of this, other than the issue of endorsing political candidates?


Actually, churches are well protected against review of records. I suspect the only ones that have ever been reviewed are those organizations claiming to be churches that are clearly not. Again, I would like to hear of examples of the government demanding the review of church records.


That's actually a hypothetical from his dissent on OBERGEFELL v. HODGES regarding housing accommodations for same-sex married couples at religious colleges. That does not directly affect churches. Moreover, it is still a hypothetical and would only involve loss of federal dollars for the school. Unless churches are receiving federal dollars, the government has no say.


It was quite conceivable 15 years ago when so many people were trying to get "defense of marriage" laws passed. I pointed out to many what the eventual end of it would be, as well as other people.


If Baptists and other persons who support the separation of church and state are vigilant and don't trade the First Amendment away for political favors, we don't have much to worry about.

All it would take would be a liberal biased SC suddenly find or make up a reason to have PC in churches, and then Pastors would be forced to give sermons/marry people against their convictions!
Would any have seen legalized gay marriages hapenning?