What do we do now?


Gay Marriage is the law of the land what do we do now?

By Mario Murillo

1. We must be clear about what just happened. For the first time in American history the highest court in the land has made it illegal to be a Bible-believing Christian. That’s right; you are not legally allowed to practice your faith from this point on.

Of course the court will never admit that.  And, like Jimmy Carter’s 55 miles per hour speed limit, it may not be enforced, at least not yet.  That comes later when the public gains the stomach for persecuting Christians.

Let’s be extremely clear about all of this.  The Supreme Court out and out violated the Constitution of the United States by overruling the right of the states to decide marriage. 

Bobby Jindal is right.  He said, “’The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. This decision will pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.’ “

Supreme Court Justice Alito agrees: “Alito wrote, “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”

 2.  The goal isn’t equality – it’s abolishing an institution.  

What just happened has nothing to do with equal rights for gays.  It is only about destroying marriage as an institution.

We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of  Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

removing family

5. The Gender Theorist Model: Replace civil marriage with government-regulated contractual relationships.  Stella Morabito adds:
Collectivist style parenting may still seem like the stuff of science fiction to a lot of folks, but the ground for it has softened a lot since Hillary Clinton’s 1996 treatise It Takes a Village and American Federation of Teachers president Sandra Feldman’s 1998 op-ed “The Childswap Society.” We now have MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perrydeclaring open war on traditional families by announcing “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”
She envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family

The abolition of marriage and family has been a longtime project of gender theorists. Among them is internationally renown feminist law theorist Martha Albertson Fineman whose 2004 book The Autonomy Myth argues strenuously for “the abolition of marriage as a legal category.” Her treatise is breathtaking in its brazen approach to ending family autonomy and privacy.

Fineman advocates for a system that would unavoidably result in the regulation of personal relationships through legal contracts. “Contract,” she writes “is an appealing metaphor with which to consider social and political arrangements. It imagines autonomous adults” hashing out the terms, etc. Yet she envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family [emphasis added]:

“. . . in addition to contract rules, I anticipate that ameliorating doctrines would fill the void left by the abolition of this aspect of family law. In fact, it seems apparent to me that a lot more regulation (protection) would occur once interactions between individuals within families were removed from behind the veil of privacy that now shields them.”

Fineman operates on the apparent assumption that family privacy serves no purpose other than to afford institutional protection for men behaving badly. Her prescription is sweeping: “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society.” [emphasis added]
“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”  [Applause.] “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
Gessen was merely echoing a message from an LGBT manifesto of 2006 called Beyond Same Sex Marriage. The manifesto is a blatant rallying cry to bring about a post-marriage society, one in which there is no room for state-recognized marriage.

There you have it. All of your social interactions judged by certain standards. Standards established by whom? The state. And lest our eyes glaze over at mention of it, we ought to think of the State for what it really is: a hierarchy of cliques, with one dominant clique at the top. (Think mean girls in charge of everything and everyone.)

Fineman replaces the word “spouse” with the term “sexual affiliate,” because, she professes, what we think of as “family” should be defined by its function, not its form. In other words, only “caretaker-dependent relationships” would be recognized in the sense that “family” is recognized today.
So the abolition of marriage, according to Fineman:

“would mean that sexual affiliates (formerly labeled husband and wife) would be regulated by the terms of their individualized agreements, with no special rules governing fairness and no unique review or monitoring of the negotiation process.”

Feel better?  Fineman also states approvingly that:

“if the family is defined functionally, focused on the caretaker-dependent relationship, the traditionally problematic interactions of sexual affiliates (formerly designated “spouses”) are not protected by notions of family privacy.”

Indeed, no interaction could be protected by “notions of family privacy” in Fineman’s model. She elaborated further and more recently on all of this in an October 2013 article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review.

No one blog can possibly answer the question, “What do we do now?”  For starters, pastors need to issue an engraved apology to all of those voices they vilified.   Men and women of God warned you again and again that the Christian church should unify and condemn the acts of Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder.  

Now the Orwellian nightmare you assured us would never happen is here.  Tomorrow I speak out to the core who are willing to see this disaster turned around

5 thoughts on “What do we do now?

  1. In California, Governor Moonbeam just passed a law forbidding the words “husband” and “wife” – I assume that would mean in legal documents. What’s next? Outlawing the words “he” and “she” and replacing them with the gender-neutral “it”?

    Yes, the abolition of marriage has been one of the Socialist/Communist goals for over 150 years. I have a book entitled “Socialism: The Nation of Fatherless Children” written by David Goldstein and Martha Moore Avery and published in 1911 that outlines the Socialist agenda. This includes compulsory public education teaching evolution; free abortion on demand, and “free love.” (Maybe you thought the hippies in the 1960s dreamed up that slogan. NOT!) The book is long out of print, but you may be able to find it at alibris.com or some other rare book distributor.

  2. There is no worldly solution when it comes to the matter of marrying homosexuals. it is a spiritual matter and that alone. so that being the case. If a man or woman is seriously a man or woman of God… When a homosexual walks into your church to get married, simply cash the devil out he will no longer be a homosexual or lesbian. He will be a born again believer. don’t listen to such letting fear fill your hearts. Get in the word and don’t come out until you are soldier in the Lord’s army . Filled with power to destroy the works of the enemy end of story besides you have the same power in you that raised Jesus Christ from the dead. that’s a no brainer. have faith in God

  3. Silent compliance will not accomplish anything, especially in new war against values and all we hold dear. The problem is we really don’t know how to fight! Much of what we heard “I REBUKE YOU DEVIL” sounds more like charismatic bluster than an authoritative decree that accomplishes much of anything. Its time to enter the war room with the Holy Spirit!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s