What do we do now?

SCOTUS_GAY_MARRIAGE copy

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]
maxresdefault
 
“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

The Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act: Opening the door for gay marriage in all 50 states.

SET UP

Is this a set back or a set up?  To be sure it would be nice if the courts that enforce civil law would also uphold moral law.  However, that is neither possible nor is it desirable.  Romans chapter 8: 7 says “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.”

Those who think that we can legislate morality forget this truth.  A heart must be converted to be moral.  That is not say that there aren’t many decent people who not yet met Christ it is just that righteous acts that please God require the born again experience.

The Pharisees and Sanhedrin at the time of Christ are timeless models of why we do not want a theocracy.  Ministers and the church should not run America!  We do not need to rule America, we need to do something much higher; we must influence, comfort, and inspire through love and conviction.

On the other hand we do need to pray Godly leaders into office and do all we can to place believers in strategic places of leadership. We must vote our conscience!

In no way do I want to trivialize the damage of this assault on marriage. There is no doubt that it will unleash further persecution against Christians, but it is not nearly the end of the world.  Only as a matter of perspective, remember that Roe versus Wade brought us the holocaust of abortion and who can calculate the disaster of banning prayer.  The Charismatic movement and the Jesus Movement both happened after these twin disasters were legalized.

Today’s ruling does nothing to diminish the mighty role that the Body of Christ plays in our nation. It is not a setback, it is a set up! This, I suspect will be the fuse to ignite the prayer and unity that we have so desperately needed.

Yes, a tidal wave of immorality will ensue but heaven is not passive.  God knew this was coming and He will do something that no power of evil can guess or stop.

new signature