“But what if a man wanted to marry his goat?” Well, other laws would kick in that would prohibit that. Most states have laws against bestiality or even animal rights laws would prevail! After all, how can an animal give permission? There are people who consider themselves married to their goat, horse, or dog at this present time.

My critics will argue that promiscuity, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and perversion would become widespread but taking the state out of marriages would not make it any worse than now. Everyone knows that millions of people are living promiscuously in a nation where an unmarried male could not be in a hotel room with an unmarried female only 60 years ago. Some couples change bed partners as often as they change their socks. Maybe more often.

As to polygamy, it is rather common (although illegal) in Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and other western states where Mormons have been influential for a hundred years. In recent years, Muslims have been added to the mix making multiple wives more common. Two ways to go with this issue: Let each state permit or prohibit polygamy in the interest of society. I predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide that any sexual arrangement will be permissible.

Less known is the act of polyandry where a woman has more than one husband. In some societies, a woman marries a man and gets all his brothers in the deal. Again, let states permit it or prohibit it in society’s interest. Whatever becomes legal, God will have the final word!

In recent years perversion has become acceptable, approved, even applauded in most states so what will preachers do when they are told that they must perform same-sex “marriages” since they perform natural marriages? They should stop doing any state-approved weddings and limit all weddings to couples they know. Preachers should not wait until they are kicked out of the wedding business by the state. We (for I did like everyone else for many years) never should have taken a license to perform weddings in the first place. If a grandchild asked me to perform his or her wedding approved by the state, I would refuse.

If a state has the authority to permit you to get married, they can tell you that you cannot. So will you obey them? You say it is God’s will for you to marry, then why ask the state? If a state prohibited members of a specific denomination from getting married, should they obey that law? No sane Christian would agree they should. One of my oldest friends was a missionary in Spain and told me that the government refused to permit Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to marry. Marriage licenses had to be approved by the Roman Catholic Church and such permission often took many months, if given at all, so the Christians simply had their wedding ceremonies, without a license, as they had been doing for centuries. Later, the government relented and anyone could get a license; however “they also had a civil ceremony before a judge.” If we agree with that, we have lost the battle.

Medieval Christians disregarded the law and married without any “required” approval from the state. In 1551, Baptists in Europe refused to be married by the clergy of the dominant church, but were united in marriage in the church of which they were a member. Their enemies charged them with encouraging licentiousness. Having unapproved marriages in their own church brought scorn and false accusations upon them but they refused to obey the government. John Bunyan and others in England went to jail rather than permit the government to license them to preach, baptize, marry, and bury the dead.

My suggestion: Take the state and federal government totally out of the wedding business. Permit any church to marry any couple who is willing to satisfy the church’s requirements, rules, and regulations. Then the state would recognize any church-approved weddings without any state approval. The couple could then record their marriage at the county courthouse thereby recognizing the legitimacy of any children, and protecting property of heirs, Social Security, insurance beneficiaries, retirement plans, etc.

Government officials could still perform weddings, usually of atheists or anti-religious individuals but they would be no more official than those performed by a pastor of a small store-front church in Harlem or Houston.

Astute thinkers are looking ahead and asking “But what about divorce?” First of all, most of the pastors I know who use a marriage covenant will not marry any couple who does not eschew divorce. Marriage is for a lifetime. However, in a broken world divorces happen. It would be no problem to expect state regulations to kick in although they would be as unfair, unreasonable, and unworkable as the present circumstances. The premise is that no government has authority to control marriage; but in breaking up a home, children and innocent parties must be protected by law just as the state is responsible to keep the peace, enforce contracts, protect the public, etc. In other words, continuing the massive failure that is taking place now.

To those who yell “inconsistent,” I reply that they have not thought the issue through. Slavery, concubines, and multiple wives were never approved by God but He did provide guidelines for those who broke His pattern of one man–one woman, for life. If a man held slaves, contrary to God’s will, the slave owner must treat the slaves well and set them free in the seventh year. So if men did not obey God, it was wrong; but they had to exist and God made provision for the innocent parties to survive.

Friends of mine who only marry couples with a “marriage covenant” usually give each couple a family Bible and record the fact of the marriage, date, and witnesses, along with signatures of witnesses as proof of their marriage. Such a record has always been valid in every state.

If two atheists or a same-sex “couple” choose to “marry,” the couple could announce their marriage in the local paper, have it recorded at the county court house and “set up housekeeping.” Again, no church or government would be involved or give permission.

If we the people take back authority from the states, especially concerning marriage, then same-sex “marriage” becomes a moot issue. However, that is not the reason for getting the state out of marriages but it is a very good consequence.

If the state can permit marriages, it can prohibit marriages. Would you obey?

(Seventh of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Biblical Marriage, Not Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, Promiscuity or Perversion is Acceptable!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Marriage and the family survived 6,000 years, yet in the last 60 years both have been damaged, denigrated, almost destroyed; however, marriage should be the most cherished function in society since in establishing marriage God provided for the continuation of the human race. Marriage is a safe haven on a tempestuous sea of troubles, trials, and temptations and has been known for thousands of years to have a civilizing effect on men. Men have been known traditionally to “clean up their act” when they took a wife. Marriage also tends to protect women and children physically, emotionally, and financially. The “civilizing effect” has made a incredible impact upon every nation.

Marriage and the family are under attack from hedonists, homosexuals, and humanists, and since marriage is our most important social act, we should know its source and foundation. Most people would agree that whatever the kind of wedding, the key should be commitment. Not like a movie star and her famous fiancé who announced at their engagement that their marriage would be different. They each had a tattoo of the other’s name on their rears, but they didn’t even make it to the altar! Without commitment, even branding on the rear end does no good.

Marriage with commitment also adds zest, excitement, pleasure, contentment, and is very rewarding to each person. Married people are twice as happy as divorced and cohabitating couples and married people also live longer and are healthier than unmarried people. Single men drink twice as much as married men and also smoke more, so it is not surprising that married men live longer. There is less suicide and mental illness among married people, and there is also less likelihood of contracting a sexually transmitted disease within marriage than outside marriage.

Young people growing up in a normal family are less likely to be involved in homosexual activity since they have a strong male image and observe and understand what a normal family should be. It also helps if they are taught that God forbids such sinful activity. According to the American Medical Association “homosexual youth are 23 times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals.” Sounds to me like a good reason to be married to one of the opposite sex!

Since single people are not as contented as married people, the singles are more lonely and at higher risk of depression. Furthermore, “couples who cohabit before marriage are much more likely to split up later. And 86 percent of couples in unhappy marriages report being happier five years later if they stay married.” Women who live with a boyfriend are four times more likely to be abused and their children are 40 times more likely to be physically abused!

Married people far surpass unmarried people in accumulating and maintaining their wealth and worldly possessions. In fact, married people are worth twice what unmarried people are worth.

Married people say that married sex is better than unmarried sex according to a report by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher in their The Case for Marriage. “Married women are almost twice as likely as divorced or never-married women to have a sex life that (a) exists and (b) is extremely emotionally satisfying.” The message is to choose your spouse carefully, stay faithful, and stay married.

Everyone, except rabid fanatics, agree that children do better in homes where there are married two-parent (male and female) families. The children have greater success in school, experience fewer problems with the legal system, and are less likely to use drugs, tobacco or be promiscuous. They are also 20 times less likely to be physically abused. God’s plan for the family works!

The studies that have been done show that throughout Scandinavia (and the West) cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So marriage pays in every way.

I suggest that government stay out of marriage and family and permit rude, crude, and lewd men to continue to be influenced and civilized by decent, dedicated, and determined ladies.

(Fifth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriage License Was to Permit Interracial Marriages!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Adultery seems to be too much pain for so little gain! I wonder if General Patraeus thinks his roll in the hay was worth the destruction of his reputation, career, and maybe his marriage.

God has not rescinded the Old Testament law forbidding adultery. In fact, it was strengthened when Christ commanded, “But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). He further said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32).”

Apart from the Bible command, there are social reasons to prohibit adultery. One reason is because of paternity of children. If a wife is a cheat, how can a husband be sure that a child born to her is truly his? He should not be financially responsible for another man’s child. He also wants his estate to go to his own not another man’s child. Few sane people would disagree that sexual immorality has driven society to the cusp of the abyss, and it is in the best interest of everyone to have decent, caring, unselfish, and vow-keeping marriages.

Adultery is so serious, it is the only cause God permits as an excuse for breaking up of a marriage. It should be much more difficult to obtain a divorce, thereby forcing couples to solve their problems rather than breaking up a small civilization (the home) because of “irreconcilable differences” or “She’s a bad cook,” or “He keeps me awake with his snoring.”

I think it is astounding that any man would go to bed with a female not his own wife. When a man seeks sex from another woman, he often gets far more than he expected–such as syphilis and gonorrhea or even AIDS.

It is time for each state to reinstate adultery as a crime! Those who glibly say, “You can’t legislate morality” are “know nothings” since every law legislates someone’s morality. And yes, such a law would not be possible to enforce, but it would be a crime for anyone to have unmarried sex. That fact alone would keep some people from crossing the line into law-breaking.

With such a law it would make it easy to prohibit or prosecute those who would promote immorality especially to children, such as the Planned Parenthood pamphlet that was given to school children: “Sex is fun, and joyful…and it comes in all types and styles, all of which are OK. Do what gives pleasure and enjoy what gives pleasure and ask for what gives pleasure. Don’t rob yourself of joy by focusing on old-fashioned ideas about what’s ‘normal’ or ‘nice.’ Just communicate and enjoy.” States should make such jerks criminals for corrupting children and promoting sexual immorality.

Adultery is already an offense in the U.S. military but it is not forbidden by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Adultery is usually prosecuted, if at all, under the General Article that “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.” Prosecution usually depends on the circumstances such as rank, publicity, background, and other considerations.

When General David Patraeus, although retired, admitted to adultery with his female biographer it brought discredit upon the military and himself. The knowledge by the world that he broke his vows to his wife of 35 years produced a loss of confidence in his military and intelligence capabilities. He destroyed his life, his career, and maybe his marriage because of adultery. Maybe a strict prohibition against adultery would have helped the general keep his zipper up. Loss of rank, retirement and brig time might also help with that.

The consequences to society from adultery are great enough to add adultery as a crime in each state and use it as a tool against married people who break their marriage vows, unmarried people who live like barnyard animals, and politicians who expose themselves to blackmail by illicit sex.

The status of morality in America is shameful, shameless, and sad and it reinforces Madison’s statement in the “Federalist Papers”: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” We are not angels so some laws are necessary. And to critics who tell us that it is no one’s business what consenting adults do, we say, “Nonsense.” We already have laws restricting what consenting adults can do: drug use, watching child porn, conspiracy to commit crimes, bestiality, sadomasochism, suicide pacts, sodomy (in some states), etc.

Civilized nations have always accepted the Ten Commandments as part of their criminal code and if it should be illegal to steal and kill, why not restore adultery as a crime?

According to Plutarch, Demosthenes declared, “We keep mistresses for our pleasures, concubines for constant attendance, and wives to bear us legitimate children and to be our faithful housekeepers. Yet, because of the wrong done to the husband only, the Athenian lawgiver Solon allowed any man to kill an adulterer whom he had taken in the act.”

Killing a wife’s lover may be a little extreme but it was legal in Texas until 1974 to kill your wife and her lover if caught in the act of adultery. Many Texas and other state juries would still be reluctant to send a man to jail for “defending his honor” by killing his wife’s lover.

Whatever state governments do, adultery is still sin and making it a crime would label it as harmful to everyone.

One female author presented her case for sexual permissiveness when she compared eating to sex: “Sex is no more a moral issue than eating a good meal,” she writes. “The fact that we eat most meals at home with spouses and partners does not preclude eating out in restaurants to sample different cuisines and ambiences, with friends or colleagues.” So we are back to the days when every man (and woman) did that which was right in their own eyes.

To compare eating with sex is to make something sacred very frivolous. Of course, one can get bad food and bad sex–that being sex not within the bounds of marriage. Or sex that is prompted by lust, not love.  Fallen men and women have made sex, one of God’s greatest gifts, a sordid affair.

Adultery is generally considered to be when a husband cheats on his wife, or when the wife cheats on her husband. In countries where adultery is illegal, the punishments range from fines to the death penalty. Punishment for adultery in some American states varies from a ten dollar fine in Maryland to life in prison in Michigan! Adultery is still illegal in 23 American states. Each state should make adultery illegal again and it should be enforced; however, it would not be practical to energetically go after the law breakers. Resources would not permit that; but such a law could be helpful, especially in divorce cases.

Among the American Indians, severe penalties could be imposed on an adulterous wife by her husband. Sometimes she experienced bodily mutilation which would, in the mind of the offended husband, prevent her from ever being a temptation to other men again.

In medieval England, an adulterous woman had her nose and ears cut off and was paraded through town to a jeering crowd. The guilty man watched the proceedings and went home to enjoy a bowl of soup, hard bread, and a spot of ale. Obviously, the men made and enforced the laws.

The Greeks and Romans had strong laws against adultery; however, it was usually not equitable.  In Rome, a man was not held to account for adultery but his wife was. The Romans (before Christ) banished adulterers with the two parties sent to different islands. Moreover, part of their property was confiscated by the state. Husbands could kill the offending partners under certain circumstances and were required to divorce adulterous wives.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found widespread support for stoning as a punishment for adultery among Muslims in Egypt (82% of participants were in favor of the punishment), Jordan (70% were in favor), Indonesia (42% were in favor), Pakistan (82% were in favor) and Nigeria (56% were in favor). I doubt they would be so quick to pick up stones if they followed Christ’s admonition in John 8:7, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” He had just forgiven a woman “taken in adultery.” He commanded her to “go and sin no more.”

Laws prohibiting adultery go back to the Ten Commandments given by God to the Hebrew nation as recorded in Exodus 20:14. God ordered, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Of course, adultery was wrong from the beginning of creation.) The Hebrews took that as a divine command that they broke at their own peril. Today, the Ten Commandments are looked upon as naïve and benign suggestions; however, they are still operative whether people believe the Bible or not.

Whether adultery is a crime or not, it is still a sin and no legislature can repeal that fact.