The fallout continues after the revelation that Vice President Pence refuses to be alone with a woman who is not his wife. It should be noted that Pence was elected to Congress in 2000 after the terrible tenure of Bill Clinton that made oral sex a household word for kids. But then, Progressives said, “It was only sex!” Now Pence is chided, castigated, and condemned for setting guidelines to protect his marriage! He considers his unusual practice a “fence” to protect his marriage. Pence took notice of his colleague Mark Souder, another married Indiana Congressman, living alone in Washington, who committed adultery and resigned in disgrace in May of 2010.

Mark was a family values Conservative Republican who had a multi-year affair with a part-time staffer. Both were Christians who felt guilty and repeatedly talked about ending the affair as it dragged on for several years. Souder wrote, “I prayed multiple times a day, sang hymns with emotion and tears, felt each time that it wouldn’t happen again, read the Bible every morning. . . . So how in the world did I have a ‘torrid’ (which is an accurate word) many-year affair?” Maybe Mark should have built a fence around his marriage.

The crazies on the left have even suggested that the reason for the strict guidelines is because Pence is a closet womanizer or boozer! To the Progressives out there: have you no shame? Don’t you have any lofty principles that control your life and work? Must you always drag down others just because you disagree with them?

The same critics of Pence have nary a word to say about the prudishness of Muslims who demand that no flesh be seen on a woman. Not to mention the other extreme where a man can have four wives and even sex with the dead has been approved! Speaking of weird views about women! But no one is speaking of the inconsistency. Disapproval of Muslims is forbidden by the hysterical hypocrites at Huffington Post but Pence’s marital views are “backward and a little funny” and “goofy” according to The Daily Beast.

Pence is only doing what any sane man would do to protect his family, his position, and his reputation. He was building a fence around his marriage. Doesn’t he have that right? If his wife likes the fence, it is no one’s business since it was their choice. And would Progressives demand the right of any woman to slaughter her unborn baby but not give Mrs. Pence the right to choose whatever practice will protect her marriage?

A female in The Daily Beast ridiculed Pence’s views on marriage and went after him, hatchet in hand, because he cast the deciding vote last week to weaken Title X, a federal program that provides birth control to low income women. I have never seen a justification for any government agency providing birth control to anyone for any reason. Why should I fund the illicit or licit pleasure of someone else? But what if they can’t afford birth control? Then they can abstain from sex, after all that is the only sure method of birth control.

Now it seems to be the norm (but not normal) for a dating couple to have sex on their first date, especially if he took her to a nice restaurant; but toleration of sexual immorality is the first stage of decadence.

Supported by the fake study of Kinsey followed by the Playboy philosophy and the public school indoctrination of sex we have a generation that seems to be proud of its sexual sophistication and toleration. However, the average man has confused the stretching of his conscience to be the broadening of his mind. He has adjusted his principles to suit his pleasures.

What comes next, maybe taxpayer funded feminine hygiene products? Since we demand equality, maybe Viagra for men? Sex toys, lubrication gel, sex therapy, etc.?

Others are suggesting that Pence’s strict behavioral guidelines might impede his work and harm our nation if he had to meet with chiefs of state such as Theresa May of England or Angela Merkel of Germany? Such critics can’t really be serious. Don’t they know that aides and interpreters are always in such meetings? And even if not, he could take his wife with him.

This toleration of sexual immorality and criticism of building fences around a marriage to lessen the likelihood of a disaster is even infiltrating the churches.

A friend of mine who is a major proponent of cross-gender relationships wrote, “the evangelical church is pretty much still adolescent in its view of sex.” However, he and his crowd show a total disregard for human nature as proved by today’s stats regarding sexual promiscuity. He was referring to me and people like me who see an obvious danger in a man having lunch with a woman without his wife. But it is worse since some of them take multiple-day trips together!

Advocates of cross-gendered friendships tell us that such friendships do not have to be about sex and they are right. The obvious point is that too often a sexual affair is exactly what happens. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of biblical and everyday experiences understands that sex IS an ever present danger. Talk to Samson, David, or any Tom, Dick or Harry.

My critics suggest two healthy people can manage healthy boundaries. Sometime yes, but often, too often, no. When more than half of teens are sexually active and a large number of married couples commit adultery, it is obvious that most people cannot “manage healthy boundaries.” God gave us many examples and warnings about sexual attraction and enticement.

It is interesting that the night before the Pence story broke, I responded on Facebook to my friend mentioned above who has written a book that defends and promotes cross-gender relationships. He wrote, “How many evangelical male presidents of seminary would have dinner alone with a woman who was not their wife?”

I replied: “I followed the ‘never be alone with a female not a relative’ practice all my ministry of more than 50 years. So did Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell. This modern trend of loosey-goosey male/female relationships often leads to disaster. Even if it does not do so, it is unscriptural. We are to do nothing that gives the appearance of evil. It is not a matter of not trusting a woman and it is silly to think it is a “put down” of all women to be careful in our relationships. Besides, why would I ever want to be with another female without my wife? If she is not welcome, neither am I.

“I have read your book and I’m convinced you are sincere but you are wrong. Your quixotic-like crusade may seem to be principled but it is founded on a dangerous principle. With your talent, drive, brainpower, and dedication you could accomplish so much more for the cause of Christ than your effort to get men and women together for lunch as they thumb their noses at genuine Christian living and appropriate social customs. Your desired results, if you could achieve them, would not be worth even destroying one family. I await the slings and arrows!”

My cross-gender promoting friends tell me that Jesus was not concerned with the appearance of evil and was often alone with women, usually women of questionable character. My friends are wrong. Christ broke traditions as when He spoke to the woman at the well but that was not evil. He was challenging the centuries-old degradation of females and putting them on a pedestal but He never countenanced evil. Furthermore, He spoke with her at a public well.

Christ wasn’t concerned with the appearance of evil? That dog won’t hunt. And I suggest that each man start building a “fence” around his marriage to protect it from disgrace, disappointment, and divorce.

Fences work if they are built strong enough and are kept in repair. Brute beasts don’t like fences because that keeps them from straying. That’s why many men don’t like them!

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Sharia requires death to any Muslim who converts to Christ; sexual mutilation of young females; honor killings if a Muslim family is “dishonored” by a female member’s rape; no criticism of Islam; men can have four wives, etc. Sharia is already in Europe and is a growing embryo in America and will be in full bloom if such non-thinkers above have their way.

Another female writer declared, “he believes they [women] remain such fallen, lascivious things that he can’t possibly be in a room alone with them, it says less about his faith and more the fact he sees women as lesser beings.” The fact is she doesn’t know what he believes. If he really believes the Bible as he declares then he believes women and men are fallen beings capable of all kinds of evil. And the female critic put words into his mouth when she charges him of seeing women as “lesser beings.” As usual, liberals and progressives are the most dishonest, desperate, and doleful people alive.

Pence’s concern over his marriage is admirable and should be emulated by every man. After all, no one will have a reason to make unfounded accusations if he follows that practice. If he is always faithful to that practice, he will never degrade his office, destroy his marriage, decimate his children or disgrace his Lord.

Pence is also castigated for calling his wife, Mother. Of course, the know-nothings in the media don’t know that such a practice is common in many homes as a part of teaching and reminding children to call her Mother. This failure only highlights the lack of sophistication and education on the part of progressives–i.e., haters of decency and normalcy.

Critics of Pence’s practice are oblivious to the many members of congress who came to Washington, leaving their families back in the hinterland, only to wind up in bed with some floozy. Sexual immorality is possible with any two humans, so sane people will be careful, not careless; thoughtful, not thoughtless; and realistic, not reckless. Of course, this practice should be followed in every profession!

Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell made it a practice to never be alone with a woman who was not a relative. In that respect, they were right on target. No doubt, they practiced that for the same reason I have always done so: because none of us are 100% reliable until we are dead and because of the possible appearance of wrongdoing.

As a young youth worker, I passed young ladies standing in the rain at bus stops lest I be seen alone with them in my car. While that seems extreme, I was never involved in a scandal in an occupation that is rife with scandals. I would do the same thing if I were starting out today. Through the years, I never put myself in a position where I might break my marriage vows or give my critics a reason to falsely accuse me. We are not to give any person a reason to suspect or accuse us of evil.

I have very dear lady friends who have contributed much to who I am. However, I would never consider taking one out to dinner, or rubbing their backs, or even hugging them. It would be presumptuous of me and untoward of me. One thing is sure: if you don’t hug them, you won’t sleep with them. This generation, especially young ladies, seem to hug everyone–even the mailman. A kind, gentle, friendly smile along with a handshake can convey love, friendship, appreciation, etc., as well as a hug but without the danger. And it is not realistic to minimize the danger.

I have never been a “hugger” but in recent years, I have broken that rule for old and dear friends. So, I am not a purist about hugging but I am prudent.

Yes, Jesus dealt with women but there is not one example of Him being alone with a woman in a private place. Besides, I’m not Jesus. What’s wrong with being wise, not fearful, but wise? Why not have women counselling other women? All pastors, psychiatrists, therapists should have windows in office doors? Why not have your wife as an assistant?

The Apostle Paul knew there was danger in very close physical relationships. He told us to flee youth lusts. Moreover, the biggest reason I believe in being very careful about cross gender relationships is the appearance of evil. Paul warned in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” We cannot permit other people to control our lives but we must control our own by being circumspect in our relationships. Furthermore, I fall back on my lifetime principle of “being too narrow rather than being too broad.” That is a good rule-of-thumb that usually works.

I read a blog by a woman who promotes cross gender relationships and it was fraught with problems. She admitted that her new husband (after she divorced her first one who was a skirt chaser) had chosen to take her last name. That is not traditional or scriptural. When God married Adam and Eve, their name was Adam. Genesis 5:2 reveals, “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

Plus, since the husband is the head of the family, she should take his name. He is responsible for her provision, her safety, and her debts.

Why would one not want to be with a wife/husband? A wife is a completer of her husband and a husband is a protector of his wife. I have no desire to have a relationship that excludes my wife. Why would I willingly put myself in the place of temptation? I don’t trust myself since God says that it is difficult to know your own heart.

A husband is not complete without his wife, and a wife is not complete without her husband; so if I am complete, I don’t really need anyone else. God created Adam and Eve and God said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” but Adam could not do it alone! Eve completed the plan that made mankind possible. Gen. 2:18 tells us that God said that it is not good for man to be alone so He created Eve for him and for the world. God said, “I will make him an help meet for him.” God had created a lion and a lioness, a tiger and a tigress, etc. but Adam was alone. When God presented a naked Eve to Adam who basically said, “Hot diggity dog, that is exactly what I’ve been looking for.”

Or something to that effect.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, has taken a principled stand declaring that she cannot be associated with same-sex “marriages.” Kim came to that conclusion following her born again experience about four years ago. That experience totally changed her life. Genuine Christians are principled people, not perfect, but principled.

People who declare that we must always obey every law are fools, frauds, or fanatics. Surely they don’t support such slavish obedience to law–especially illegal laws. When the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the Dred Scot case that black slaves were not citizens but were chattel, black activists disagreed, denounced, and disobeyed that “law” and helped slaves to freedom. Were they right or wrong?

Most critics of Kim are devotees of Martin Luther King, Jr. who broke the law; but they tell us that King was not an elected official so the comparison of his disobedience to Kim’s is not valid; and there is some validity in that response.

However, those same people prove their hypocrisy when they defend the mayor of San Francisco who ordered his underlings to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals in 2004 when it was illegal to do so! Oops, their hypocrisy is showing. The mayor is defended but Kim is derided, defamed, and damned! The mayor did not go to jail and was elected Lieutenant Governor and is a candidate for governor in 2018!

There are sanctuary cities across America where criminals are protected, even coddled by officials and the responsible officials have not gone to jail. It seems illegal aliens and many actual felons get more respect and consideration than a dedicated county clerk who is also a principled Christian! Could the fact she is a Christian make her a candidate for persecution, prosecution, and prison?

Federal agents sold guns that went to drug dealers in Mexico in a sting operation and no one went to jail even though innocent Mexicans and Americans were killed with illegal guns! Kim’s actions have not caused the death or injury of anyone. Do rogue federal agents deserve more lenient treatment than a Christian official? Does the former U.S. Attorney General get a pass without being held accountable for his illegal decision in the gun running scheme?

Hillary Clinton broke the law many times as even her supporters are forced to admit yet Hillary is not sitting in a Federal Prison–yet! No one really believes Hillary will go to prison even though, no doubt, many people would still be alive if she had stayed at her New York bungalow and baked cookies for Bill to eat when he came home from work with lunchbox in hand.

So, all honest people will scream, “Why force a principled Christian to act contrary to her Bible-based convictions?” Why, indeed. The answer is clear: it is open season on Christians. A major newsman, an admitted homosexual, on Fox News even identified her and her followers as “haters” with impunity. Fair and balanced?

So, it is simple: Christians will not be given the benefit of the doubt nor accommodated as the state law requires. That unfairness happened during the reign of Julian the Apostate when Christians reacted to his oppressive laws with insults or violence and were severely punished; but pagans who took to violence or insults in dealing with Christians were handled with leniency. The double standard is still alive and well in the courts and the media, including Fox News.

Moreover, the state law requires the state to seek to accommodate state employees when there is a conflict with their official duties and their deeply held religious beliefs. The governor could have decreed that the county clerk’s name not be on the marriage license, but he did not do so. The leftist Federal judge could have fined her but put her in jail because he did not like her principled stand.

Few honest people believe a Christian baker or photographer is morally or legally required to encourage or support perversion but good people think elected officials must do so “because they took an oath to uphold the law.” Yes, there is a big difference in a private citizen refusing to obey a law and an elected official refusing to obey. No sane, fair, and honest person will force people to support evil. However there can be some disagreement about an elected official refusing to enforce the law. But there is a principle of law that says that an illegal law is, in fact, not a law that requires obedience. For example, no matter what any court declares, they cannot make same-sex “marriage” a marriage. It is now said to be legal but not right!

Gibbon wrote about early Christians who “inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, [and] they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire.” For Christians to actively participate and support the pagan government that was throwing them to the lions would have been suicidal and stupid. As Christians they could not be members of the senate because each senator before taking his seat made a libation (offering) of a few drops of wine, and burned incense on the altar to pagan gods. As Christians they could not assist at festivals and banquets which always ended with libations. Nor did they serve in the military in the early years; however, Tertullian said that the army was full of Christians; but that was in the early Third Century.

I would support Kim and others if they had a press conference and declared: “I swore to uphold the law; however, I did not swear to uphold an illegal law. Since the U. S. Supreme Court has usurped the law and made something legally right that is morally wrong, I will resign my position and sue the county for not accommodating my beliefs. After all, I am supposed to have as many rights as anyone else. I will file suit tomorrow against the county and state for 5 million dollars.”

Or, I would support her if she said: “I was elected to this office to uphold all legitimate laws; however, same-sex “marriage” has not been passed as a law. When it is I will resign in protest but until then, I will carry out my duties as I have been doing for 19 years. No marriage licenses will be issued in this county with my name on them. If it means jail time, then I am ready. I have my toothbrush and lipstick in my purse.”

Of course, she would go back to jail for contempt of court but then she probably has contempt for the court. I think she has made a courageous effort to conceal her contempt. I know I have–but without success. Her principled disobedience is supported by past major theologians and Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) who is the “father of modern international law.” He wrote “Among all good men one principle at any rate is established beyond controversy, that if the authorities issue any order that is contrary to the law of nature or to the commandments of God, the order should not be carried out. For when the Apostles said the obedience should be rendered to God rather than to men they appealed to an infallible rule of action.” Hugo was right. So is Kim.

What we need to see is a hundred committed Christian county clerks and judges in jail for their “deeply held religious beliefs” to call attention to the growing tyranny in America.

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 has been on a slippery slope since God performed the first wedding ceremony in Eden to Lamech taking a second wife to Christ’s appearance at the marriage in Cana down to the dismal state of marriage today.

Marriage scholar Lawrence Stone noted that in the Middle Ages marriage was “treated as a private contract between two families . . . For those without property, it was a private contract between two individuals enforced by the community sense of what was right.” Indeed, marriage wasn’t even regulated by law in Britain until the Marriage Acts of 1754 and 1835 as I have documented in other columns. Marriage is a family and church affair not a state function.

I refuse to obey the Supreme Court ruling. Same sex “marriage” is impossible no matter what they and others say. Declaring something does not make it true. The Supremes and their acolytes are living in a dream world. That means they are delusional. Many pastors have taken the position that the state should have nothing to do with weddings: no forms, no application, no approval, and no involvement at all. Weddings should be done by churches that set their own standards. Of course, basic protection must be required such as age, relationship, etc. Couples, with approval of parents are writing their own vows and are united by their local pastor who signs a covenant along with the couple. Such weddings are then registered at the county courthouse.

While weddings should be holy, they are often turned into mockery with nutty “vows” spoken as a sappy couple jumped out of an airplane, vows taken in prison, and now the happy couple is a dead couple in South Africa! A dead Johannesburg “couple” was married recently! Seems a man shot his pregnant fiancée dead then killed himself. They were “married” posthumously a few days after the murder/suicide. The news account said their family and friends “wanted to remember them as a happy couple destined for a happy life together.” Happy couple! What nonsense. To think they killed a tree to print such tripe.

In front of 250 guests, an Aussie couple was married nude wearing only their wedding rings and a stupid expression. Another couple was married at T. J. Maxx; another in a morgue after the groom was murdered; another inside a shark tank with the groom wearing a traditional black wetsuit and the bride in an all-white wetsuit. Another couple vowed to be faithful “for as long as we can stand each other.” Still another promised to be faithful “through fat and skinny.”

Jerks, trying to be cute, or flippant, or profane, have taken their weddings into the dirt. But, at least, they did get married, except for the dead ones. That’s wacky but better than living like barn-yarn animals.

In ancient, uncouth civilizations it was a custom of young men to capture the bride of his choice usually from another tribe and when men became more civilized it became simulated, not actual.
Marriage by capture was common in many cultures being the normal entrance into marriage. Judges 21 provides a good example of marriage by kidnapping. Often a man had help from his friends and relatives to assure the success of the capture. That was wrong.

Kidnapping of brides is still practiced and is in fact increasing in the Caucasus region and in parts of Mexico, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. The modern honeymoon harkens back to the ancient couple hiding out for a few weeks from discovery. Hopefully within a month, the bride would be pregnant and her family would resign themselves to the marriage. Moreover, the family would acquiesce to the marriage because of the stigma of the couple living together for a few weeks.

From actual seizure they later thought it more civilized to purchase a wife. At times a man exchanged one of his female relatives for his desired bride and at other times he served the bride’s father for an agreed period of time. Jacob working for Laban to get his daughter is the first Biblical example. Of course, Jacob got more than he expected. He had to work fourteen years to get the girl he wanted. In Genesis 29 when Jacob told Laban, his future father-in-law, that he wanted his wife, Laban called for his neighbors and friends to come to a feast after which Jacob took her to his bedroom. The same thing happened in Judges 14 when Samson was married and had a feast for his friends but Samson didn’t get her to his bed, but his best friend did!

Then there were festival times when it was acceptable for a girl to capture the husband of her dreams by “netting” him usually while he was asleep. The modern custom of females proposing to men during Leap Year is a carry-over of this custom.

It was also normal to get a wife by purchase as in the case of Jacob, Ruth, and Hosea. David also purchased Michal, King Saul’s daughter, with 200 Philistine foreskins according to I Samuel 18! Kings often gave their daughters to other kings (or their sons) to cement their national relationships thereby guaranteeing peace. No doubt many of Solomon’s marriages were political marriages. Of course, those multiple, heathen marriages were wrong whatever the reasons.

Some men got wives for their acts of valor as in the case of David. It was promised that whoever killed Goliath would get many rewards including the daughter of King Saul.

When a girl left her home to be a wife, her family was given a dowry since they were losing a major asset who provided labor (income) to the family. So the man got a wife and the wife’s family got the dowry. It was not looked upon as a wedding gift. Everyone was happy.

Couples married very young in the Old Testament days, always with parents’ permission, but by the New Testament times, regulations required the boy to be 13 and the girl 12. If a young husband died, his wife was taken in marriage by his brother or close relative. You may remember that this is the foundation for Ruth and Boaz. Such an arrangement is known as levirate marriage. That was worthy in that place and time.

Starcke and Westermarck, confirmed earlier conclusions that “marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race” (History of Matrimonial Institutions, I, pp. 90, 91). So it is incorrect for apostles of permissiveness to suggest that marriage of a man and woman are of recent origin. They go back to the Garden of Eden!

So even less than perfect marriages (and there is no such thing as a perfect marriage) are the norm back to the beginning of time. That takes into account unhappy marriages and those that don’t last. The ideal is ideal.

Yes, some marriage ceremonies are wacky, some wrong, and worthy! What kind was yours?

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!”

In the fourth century, fearful of the world’s influence and thinking they were obedient to God, some Christians gathered into monasteries never seeing another person outside the cloister for years. Others worked in the fields while still others begged in the towns. They thought that if they tortured themselves it would produce holiness but it only produced pain. They totally withdrew from the world (culture) and that was wrong. We are to engage the culture without it changing us.

We must understand that there is no efficacy in punishing oneself, wearing ragged or squalid clothing, having a dirty face, body odor, unbrushed teeth, offensive personal habits, or living in filth and defilement. Such things drive people away from Christ rather than to Him. Some people are impressed by those weirdoes who fled society and lived in the desert, refused to marry, slept on the floor or hard bunks, ate turnip soup and hard bread and beat themselves from time to time. We are not impressed! That nonsense is fleeing the world not confronting the world. As often happens, humans have a tendency to go to extremes.

The culture laughs at biblical beliefs and practices as quaint, if not archaic. (Note that these are the people who butcher babies; preach perversion as good and desirable; puncture and print words and images on their bodies; watch debased, despicable, and disgraceful television and movies; think nothing of going to bed with strangers; etc.) They smile when we suggest that the common practice of dating is demeaning, destructive, even devastating to youth. They laugh out loud when we recommend that a young man actually court a young lady after requesting permission from the parents! Dating has proved a failure; courtship works.

A young man shows interest in a young lady. He is impressed with her character, charm, courtesy, but mainly her commitment to Christ. She would be an ideal lifetime spouse so he approaches her father for permission to court her. (That raucous laughter you hear from sea to shining sea is a reaction but not a rebuttal. There is a difference.)

With the fathers’ permission, the courting starts and may last many months until the couple and the parents agree that the match is well-made and meets the Bible’s qualifications. The dates will be supervised by a parent or sibling! (as eyes roll across the fruited plain.) A wedding date is set a couple months in the future after consulting with their pastor.

Arrangements are made for a series of counseling sessions to take place between the couple and the pastor and his wife. During those sessions, the couple is taught the basic facts about marriage. She is to be a chaste, gracious, thoughtful, obedient wife and he is to love, cherish and honor her. He is to provide for her and any future children and they will rear those children according to their agreed on rules. She will keep a clean, orderly home that he will be thrilled to return to each day.

The couple will discuss various aspects of marriage such as having children; how they are to be taught and disciplined; whether or not she will work outside the home; etc. They will agree that during disagreements, they will use the Bible as their guide Book. If there are differences that cannot be settled between them, they will seek Christian counselling. In the event of unfaithfulness they will not seek a divorce but will continue Christian counselling. If there is no possibility of reconciliation, they will wait six months before getting a divorce.

After the couple agrees on the basics of the understanding, they will choose their attendants, wedding attire, caterer, flower shop, etc. At the big day, the preacher will do the normal ceremony but at the end he will not say the wedding was done by the power of the state but by the authority of the family and maybe the local church officials. The happy couple will drive to the county courthouse and record the fact of their wedding, leave for their honeymoon, and return home to “set up housekeeping.” The wife will change her last name to that of her husband and inform everyone that she is his wife.

They will keep the wedding covenant as proof of their marriage, plus record it in the family Bible. Changes should be made on all insurance policies, wills, trusts, post office box, safety deposit box, and utilities. Everyone must know that the wedding has taken place.

There is a new family in town, joined by God not the state!

(Ninth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage.)

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!”

The Bible teaches that a wife is a help meet to her husband (not a slave, servant, or subject) and he is to cleave unto her protecting her with his life if necessary. Since the Garden of Eden he battled the bugs, beetles, and briars to provide food to eat, and she has provided him children, many children, especially boys. In that day his word was law and binding on wife and children, and if she disagreed with him, she did so discreetly. In I Samuel 25, Abigail did not confront her husband Nabal when he acted a fool in relationship to King David. She was a woman “of good understanding, and a beautiful countenance” and she used discretion in disagreeing with her husband. A wife is a fool if she disparages, denigrates, or even disagrees with her husband in the presence of others. It could destroy him and the marriage.

While the Bible clearly provides the pattern for a solid, successful, and spiritual home life, there have been many attempts to second guess God or to suggest that His way is too restrictive. It started early in man’s history in Genesis 4 when Lamech took two wives. (He was also a killer.) Later even Abraham took concubines and it has been going downhill ever since. While God permitted plural marriages in the Old Testament, He never endorsed them. He gave mankind the pattern for the family in Genesis when He provided one wife for Adam. In fact, there are only 15 examples of polygamy up to the time of Solomon and only four or five after that to the time of Christ!

Various societies have tried multiple wives such as the Mormons in the U.S. They practiced polygamy until it was outlawed although some fringe Mormons out west still illegally practice polygamy.

Many people would ask: “Why would polygamy be attractive to people since many men find it a challenge to take care of one woman?” Through the centuries it would have been the scarcity of men as a result of wars resulting in numerous unmarried females, the desire for more offspring, a barren wife, cementing political units, and other reasons but probably the main reason is common, everyday lust on the part of men.

There is even a warped, wacky, worldly group that promotes polygamy among Bible-believing Christians as a Scriptural way of life! Their website defines itself “as a Christ-centered, Spirit-led, Scripture-believing” organization. Even though the focus is about Christian Polygamy, the Gospel of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is still held as “above all else.” They are a parachurch group that has the interest in promoting polygamy among Christian churches as their only motivation. They go to extremes to disassociate themselves from Mormon polygamy.
Christ made it clear that polygamy was not acceptable in Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:1-2; and Luke 16:18. It is amazing how men can justify anything if they play around with it long enough.

Another form of “family” is the union where multiple men live with one woman: polyandry. Polyandry is fairly common in the animal kingdom, and it has been practiced at various times by a considerable number of people or tribes. It existed among the primitive Arabs, the early American Indians, the Hottentots, and the inhabitants of India, Ceylon, and New Zealand. Along India’s Malabar Coast a female is permitted to marry several men if they are of equal or superior rank, while in Tibet, a woman may marry the eldest brother of a family and get all his brothers in the deal. It was common in polyandrous marriages for all the husbands to be brothers with the original husband being the top honcho or number one husband. He had more privileges than the others.

Polyamory is a simultaneous and multiple sexual relationships that has been practiced in various cults and some religious groups.

Other individuals don’t pretend to have a formal family arrangement but sleep with anyone of the opposite sex assuming they are at room temperature: promiscuity. The number of people, young and old, living a promiscuous life is shocking and the rise in STDs is a sure indication.

Still more shocking are those living in perversion or as some call it, same-sex “marriage.” The Bible calls it sodomy. So do I.

God’s plan is simple and it works: a man is to marry a woman and spend the rest of his life trying to make her the happiest person in the world. He is to provide, protect, and promote her wellbeing. He is to cherish her and be physically, mentally, and spiritually faithful to her until the undertaker slams the lid on his casket.

The wife is to meet her husband’s needs–even desires, keep a clean home, produce a brood of well-behaved children who will grow up to produce loving, obedient, kind grandchildren. She will obey him and treat him like a king knowing that he in turn will treat her like a queen.

With the passage of the years and the addition of twenty or thirty pounds and his hair turning gray (or turning loose) they will grow old together still in love and more committed than ever. The flame will still be burning and while there may be no danger of setting the woods on fire, that’s alright too.

This is sure: the Bible never condones multiply wives, concubines, or prostitutes nor does it give government the authority to approve marriages.

(Eighth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Use a Covenant Not State Contract for 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!”

“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!”

You have a birth certificate because you were born; a death certificate because you died and a marriage certificate because you were married. You did not ask to be born or to die and should not ask any government or church to be married.

The road to family control by the state started rather early in America with Virginia’s first legal code consisting of the Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall, enacted in 1610 by Sir Thomas Dale. In this code, Virginia’s Anglican ministers were required to record all christenings, marriages, and burials they performed. (Government has no authority to require a preacher to do anything regarding his ministry.) In 1631, the Virginia House of Burgesses created marriage licenses tightening the knot around the neck of families.

Down through the centuries, marriage was changed from being a family affair to having churches and the government as the permission-givers! A license is “permission by competent authority to do that which otherwise would be illegal, a trespass or a torte.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, a marriage license is “a license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry, usually addressed to the minister or magistrate who is to perform the ceremony.”

So, at that time, an interracial couple had to get permission not from their parents or church to get married, but from the state! Why? People had been marrying since the beginning of time without any government involvement, but now a couple must get legal permission! Therefore, the state began to issue a license permitting one to do what he normally could not do because many U.S. colonies in the late 1600s prohibited marriage between Whites and Blacks, Indians, Asians, etc., although it was never illegal for two whites to marry and no permission was required until recent years.

When a slave boy got permission from the master to marry a slave girl, the offspring from the marriage belonged to the master and became part of his assets or chattel. Some states take that same approach today. After all, they give the license so any issue of a marriage is state-owned; therefore the state assumes the authority to force children to have shots, to attend school, etc.

In early America, some slave owners prohibited slave marriages and others permitted them, even giving lavish dinners and ceremonies at the “big house” to honor the couple. However, the marriage never superseded the slave owner’s authority. Often, depending on the plantation owners and the state, black men were not permitted to marry and sex between slaves was often punished. However, many masters wanted new slaves coming along so in some places, black male slaves were kept for the purpose of producing young offspring! It was normal for the owners of such studs to receive one out of four of the babies.

One Texas slave woman said that slave women had to always be available for sex at the appointment of the master (often with the master) and she had to live with any man of his choosing. The reason most slave owners permitted slave marriages, although often reluctantly, was because of religious reasons. Many tried to justify slavery by the Bible but the Bible clearly teaches personal morality and family. The Bible never condones slavery.

The slave marriage ceremony varied from state to state and plantation to plantation. If the marriage involved two plantations then the man was often permitted to visit his wife’s plantation on the weekends. With adjoining plantations, a wife was permitted to visit her husband each night.

Marriage unions were formed when the couple jumped over a broomstick together and dissolved by reversing the process. A broomstick marriage was an illegal marriage, solemnized, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, by having each party jump over a broomstick as the couple told everyone they were married while holding hands. It is probable that 20% of the U.S. population during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries may have lived in an illegal relationship as a replacement or rejection of formal marriages. The broomstick weddings and the divorce by jumping back over the broom were common. Jumping the broom was always done before witnesses as a public ceremonial announcement that a couple chose to become as close to married as was then permitted. I believe such marriages were as legal as those done in America today as long as there was consent, commitment, consummation, and communication.

On other plantations, each one had to jump backward over a broom that was held about a foot from the floor. In the event one did not clear the broom successfully, the other received the authority to be boss of the household. Moreover, if both partners were successful, there would be no “bossin.” Strange custom but not much stranger than some sophisticated wedding I’ve attended. Jumping the broom is much better than getting drunk and falling into the swimming pool!

The broomstick marriage was also known in Ireland. The marriage was not officially recognized if either touched the broom. In this kind of marriage, a woman kept her own home and did not become the property of her husband. It was a partnership, and a child of the marriage was considered to be legitimate. If the couple decided to divorce, they simply jumped back over the broomstick again, but that could only be done during the first year of marriage. If a child had been born, that child was the father’s responsibility.

In the mid-1800s in the United States, common-law marriages were valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate such marriages. Common-law-marriages were recognized as legitimate even though there was no license permitting the marriage. Eleven states still recognize such marriages.

In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act and they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. Politicians love power.

The state was now in control of marriage and had become the master, or is that monster? Let’s get all government out of all Christian marriages since it is a God-given, unalienable right of man to marry a wife and bear children and no authority on earth has the right to supersede that right–or to regulate it.

(Sixth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Taking the State Out of Marriages Could Not Make it Worse!”)

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!”

Up until the reign of Justinian (527-565 AD), simply saying you were married was enough to establish a family. The famous Code of Justinian set some parameters for the family: any man could take a concubine but she had to be at least 12 years old. When a man lived with a free woman, it was not considered concubinage but genuine matrimony if she did not acquire financial gain by selling her body.

In 866 AD, Pope Nicholas I said “Let the simple consent of those whose wedding is in question be sufficient; if the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void.” Consent was what made marriages valid and endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church, then a power throughout Europe. There was no church involvement in marriages until about the ninth century other than Pope Nicholas’ decree and after the twelfth century prayers were added to the ceremony often by the bride and groom.

Up to the twelfth century, a consummated marriage was considered valid if the couple had pledged their love and commitment to each other even without any civil or church involvement or approval. Roman Catholic Church leaders thought that such an arrangement was far better than concubinage or jumping from bed to bed like a deranged rabbit. A consummated and committed marriage would also tend to repel seducers.

Then in 1215 the Roman Catholic Church required all churches in England and Wales to publish banns (a proclamation) three Sundays before any wedding. That period of time permitted objections to be made such as an accusation that one of the two was already married or underage, or they were closely related, etc. Furthermore, the marriage had to be performed in their parish church. In the 1300s, if a couple wanted to marry quickly, the church instituted a license (permission) for the banns to be avoided. The license also permitted them to be married in another parish as well. Of course, there was a fee required accompanied by a sworn declaration that there was no canonical reason to prohibit the marriage.

Many then perceived marriage by banns as a second-class ceremony; consequently, that led to an increase in the number of marriages by license. Most of the marriages done with a license were for special purposes such as a wedding done outside the usual hours for weddings or in a church not normally approved for weddings. These weddings could be done quickly without waiting three weeks to have the marriage announced in church. Another perceived benefit was confidentiality since some people did not want the town to know that they did not have an approved wedding years earlier.

After the twelfth century, Church approval of marriages was required and after 1563 a priest was required at every wedding. Peasants in some European countries were required to have permission of the lord of the manor and in some places the lord reserved the right to spend the wedding night with the bride. Just one of his perks.

Then the Council of Trent, organized as a frantic response to the Reformation in the mid-1500s, also took up the problem of secret or “clandestine” marriages without satisfying those people who were for or against. The French wanted to outlaw all secret marriages and marriages without parental approval, but the Council refused to make parental approval a requisite for valid marriages. Secret marriages were very popular because young people wanted to choose their own spouses rather than have parents choose. A young girl whose parents had arranged her marriage at birth, would say, “But, Mom, I was secretly married last year.” However, the Council did abolish secret marriages where only the bride and groom were present.

Such secret marriages had been recognized as “true marriages,” but there were problems. It was common for a man to secretly marry then change his mind after a few months or years. He met another woman and then publicly married her with all the necessary requirements met. However, he was already secretly married and had two children. What about his responsibilities to them? His former wife could not prove their secret marriage and was stranded up a creek in a leaking canoe without a paddle, along with two hungry, screaming children! How could a court hold a man accountable without some proof of the secret marriage? If the court came to her defense, supported only by her word, then all marriages could be in danger. An unscrupulous woman could choose an attractive married man and charge that he was her secret mate. It was a can of worms.

The problem was an old one. When a couple had problems and split, there was no way for the aggrieved party to prove his or her marriage by an independent witness. The Council sought to solve this oft-occurring problem by decreeing that if a couple admitted to a secret marriage it was considered a “grave sin” and they were required to renew their vows in the local church attended by three witnesses, one of them being the local priest. The priest did not make the marriage valid; the man and woman did that with vows of commitment. The priest was there as a representative of the Church and registered the marriage. The priest was often the only person in town who could read and write so he was a natural choice to keep a record of important events such as marriage.

The Council of Trent declared that people who had been secretly married would be considered married as long as the marriages were not invalidated by the Roman Catholic Church. Then the Council required that a marriage announcement must be published each Sunday for three consecutive weeks so that a planned marriage could be forbidden if anyone had a legitimate reason to prohibit the wedding. Finally the Council said that a marriage was not valid if anyone tried to be married without a priest (or his designate) as witness along with two other witnesses.

The Roman Church pushed its way further into the homes by requiring local priests to keep records of all baptisms and deaths as well as weddings. The grip was getting tighter and tighter and it must be remembered that in the Middle Ages in Europe, the Pope was literally over every person including the “sovereign” kings.

While the Council of Trent was agonizing with their decisions and trying to untie a Gordian Knot, the Protestant Reformers had declared that a public marriage was one that was consented to by the couples’ parents. If not, it was a clandestine or secret marriage and invalid. They took the position that a church was limited in its authority and that marriage is a fundamental right of an individual so only two people could create a marriage and did so by their public consent.

During the reign of England’s Henry VIII (1509 to 1547), marriage licenses were provided by the Archbishop of Canterbury (actually by King Henry) after 1534. Before that date, the Pope issued licenses. A common license permitted a couple to be married at their parish church while a special license permitted t a couple to be married any place. A special license was required for anyone not a member of an Anglican Church. Religious separatists were not pleased with that requirement and refused to obey it.

The Marriage Act of 1753 (full title, An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage) in England and Wales took control of marriage from the hands of family and vested it in the state. From the point at which the law took effect in 1754, marriages which had not taken place in the Church of England, Quaker Meetings or Jewish synagogues, were rendered invalid. This was the first time legislation required a formal marriage ceremony in England and Wales. This caused major problems with dissident Christians (Baptists) who held strong beliefs about marriage and strong reservations about state control and interference in their homes. The parents of an underage couple had to get a license from the government and the ceremony had to take place in a Church of England. Any future children were not permitted an inheritance if those conditions were not met by everyone, including Baptists.

This effectively did away with secret marriages and gave government more control which is common for all governments.

Baptists refused to obey the law that required marriages to be controlled by the state and Baptists and other groups are doing the same today: Government, stay out of our most important and sacred traditions. It is a legitimate marriage if there is consent, commitment, consummation, and communication in any little church in the dale and needs no one’s permission!

We don’t need or want, nor will we permit the government in our weddings.

(Fourth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriage Makes Rude, Crude, and Lewd Men into Softies!”)

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!”