Roman Catholics experienced a major scandal in recent years that is still reverberating even behind the Vatican walls. It is commendable that the media have been willing to deal thoroughly with that issue after years of delay. It is not honest or honorable if Protestant pastors come to the defense of an erring pastor while being critical of the massive Roman Catholic sex scandal. That is pure hypocrisy, but then hypocrites are found in all races, regions, ranks, and religions.

However, the giant in the room is the non-Catholic churches that range from Adventists to Zion Christians, especially the very visible megachurches. It is my opinion that there are thousands of pastors who take advantage of church members and staff. Alas, many of the victims are young girls–and boys! No doubt, the problem extends to the evangelical seminaries and universities.

Those pastors (like Roman Catholic priests) use their position, prestige, and power over members to sexually exploit them. Of course, adult women should have screamed to high heaven at the time of the sexual abuse; but later is better than never. The problem is the accused pastors have a right to defend themselves and it is difficult to prove a negative if they are innocent–as many are. The issue is compounded because the ministry demands and denotes such high standards that a false accusation can destroy a pastor. A false accusation is why the Bible demands that a rape victim must scream and fight at the attempted rape if she is to be believed. After all, women can deceive, dissimulate, defame, and debauch just as men can.

Church members are taught that the Bible requires them to forgive their perpetrator so it would be wrong to report them to lawful officials. They are then told that if they report an abusing pastor, they will be responsible for “tearing down the ministry.” Often, the sexually abused members have been in the church for years and have been deeply involved with its growth and often they have received much help from the ministry. How could they do anything to harm a church they love?

Independent Baptists have a problem that Roman Catholics and denominations with a hierarchical ruling system don’t have. Southern Baptists have a similar problem. With Baptists, there is no bishop or pope to move an erring pastor from one church to another to smother the scandal. When a priest goes bad, he is moved from Atlanta to Anchorage and often continues his lechery. Often, the Baptist pastor stays in town, denies everything, hunkers down, and stays in the same pulpit many years. And after a few months or years following the revelation of his sins, he is accepted by his peers as if he was only guilty of speeding! The acquiescing pastors must share some of the guilt when the predator pastor strikes again against an innocent one.

The non-hierarchal way is the Bible way but it is failing in our day because of weakness and vacillation of laymen and pastors. Laymen must hold their pastors accountable, but that very seldom happens–either because of intimidation by the pastor, or love for the pastor, or a desire “not to cause a disruption of the ministry.” Not hurting the church is the excuse leaders use for not dealing with a pastor’s sexual affairs. They often say, “Let God take care of it;” however, God has told the church to take care of it. Most Baptist churches are failing at this and other matters of church discipline.

According to Christianity Today, 61% of congregations have forced a pastor to leave–often for moral turpitude. According to a doctoral thesis by a Donald Q. Hicks, a Liberty University Fellow, about 2400 pastors are fired each year in the SBC! That is from the SBC alone! That means a train wreck is about to happen, since the six SBC seminaries have only produced about 1400 graduates each year during the last ten years. Shockingly, over 15,000 pastors are fired (for various reasons) each year from all denominations according to a poll done by George Barna, the Fuller Institute, and others!

If a pastor is fired, the firing church usually does nothing to inform others that they fired a predator preacher. He is free to prey on unsuspecting communities and left free to resume other sexual conquests. All groups, even Baptists, should keep a registry of pastoral offenders to warn churches to stay away from the culprits.

Some abusive pastors go through counseling, usually by a fellow pastor across town, and after a few months, he is pronounced “rehabilitated” and free to reenter the ministry. That rehabilitation back to the pulpit should be repudiated. My friend Jerry Falwell was super gracious and kind and taught that fallen pastors could serve in a church after they had counseling. While he was right in never being alone with an unrelated woman, he was wrong about returning fallen pastors to the pulpit.

Churches are careless in choosing a pastor often without doing any checking! I have been involved in calling a few pastors and always ask them very personal questions. “Have you been married before? Have you ever been sued? How much are you in debt? Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever been accused of sexual misconduct?”

I don’t like to kick a man when he is down and I believe in loyalty to friends but when a man commits horrendous sins and presents himself as a man of God (with all that implies) then I consider him my enemy when he proves that he was not what was represented. I have opposed former friends of mine, pastors of large churches, who were guilty of sexual abuse. I have written about it and testified in the Maryland Legislature on sexual abuse by Baptist pastors.

It is time to recognize that there is a “good ole boy” network in church circles where our “heroes” are protected by their peers. After all, we don’t want to appear to be self-righteous or judgmental or unkind or whatever. So we who claim to believe, follow, and preach the Bible have become unbiblical! We are more loyal to sinners than to the Savior!

That great host of Independent Baptist and Southern Baptist pastors who live godly lives are harmed by those who think being a pastor means they can get away with any kind of sin and “work” really hard for God to balance it all out. However doing a great amount of good never negates the evil.

One famous Independent Baptist pastor (himself later charged with indiscretions and adultery) said, “If I walked into [a famous Baptist pastor’s] office and saw him on the floor on top of his secretary, I would assume he was doing mouth to mouth resuscitation, not sinful activity.” That sounds so gracious but it is cultic in thinking, if not in theology.

Laymen who refuse to pursue charges brought against a pastor must accept some responsibility for that pastor’s future indiscretions. Some laymen have been taught that they should not do so. It is supposed to be disloyal to ask a pastor to explain accusations against him! It is time for Christian men to act like men and fulfill their responsibilities as board members and get the facts. If a pastor is guilty, report him to authorities if that is required, then seek to help him and help him find another occupation. He has lost his right to be in the pulpit.

Some suggestions to stop or hinder sexual abuse and false accusations:

All pastors should demand they be held accountable by their church officers. Baptist pastors are super shy about this since the Bible teaches pastoral authority; however, it does not teach dictatorship or unaccountability. I have known pastors who consider any questions as a personal attack. That borders on cultic.

Everyone must realize that preachers are simply humans who are ordained. There are all kinds: highly educated, poorly educated, gracious, grumpy, greedy, generous, all prone to the same failures, foibles, and faults of others. Respect them if they deserve it and flee from them as if your hair were on fire if they are cultic.

No accusation against a pastor should be believed until it is proved beyond a doubt, but all accusations must be investigated. Laymen must deal with charges against a pastor and biblical injunctions must be followed. No pastor is above the law–of God or man.

A pastor should not be in a room with a girl or woman without an open door. It is amazing that this is controversial. It is common sense that even the secular world is starting to recognize! It is not that women are aggressive and not to be trusted; it is that no one is beyond temptation. Furthermore, no one is safe from false accusations.

Offices of pastors and staff should have glass doors or windows so that the office areas are visible. That would eliminate most false accusations.

There are scores of preachers in prison for sex crimes as I write. How many other pastors will join them this year?

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

All state officials want a stable society where citizens can live contented lives, pay taxes, and continue to reelect them to public office. Most officials know that families influence a city or state more favorably than gangs, nightclubs, honkytonks, or even schools, art museums, and most churches. A return to the historical and Biblical approach to marriage would not mean an increase in degrading, deviant, and deadly activities since they would continue as they are now.

Moreover, if a state wanted to encourage normal, one-man one-woman marriage relationships, they could do so by the tax code, the bully pulpit, etc., or a state could refuse to make any judgment on any family arrangements. Government would still prohibit marriage between close relatives, mentally handicapped, or minors since that would disrupt society.

As to requiring a blood test before marriage, the state could nullify those laws (as some have done) and permit each church to make its own rules. Many would decide that if a person falsified a blood test and proceeded with a wedding with one partner infected with an STD, that marriage would become null and void with announcements made to the congregation to that effect. The state would be notified to deal with the divorce and prosecute the offender.

Laws must require the protection of children of any marriage arrangement since children are the future and their training and character will determine the stability of the state. Any state can give benefits to normal marriages because it is in the interests of the state to do so. It seems society gives benefits to married people because a stable family provides benefits to society. The state is interested in a stable society, so it is in the interests of the state to have productive, educated adults therefore a state can reward parents who commit to preparing children for the future. Therefore, a state may give generous benefits to every marriage that produces children. If homosexual “couples” complain, the state can simply say, “When you have babies, you will receive the same benefits.” Of course, homosexuals can do as today and adopt children although it is very unwise to permit that.

Everyone, except the willfully blind, agrees that strong families benefit society so the state can justify giving benefits to natural marriages. It is only wise to do so. Proponents of other kinds of “marriages” will scream about the “unfairness” but so be it. Let them scream, after all, it was their decision to not have a natural marriage.

Adoptions, child welfare, divorce, alimony, child support would still be responsibility of the state. Repeal of no fault divorce should be accomplished in every state but that won’t happen.

A newspaper columnist responded to this issue of state involvement in marriages: “Since I printed the letter from ‘Deceived in Arizona’ (Nov. 30), I have learned that not only individuals, but also some churches feel so strongly about separating the legal aspect of marriage from the religious that they have voted …[that] their clergy no longer sign marriage licenses. Among them are member churches of the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian-Universalists and the Quakers. Instead, the model they follow is the one used in Europe, in which couples go to a courthouse to register their marriage, and then to a church or synagogue for a religious ceremony.” Also, some independent Presbyterians and independent Baptists do likewise.

Perversion disrupts society and does not contribute to stability. If historic anti-sodomy laws were passed then same-sex “marriage” would be a moot issue. Homosexual activity would be illegal anytime anywhere. That would be a return to sanity. It would also give clout to local authorities to prohibit cruising, public sex, solicitation, etc. However, anti-sodomy laws will not pass because of anti-Bible, anti-God, anti-common sense attitudes. Frankly, many twisted young people think two homosexual men married with a license is preferable to a man and woman married without a license! Their warped thinking considers mischief in a couple without a license but nothing outrageous for a same-sex “couple” to climb into bed together!

Homosexuals admit they want the blessings of the state on their union; however, the state is not in the blessing business. They can get that from the Pope if they have the cash, clout, and contacts.

In the absence of anti-sodomy laws, if a church had no Bible convictions about sodomy then they could “marry” the “couple.” Let me remind my critics that that is what is happening right now under present laws. People are doing what they want to do and church leaders without convictions, smile upon all kinds of evil. No government agency would be approving any kind of marriage arrangements. If some Fundamentalists and Evangelicals disliked the various weddings, they could say so. Such church leaders could show their disagreement, disapproval, and disdain by not accepting such unrepentant people into their membership.

Some pastors refuse to use a state-issued marriage license and use a marriage covenant instead. Such a thought horrifies some religious leaders and I wonder why. After all, the evidence is all on the side of the covenant makers not those who think state licensure is best and necessary. A covenantal relationship is much deeper than a merely contractual, state approved one.

Do we really believe that the state should regulate marriages? If so, why? They sure didn’t in the past. The onus is on my critics to provide reasons why the state should continue to license (regulate) marriages. It is one thing for the state to recognize the existence of a marriage and another thing for them to give permission for a marriage. No state has that right.

Moreover, without a marriage license from the state, the state would lose its professed authority to have control of any issue of that marriage. The marriage license is used by some states as an excuse to interfere in training of children. Some states even boldly declare that children belong to the state! Does any sane person out there believe that the state is a partner in their marriage? Many people are shocked to hear that and even refuse to believe it is a fact but Ohio law is very clear stating in an official brochure on marriage: “When you repeat your marriage vows, you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio. The state is a party to the contract because under its laws, you have certain obligations and responsibilities to each other, to any children you may have, and to Ohio.”

Most people do not know that state marriage statutes are directory not mandatory! West’s Indiana Law Encyclopedia states: “Statutes on the subject of marriage, even though penal, are merely directory, and a marriage celebrated though not in accordance with the forms of the statute, is nevertheless valid.”

Maybe we should tell the states that they have overreached their authority. They have enough to do dealing with crime, law and order, welfare (which they should also leave to others), education (see previous parenthesis), repairing streets, etc., without getting involved in any religious activity.

How to handle divorce will be considered a major objection to my recommendation; however, could anything be worse than it is now? Church groups handled divorce in the past. Do you remember King Henry VIII who asked the Pope for a divorce so he could dump his wife to free him to marry a woman who might provide him a male heir? No fault divorce should be repealed forcing married people to justify a divorce usually for abuse, abandonment, or adultery. While marriage would be outside the bailiwick of the state, divorce would not be.

It’s time to insist on total separation of church (but not God) and state. Let’s start with the wedding business. In fact, it has already started with the pastors who refuse to use a marriage license and opt for a marriage covenant instead.

However, look for a fight because the state does not like losing any of its power to control people. Instead of looking to the state for approval, let’s disapprove of the state’s intrusion into marriage! Let’s take away state power to certify, approve, or license any marriage. While it will remove the messy problem of approving same-sex marriage, it will not end same-sex “families.”

Safe, secure, and stable homes produce a steady state but one that has no authority over who marries whom.

(Third of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriage: Consent, Commitment, Consummation, and Communication!”)

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!”

Former U. S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson said about the Supreme Court’s authority, “We are not final because we are infallible; we are infallible because we are final.” That attitude is not only arrogant but audacious and asinine. However, the Supreme Court is not infallible (as only a fool would say) nor is it final (as only a fanatic would say). I remind you that their decisions are called, “opinions” and do not reach the level of the Ten Commandments–or even the Ten Recommendations. Same-sex “marriages” will continue to be abnormal, abominable, and aberrational even as shallow people applaud them.

Some have said, “The Court has spoken. That settles it.” Oh, really, what about Dred Scott? The Court, consisting of appointed, flawed individuals, has reversed itself over 200 times and it must be remembered that the Court is illegitimate when it usurps the position of legislatures. If the Court wants to write laws, they should resign, run for Congress, expose their financial souls and seek approval from the voters. The Justices are rogues in black robes drunk with power. The Court thinks it is omnipotent and omniscient and it seems to be almost omnipresent in our lives.

If laws that are contrary to the Constitution can be written by unelected officials then why do we have a Constitution? It means we are living under tyranny.

As a consequence of this opinion, everyone and all organizations will react. U.S. legislators must consider the “good behavior” clause in Article III, Section I of the Constitution that requires them to remove an erring justice from the court. That will happen when Hell has an enormous drop in temperature which can’t happen according to my theological beliefs. America will be free from the tyrants only when some of them reach room temperature.

State governors have an opportunity to affirm their sovereign authority and say, “We will not comply. You gave an opinion over something beyond your responsibility. We will not permit or give approval to behavior that is a threat to civilization. Same-sex ‘marriages’ will not be recognized in this state.” Then, the Court will charge the governors with contempt (which the governors will be guilty of as I am but I’m doing my best to conceal my contempt) and send U.S. Marshalls to arrest them. The governors can choose to use state troopers in their defense or choose not to do so. Bad position to be in but then no one asked for this except homosexuals and those whose highest ambition and reason for living is to satisfy homosexuals.

I don’t know what governors will do but I know what I will do and recommend other preachers do. I will not comply. I will live as if the decision was never made.

Pastors should inform everyone that they will never perform a same-sex “wedding.” Nor will the church ever be used for such activity. It is not enough for pastors not to perform such weddings; they must go on record of that decision.

Pastors should make it clear that unrepentant homosexuals will not be accepted as church members just as unrepentant fornicators, adulterers, thieves, abortionists, killers, and radical Liberals are rejected. Surely no pastor has to be convinced that he should never permit any secular authority to dictate to his church.

Pastors should prepare to lose the 501 (c) (3) tax status. Pastors have been negligent if they have not prepared church members for that event. The loss really should be no big deal since sincere Christians give 10 to 15 percent of their total income because they want to–not because of a tax advantage.

Preachers should continue to preach that homosexuality is perversion and if homosexuals do not repent they will be cast into Hell as will fornicators. At the same time the homosexual, like the adulterer, must understand that God loves him and is willing to forgive him at any time. And so is the church.

Pastors must warn members not to attend same-sex “marriages” of close friends or family members and refuse without alienating them if at all possible. With many, it will not be possible and the loss will be heartbreaking; however, any kind of approval will make one “a partaker of his evil deeds.”

Sunday school teachers and Christian school teachers should continue to teach that any sex outside of man-woman marriage is sinful requiring genuine repentance.

Christian colleges should continue to refuse homosexuals as students so housing for same-sex “couples” on their campus is a moot issue.

If the Court should rule that gun ownership was illegal or that freedom of the press was now illegal, would any sane person comply? It is ridiculous to suggest that the Court can write law as in this case and in the Obamacare case then declare that the newly written laws are constitutional! No one gave these birds such carte blanche authority.

In 1804, Jefferson wrote: “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” That’s where we are today: despots reign.

Abe Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address “that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

In 1832, President Andrew Jackson’s contempt of the Court’s decision in Worchester v. Georgia was on full display when he allegedly replied, “John Marshall [Chief Justice] has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” He was acknowledging that the Court does not have an army to enforce its decisions although it does have a few U.S. Marshalls that can arrest offending individuals.

The Court Jesters have made their ruling, now let them try to force thinking and committed Americans to accept perversion as normal, natural, and noble.

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!”

Furthermore, He was a guest at the marriage in Cana thereby giving His approval on the proceedings.
The ancient Jews thought that there were three major events in life: birth, marriage, and death with marriage being the most important. They felt very strongly about marriage as revealed in the Talmud: “Any Jew who has not a wife is no man.” In fact, marriage was required by the Jews who believed an unmarried man a murderer! Wow, that’s strong!

In the early Roman Empire before the birth of Christ, marriage was a duty of all Roman aristocrats. In Sparta, a fine was imposed on bachelorhood, late marriage, and single life! According to the laws of Lycurgus, unmarried persons were prohibited from attending the public games and Plato declared all bachelors were unworthy of any honor. The Greeks obviously wanted families even while they tolerated and even glorified perversion!

The background of marriage is varied and interesting. As a substitution for God’s plan of marriage, men have made all kinds of living and sexual arrangements. They are polygamy (one man with multiple wives), polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands), polyamory (multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships), promiscuity (jumping from bed to bed like a deranged rabbit), and perversion (same-sex or sex with anything from a goat to a rocking chair). That covers most of them. Pedophilia is being touted as acceptable sexual behavior and soon it will even be “brave,” “courageous,” and “bold” to advocate such depravity.

Promiscuity has always been practiced, yet not as a normal, common, and acceptable practice except by a few small tribes. In those few instances, males and females lived “promiscuously” with whomever they desired. Members of the Oneida community in New York, for example, practiced “complex marriage,” in which all members of the community were married to all others, and sexual contact was regulated by the group.

Some would suggest that general promiscuity is very similar to the animal kingdom. I agree. It’s called, “pigpen morality.” Hollywood also comes to mind as an obvious example of barnyard living arrangements.

In Old Testament times, the parents chose the mate for their son primarily because the bride became part of the clan. Although the new couple became “one flesh,” they both remained under the authority of the bridegroom’s father. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary declares, “The parents chose someone who would best fit into their clan and work harmoniously with her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law.”

“Love” was seldom an issue in those days. The girl had little or nothing to say about the matter although Rebekah was a biblical exception. They did not marry the one they loved, but learned to love the one they married. Love did not hold the family together. Commitment did, with the encouragement of local, family, and religious connections. Most young people today can’t even spell commitment and they got that from their parents.

The Old Testament is the most authoritative and ancient source so it is a good beginning for a study of marriage, family, and the home. Ancient Jews were to marry only other Jews and any deviation was considered a terrible sin against God. God seemed to be concerned that any marriage, other than between two Jews, would corrupt His people. (They were corrupt enough without the influence of pagans. Solomon is a good example of pagan corruption.) The Apostle Paul emphasized that Christians in Corinth should not marry unbelievers (II Cor. 6:14). That command holds today for modern Christians.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia reveals that the Old Testament has no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher, prophet, or priest being present at weddings since it was a family affair: “There was no formal religious ceremony connected with the Hebrew marriage as with us–there is not a hint of such a thing in the Bible.” In Gen. 2:24, Adam is seen cleaving unto his wife, the first time “wife” is used in the Bible. No ceremony, no preacher, no license, no church and no state involvement, so I am on solid ground in refusing any state involvement in marriage since marriage was established before any government.

At weddings, the couple would have a meal with family and friends, then the man took the woman into his home before witnesses and they were considered married. This was always with the permission of the father of the girl showing he approved of the groom. The couple became a family.

According to the Code of Hammurabi (about 1800 BC) in ancient Babylon (Iraq), marriage was a contract between a man and woman and marriages were arranged by relatives.

During the Roman Empire, there were wealthy citizens who wanted to list their property when they entered a marriage so there could be no misunderstanding by anyone as to the status of the man and his heirs. This was the beginning of officially recording marriages similar to what we do today. A Roman male could terminate a marriage any time, but a wife who wanted to end a marriage had to grin and bear it. Many unhappy wives in the Empire did little grinning but they did a lot of groaning.

This Roman custom was the first step on a very slippery slope of government control of marriages and a take-over of homes; and it is past time for Christian churches to take back control of the formation of their families.

There is no legislation or court decision necessary. Pastors should simply stop using a marriage license and use a written covenant instead. Everything else would remain the same. No notice or permission is necessary from any official. If a couple wants to record the ceremony at their county courthouse that is their prerogative and I think should be done. It would simply be informing the state after the fact.

Since government fouls up everything and has no scriptural support for regulating weddings, government should have nothing to do with modern marriages. Get the state out of all Christian marriages! Frankly, I can build a good case for churches to get out of the wedding business since there is not one command for preachers to perform weddings. However, a church can choose to have what ministries their members want whether it is Sunday school, youth services, camps, rallies, or weddings. There is no scriptural command for any of those ministries but that doesn’t mean they are wrong.

(Second of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Stable Homes Produce a Stable State!”)

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 Garden of Eden, God set the pattern for all future marriages with one man and one woman constituting a family. A God-approved marriage is publically declared, heterosexual, monogamous, physical, and permanent. After God established marriage, man’s wicked heart soon twisted God’s plan when Lamech (who became a murderer) took two wives, and marriage has been going downhill ever since.

I thought only a few of my fellow preachers believed that marriage was a family affair without any involvement of the government but I was wrong. According to Life Way Research, one in four U.S. pastors think it is wrong for them to sign a state marriage certificate! Moreover, a prominent conservative but unofficial Catholic magazine, First Things, takes that position and more than 400 pastors and laypersons have signed a pledge to “no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage.” Ministers who have taken the pledge are Roman Catholic, Baptist, Church of God, Episcopal, Church of Christ, Universal Life, Bible Churches, Nazarene, Methodist, and others.

They will no longer sign state marriage certificates but will recommend that couples have a civil ceremony as well as religious ceremony. Conversely, I think preachers need to tell the state that a church wedding is sufficient with no state permission required and no civil ceremony is required.

Most pastors end a wedding ceremony saying, “By the power vested in me by the state, I now pronounce you man and wife.” Wait a minute, how can that be justified from Scripture? Does a preacher teach a class, preach a sermon, or counsel a family or anything else by powers vested by the state?  According to the American Jurisprudence Encyclopedia, a pastor performing a wedding “is a public civil officer, …not at all to be distinguished from a judge of the superior court….” That makes such pastors tools of the state.

What if a state decided that there were too many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals running around and wanted to “thin them out” by forbidding them marriage licenses, would any preacher in America be willing to obey that law? Only the weakest preachers would comply. Real men of God would tell state authorities to go back to the statehouse and continue to do their thing but leave the church house alone. Such preachers would continue to marry their young couples in defiance of such oppressive laws.

Even influential laymen have declared that the state should get out of the marriage business. David Boaz, Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute, asked, “Why should the government be in the business of decreeing who can and cannot be married?”

Conservative talk show host Larry Elder declared the state should “leave marriage to non-governmental institutions like churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship or private institutions.” He said that marriage licenses made as much sense as licensing barbers or taxi-cab drivers.

Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, radio talker Glenn Beck, and law professor Doug Kmiec (a Roman Catholic layman) have joined the chorus, advocating no state marriages. Kmiec said, “If the state got out of the marriage business. . . . then the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community.”

The state of marriage in the U.S. is a mess and I never thought I would ever support the atheists except in their repenting and trusting Christ, but here I am supporting their position on marriage! Atheists sued Indiana because atheists were forbidden to perform marriages. Of course, they have the right to perform their own marriages. The fact is, all governments should get out of all marriage entanglement totally and leave all marriages to the churches, sects, etc. I suppose if the state wanted to marry hedonists, humanists, and heretics they could do as they are doing now.

No government has constitutional authority to approve or disapprove religion, but government at all levels always seeks more power and screams like a banshee when power slips (or is jerked) from their hands. States continue to reach for or hold onto power for the sake of power. They often look silly in their grab for control as in California.

In September of 2008, California prohibited the use of bride and groom in any state wedding ceremony! Moreover, their schoolbooks may no longer use the terms husband and wife. Of course, you know why. Such terms might offend those who practice perversion. My, my, aren’t public officials super-sensitive to their citizens? Well, they are not sensitive to normal, decent, citizens. If you are a white, heterosexual, creationist, Bible-believing Christian, (you know, the kind of people that founded and grounded this great nation), you must change what you have always been taught or move out of the state! And people are doing that by the thousands!

The California high court declared that the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman was unconstitutional so the marriage license was changed to Party A and Party B as in Alfred and Bill or Alice and Betty. Yes, I know it was nutty and a little slutty, but after all, California is the land of fruits and nuts with an abundance of nuts. Bride and Groom were no longer legal until sane people threw a fit and reversed it. No court or authority can change the meaning of words.

Marriage is what it is as defined by God in the Garden so when a court seeks to nullify God’s definition, they are seeking to do something that cannot be done. It can be debated, decided, and declared but not done. The facts don’t change: marriage is between a man and woman who choose to commit to a lifetime together. No court or legislature can change that.

The above silliness is one of many reasons why the state should have nothing to do with marriage. But many are concerned about a non-state marriage being acceptable and legal. Acceptable and legal to whom? The union of man and woman is a law of nature. Such laws are unchangeable while human laws always change or pass away.  Natural marriages in England, Iraq, Brazil, or any state are considered marriages in any U.S. state, so why should marriages in any U.S. church not be considered acceptable and legal?

You don’t have to have a state-issued marriage certificate; and no preacher should use one thereby denying power to the state that God never intended it to have. As long as your family and your church are satisfied with your public commitment to each other, that should be sufficient.

Get the government totally out of marriages.

(First of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriages From Ancient Times Were Family, Not State Approved!”)

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!”