I realize this issue is debatable, delicate, and as dangerous as an attempt to shave a bobcat in a phone booth. Millennials should do their research about phone booths.

Same-sex “marriage” was wrong yesterday, today, and tomorrow regardless of what any court, church, legislative body, or professor declares. If a million experts claim an error, no one is expected to believe it but must call out their mistake, even with a lonely voice.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2015 that same-sex marriage was legal. However, they could not determine if it was right or moral. After the Court recently decided abortion was not in the Constitution, there has been speculation that the Court may realize that same-sex “marriage” is also absent. Hence, the stir, especially in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, New York City, and various cities in the hinterland.

In a seizure of common sense, the Court might decide that pretending to be a different gender is insane, attempting to change genders is illegal, and drag queen shows for kids are illicit, illegitimate, insane, and illegal.

The natives on the LGBTQ reservation are restless, raging, and rebellious.

Most people will assert that I am beating a dead horse because almost everyone believes in same-sex “marriage,” but that does not deal with the issue.  Cities have been destroyed by flaunting their wicked behavior in the face of God. You may faintly remember Sodom and Gomorrah.

Many decent people are experts at straddling the perversion fence, while the LGBTQ crowd profess motives of love, inclusion, equality, and justice. Informed people know that that crowd only thinly disguises their hatred of all things normal. Hatred for Christians is blatant. They enthusiastically wave the colorful LGBTQ flag reminiscent of a Jim Jones Peoples’ Temple cult rally. Although the grape Kool-Aid would be absent.

I suggest the muted response to perversion by usually decent, even Christian people is motivated by fear of being laughed at, ostracized, and an inadequate ability to defend the biblical position.  So, it’s easier and more popular to go with the flow–even if it’s over Niagara.

It is dreadful that any court, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, would discuss, debate, and presume to decide same-sex “marriage”!  God decided it a long time ago!  Even 20 years ago, the subject would not have been discussed in polite company, and anyone who predicted that sane people would seriously discuss homosexual “marriage” would have been hooted out of the marketplace of ideas.

When the U. S. Supreme Court said that same-sex “marriage” is legal, it was a sad day in the U.S. and signaled a dark, dismal, decadent future. Frankly, I don’t believe we have a future.  The fact that same-sex “marriage” is debatable indicates our depravity, disobedience, and destiny.  Disobedience to God is costly.  I think payday is coming, and the chickens are about ready to roost.

I believe the above because, as a nation, we rejected the Bible as our standard and guide.  We expelled God and the Bible from our schools, making them incompetent nut factories.  Until recently, we have been killing innocent, helpless, unborn babies for decades, even after they survived abortion!  For decades, the media have ridiculed genuine Christians dismissing principled living, Christian schools, biblical authority, personal conversion, etc.  Now we have national leaders of both parties, who have endorsed, encouraged, and engaged in perversion.  Maybe it would be helpful if I reminded everyone that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of those evil activities.

We are at this juncture because the American people have rejected God’s standard and now base their decisions on how they “feel” or “think” about something.  Nothing can be affirmed, advocated, and approved when there is no absolute standard.  But where does it end? Some things are wrong if done by anyone, at any time, under any conditions. Murder, rape, perversion, cursing, thievery, and personal hate are always wrong.  Same with drunkenness, abortion, and illegal drugs.

It matters not how one feels, thinks, or believes.  Nor does it matter if some misfit, cowardly preacher gives such offensive (and sinful) behavior a pass and seeks to make such behavior acceptable and respectable.  No person on earth has the right to do those things even if they don’t believe in a Supreme Being.  To say otherwise is to drive society to the place where “everyone did that which was right in his own eyes.”  With the present debate about same-sex “marriage,” we are at that place.

Can anyone defend multiple wives or husbands or sex with children?  How about sex with a favorite goat? Aren’t some things naturally, unquestionably wrong? How about heterosexuals living with barnyard morals? Preachers of permissiveness ridicule those questions, but they don’t reply to them!  It matters not what I think, or anyone else thinks, but it sure matters what a holy, all-powerful God thinks.  And we will all stand before Him and give a personal account of what we believed and how we lived.  The Bible is the only safe, sure standard by which anyone can decide any issue.  To live any other way is anarchy and treason against God and the Bible.

Since homosexual “marriage” is still lawful (but never right), I wonder if the broadminded proponents will be broadminded and tolerant of preachers who refuse to marry Fred to Frank and Frick?  Will the LGBTQ paragons of equality support those churches that refuse to hire homosexuals as staff persons?  Of course, they will not support resisting churches since most of the proponents of perversion are hypocrites. They are defending a castle in ruins. Inconsistent homosexuals tell Christians not to moralize about perversion while they moralize about those who moralize about perversion.

Therefore, those who want to live without any restraints and support homosexuality proving their broadmindedness, are defending the indefensible.

Apostles of permissiveness denounce marriage inequality, not knowing that inequality came from God’s original creation as humanity was divided into separate but equal genders, man and woman.  The earliest civilizations followed this pattern because it was best for society.  Differences between men and women will not disappear because some court changes laws or definitions.

No court or politician can change basic math. Under all conditions, four plus four will always equal 8. It doesn’t matter how anyone feels about it and what laws are passed. No court can successfully require a man to produce a baby. No court can successfully change a male into a female or a female into a male. Names can be changed; documents altered; everyone can pretend; celebrations can be held, but human nature will not change.

Furthermore, dedicated Christians will never adjust their convictions whatever the price, privation, pressure, persecution, or prosecution. Weak, sniveling, compromising Christians may embrace and even defend sodomy, adultery, pornography, etc.

No Christian can choose to be exempt from this warfare and live peacefully with their conscience.  Consenting to unquestioned evil is a disgrace, disobedience, and disaster for the cause of Christ and the compromising person.  Many EvanJellycals, not wanting to swim against the tide of public opinion, have taken a cowardly stand; others, including some Fundamentalists, are standing in safe shadows, having taken a vow of silence–at least on this hot issue.

Silence may be golden, but in this case, it is yellow.

In this case, a definite stand should not require any defense to thinking people because it is so evident that old-fashioned Christians are on the right side. The honest Christian realizes that personal integrity is dearer than life itself and is more important than receiving awards, especially from a corrupt, compromising, and craven populous.

Many silent preachers are not morally bad or scripturally deficient but are simply cowards.  Most people fear someone or something; thus, leaders live in fear and stand silent in safe shadows or join the herd on controversial issues.

Evangelical writer Philip Yancey said, “I’ve met wonderful, committed Christians who attend MCC churches [Metropolitan Community Churches], and I wish that the larger church had the benefit of their faith.” Grovel, crawl, cower.

Pope Francis endorsed same-sex civil unions, saying: “Homosexuals are children of God and have the right to be in a family.”

Evil is evil if everyone says it is good, and the Pope cannot change it. Evil is still evil even though some Fundamentalists and Conservatives are bigots, haters, and unchristian. That doesn’t change the fact that evil is always evil and will be punished by God. And it can be forgiven by God!

Deviant behavior, if left unchallenged, always becomes the accepted norm. We have observed this in free nations over the last few years.

There is a natural tendency for some critics of perversion to take a stand against it without taking a stand against it. They tell us it is all right to be a homosexual as long as homosexuality is not practiced! Others will say it is acceptable to believe perversion is wrong but will not go a step further and say perversion is always sinful.

Advocating everyone’s rights is not enough. Fight also for what is right. Grab the Sword and join the fray. Don’t whine in safe shadows. Don’t simply defend the right of LGBTQ critics to be critical but make it clear that the defense and practice of perversion are always wrong under all circumstances.

I just lost most of my readers, even Christians.

Martin Luther said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him.  Where the battle rages there, the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefront besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

I stand with Luther and God. Pretty good company.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former Indiana House of Representatives member who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for eight years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Please send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

What do the homosexuals want? They want compliance with their irrational, irresponsible, and immoral demands: Everyone must march to their tune even if the music and the march are obnoxious.

Pastor Justin Hoke, spiritual leader of Trinity Bible Presbyterian Church in Weed, California, is standing in the unemployment line after he declared on his church sign on December 3, “Bruce Jenner is still a man. Homosexuality is still a sin. The culture may change. The Bible does not.” The sign said it all. It could not be more factual and the fact that it is true does not mean it is hateful. Truth is not hate, maybe uncomfortable but not hateful. But the LGBTQ activists came down hard on the pastor and even some of his church leaders refused to stand with him.

All radical leftists talk about tolerance, fairness, equal rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion but that is only applicable if everyone drinks the purple Kool Aid by accepting their radical agenda. Are all radical leftists hypocrites or are all hypocrites radical leftists?

What in the world do homosexuals really want? They want acceptance even respectability and no criticism. It seems they want special treatment, not equal rights; and their death rate indicates they will receive “rites,” not rights if they continue on a dead-end street. More than 60% of America’s AIDS cases and over 50% of syphilis cases (and other STDs) come from the homosexual crowd. Moreover, the stats indicate that they live twenty-four years fewer than normal people because of some of the dumb, dangerous, and deadly things they do.

Homosexuality is wrong today, was wrong yesterday, and will be wrong tomorrow no matter what any court or authority might decide. However, stating that fact can be dangerous for its advocate.

Author George Orwell wrote, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” And it seems that is where we are today. The exertions of academia, media, Hollywood, congress, and the courts have accomplished a remarkable feat: incredibly, they have transformed our nation in twenty-five years by being disingenuous, deceptive, and dishonest. The permissive crowd has convinced most people to believe right is now wrong and wrong is now right. Decent living is now considered unnecessary and perversion is no longer repugnant, reprehensible, and repulsive, but is thought (by non-thinkers) to be courageous, even commendable.

It seems “we have come a long way baby,” in recent few years but we’ve gone in the wrong direction. Many stalwart Americans are standing athwart the gasping, heaving body of American culture saying, “You are wrong. Perversion is immoral and it will destroy those who practice it and it will destroy this nation.” Our lives should be directed by good judgment, common sense, and God’s commandments.

Same-sex “marriage” zealots tell us that such “marriages” are a matter of fairness but it is a matter of right and wrong. Same-sex “marriages” are also an oxymoron. They talk of “marriage” but two people of the same gender yoking is not marriage and saying so does not make it so. If every court in America and every politician says same-sex “marriage” is normal and desirable, it is still not so. A falsehood is still a falsehood if everyone affirms it and the truth is still the truth if everyone rejects it!

The cousin of Chief Justice Roberts who is an admitted lesbian declared that homosexuality should be legal because “society is becoming more accepting of the humanity of same-sex couples and the simple truth that we deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and equality under the law.” Must I lecture Chief Justice Roberts’ cousin that right and wrong are not decided by society’s constantly changing values—or by any court? It should be remembered that some cultures slaughtered children while others ate their enemies. In other ancient cultures, children were sacrificed to pagan gods. My comparison is not accidental. Homosexuality has always been considered an unspeakable crime against nature and against a holy God!

It is inconceivable that homosexuals, with a straight face, demand respect and recognition and reception of their lifestyle! Informed people are mindful that they do extremely disgusting, dangerous, and deadly things. And they demand respect. What chutzpah! Or as the British say, “What cheek.” But, it seems homosexuals are without shame.

I introduced a bill in the Indiana House of Representatives in 1977 to restore sodomy as a felony as it had been since Indiana became a state. My opposition came out of the arts, universities, and closets to protest my bill. A professor from Indiana University irrationally characterized the biblical characters David and Jonathan as lovers and stated that homosexuals only want to be left alone. He ranted that the new law would be tyrannical and repressive; however, what it would have done is restrict homosexuals from cruising in the parks and having abnormal sex with strangers in public bathrooms, among other things. It would also have made some university professors unlawful, uncomfortable, and unemployed.

I informed him and my fellow committee members that homosexuals did not just want to be left alone but they wanted the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on their immoral actions. I said, “They want the public to accept and respect their lifestyle but that will not happen as long as sincere, dedicated, and informed Christians are still alive.”

I also abhor the tidal wave of fornication that has deluged America but at least fornication is not aberrant or abnormal. Homosexual activists have hijacked our culture. I was wrong in my prediction. Many Christian leaders have caved to the LGBTQ under the cover of “love.” It’s really palpable cowardice.

All principled people have always realized that truth always trumps love.

Many Evangelicals have raised the white flag in this battle as they refuse to stand on biblical truth and they use reason to commit treason against Christ. The cowards, compromisers, and charlatans speak of “love” while they strangle unpleasant truth. And even if we in opposition are filled with hate, it is better to have truth in hate than error in love.

Besides, unpleasant, uncomfortable, and unpopular truth is not always hate speech.

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

The following consists of incredible, outrageous practices revealed by the media that some will wonder if normal people should even know about them; however, that is a head-in-the-sand view. Some of my friends will even suggest that I should not comment on these perverse trends.

However, the last ten years produced many examples of the absurd becoming the accepted. No one would have suggested that homosexuality would be accepted, almost promoted, by any sane person especially Evangelical Christianity! Same with same-sex “marriage.” How about anyone suggesting with a straight face that transgenderism is a biological fact or that a person is normal if he/she decides to be identified as she/he.

We are witnessing incest being promoted as normal even loving by some in the media with Time’s major article “Should Incest be Legal”? I have an article by a psychiatrist going back 30 years promoting incest! It will be legal in your lifetime. But maybe we should not discuss that since it will upset people. People need to be upset!

Read and weep, and pray, and get involved.

*The New York Post ran a feature story titled, “I poured drain cleaner in my eyes to blind myself.” This alarming incident refers to Jewel Shuping, a young women who struggles with “body integrity identity disorder or BIID. I think she struggles with more than that. This alleged disorder describes people who are sure that they “should have” a disability! Some even think they should be amputees so they have their limbs amputated when they can find a criminal surgeon who will comply with their insane desires.

Shuping as a child became convinced that she should have been born blind, saying, “I should have been blind from birth!” She pretended to be blind for years (called “blind-simming”), but this wasn’t enough for her fantasy. She found a “sympathetic psychologist” in 2006, who counseled her for several weeks before agreeing to place drops of lye drain cleaner in both of her eyes to destroy her eyesight! Shuping finally got her lifelong wish–she is now blind. The “psychologist” is still free.

“I was so happy, I felt that this was who I was supposed to be,” Shuping explains. That is one young woman with major problems. She needs to be in a mental hospital and the “sympathetic psychologist” needs to be in prison. (Maybe we should reconsider “an eye for an eye!”)

Whistleblower, November 2015 reported, “A Canadian university teacher is arguing that doctors should amputate the limbs of able-bodied, physically healthy individuals who consider themselves ‘transabled,’ maintaining that such extreme procedures will help those people feel ‘empowered.’” The teacher said that some people want to be paralyzed not wanting their legs to work! Others might want a below-the-knee amputation or “a right-below-elbow amputation.”

I think that professor needs a brain transplant!

*Rachel Dolezal the white former NAACP chapter head in Spokane, Washington who pretended to be black, says we’re whatever race we think we are! Dolezal is an American former civil rights activist and former Africana Studies instructor who resigned from the NAACP position after it was revealed that she had lied about being a Black and many other aspects of her biography. She also lied about hate crimes perpetrated against her.

The non-black woman now admits that she was born into a white family but still identifies as a Black! So, by affirming a lie, she becomes something she is not. Rachel Dolezal, now known as Nkechi Diallo, was booked into the Spokane County jail July 2 on counts of first-degree theft by welfare fraud, making false verification and second-degree perjury. Rachel will learn that it is easier to change her name than change her location—since she is facing 15 years in the slammer.

Well, why not permit Rachael to declare herself a Black since Brown University is now allowing prospective students to “self-identify” as people of color on their applications. Furthermore, Senator Elizabeth Warren claimed Native American ancestry. I suppose one can be black, white, red, yellow, or even purple. Facts don’t seem to matter anymore.

*The London Guardian reported a trend among homosexual men who like to wear leather and dog-like hoods. They also like to have their stomachs rubbed and their ears tickled. These humans-who-identify-as-dogs “fetch squeaky toys and eat chow out of dog bowls.” There is a British documentary about this perversion called, Secret Life of Human Pups and it is reported that there are at least 10,000 such people in the United Kingdom!

One such person is Tom and the United Kingdom Mirror reported that Tom left his fiancée when she demanded that he act like a man and not like his alter ego, a Dalmatian named Spot. Tom may have lost his fiancée but he won the title of “Mr. Puppy U.K.” and is featured in Secret Life of Human Pups. We also read that Tom (or Spot, if you prefer) eats from a dog bowl and sleeps in a crate with puppy incontinence pads.

One of the weirdos said, “Even when I worked in PC World I would sometimes walk up to people and nip at their shirt.” Never heard of that approach to making friends.

Two or three will walk through London in their doggy outfits and pretend to pee on trees and lampposts! They do that to make the statement–“we are here.” Well, they may be here, but they aren’t “all there.”

And they have sexual relationships with their human “handlers.” Well, that’s not surprising since it is obvious they are perverts.

It is now legal for a man to declare himself a woman and can use female restrooms so it is logical to identify as a dog but will they demand a separate restroom in every public facility? Maybe every public restroom will provide a fire hydrant for them.

Since a man can declare he is a woman, why can’t a man declare he is a dog? But then, responsible dog owners ensure their pups are castrated. Now that’s a thought.

*Now, pedophilia is slowly being accepted as was same-sex “marriage.” Lutheran pastor Dr. Ralph Underwager, founder of the Institute for Psychological Therapies in Northfield, MN was interviewed by Paidika, the infamous Dutch journal of pedophilia. Question: “Is choosing pedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?” The reverend’s answer: “Certainly it is responsible….Pedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God’s will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people….” He went on to add, “Pedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim that pedophilia is an acceptable expression of God’s will for love and unity among human beings.”

A pastor should not have to be reminded what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah!

*But the perversion continues toward the disgusting extreme. People marrying dogs!

A British woman after a failed marriage finally found the partner of her dreams, her pet dog! She was married in a ceremony that was attended by 200 people. Nobody barked their objection. The 46-year-old divorcee wore black stockings while Sheba wore a more traditional white bridal frock.

In 2006, a man in Sudan was forced to marry a goat after being caught in a sexual interaction with the goat. Then in 2010, an 18-year-old Balinese man, Ngurah Alit, was found having sexual intercourse with a cow, but the cow initiated it by flirting with him!

In 1992, Mark Matthews married his pony named Pixel and in December 2005, Sharon Tendler, a 41-year-old eccentric British millionaire, married the love of her life, a dolphin named Cindy at an Israeli resort.

In December 2010, Joseph Guiso, a 20-year-old Australian man, married his best friend, a five-year-old Labrador. Joseph and Honey were “joined in matrimony” at Toowoomba’s Laurel Bank Park in Australia – and the real surprise is that 30 friends and family members turned up to witness the event. Guiso calls himself “religious” and claims that he felt guilty living with Honey out of wedlock! Even so, he assured people that “it’s not sexual. It’s just pure love.”

*In a lawsuit against the state of Colorado, a coalition of environmental groups has asked a federal court to grant “personhood” to the Colorado River! Yes, what the abortion industry in America refuses to grant to unborn children, a lawsuit now is seeking for a river and its tributaries!

*Finally, there is news of a 52-year-old man who abandoned his wife and seven children to live an alternative lifestyle. I mean really alternative. Paul Wolscht is now living as a 6-year-old girl! He wears colorful, lacy dresses, sleeps with a huge doll, sucks on a pacifier, drinks from a sippie, and skips around the house like a, well a 6-year-old girl!

For sure, all the nuts are not on trees or in the universities.

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!”

The “separatists” say that the corruption is too bad and they must leave as a protest and associate with others who are willing to practice biblical beliefs. The “stay-inners” are not willing to make the break with a lifetime association. Many don’t agree with denominational leaders but will stay in and fight the doctrinal corruption and refuse to conform to the unscriptural rituals. They are willing to work and fellowship with those who hold a low view of Scripture. We have seen this before: separatists verses nonconformists.

In church history, a nonconformist or dissenter was anyone in England who belonged to the Church of England but disagreed with it. Such people were militant advocates of religious freedom. They were banned from being in the military, civil work, or any college. So, the nonconformists started their own schools. Nonconformists were principled people who paid a price for their stand; however, they should have departed from apostate denominations. People who did leave were separatists.

The “stay-inners” (or nonconformists) were called “Puritans” and they were highly disciplined people who tried to reform or purify the Church of England from within the membership and Pilgrims were highly disciplined people who left or were never part of that denomination. They were separatists and later called “Congregationalists,” believing that each church was independent and autonomous. That is the biblical position and the position that all Baptists take.

Devoted Christian leaders had been seeking, even demanding, a reformation in the Church of England for a hundred years. The Protestant Reformation made an incredible impression on Europe but had limited impact on England. Puritans, seeking to purify the church from within, longed for a change especially by removing the trappings of the Roman Church. These Puritans had worked their way into places of power in the Church of England and remained in power because there was a consensus on the “the true profession of the gospel … the Protestant Reformed religion.” Because of that one basic agreement, the Puritans were fairly safe in their positions and many were highly admired scholars. They disagreed with the liturgical and doctrinal positions of the Church of England but were willing to “put up with it” for the sake of unity, peace, and convenience. That is the argument of all “stay-inners.”

About this time, King Charles I declared war on Scotland and asked Parliament to fund it but he was opposed by many, including Oliver Cromwell (an Independent Puritan) and a masterful military leader although without any military training. Charles’ policies were so hated that 30,000 Englishmen fled for the New World during his reign. After winning the Battle of Marston Moor, Cromwell became a highly admired hero by the soldiers and society. After another glorious military victory Cromwell was even more idolized and King Charles I was arrested! Cromwell was a major proponent of the beheading of the King in 1649.

Separatists left (or were never part of) the state church and supported Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England during 1653 to 1658. Sadly, Cromwell became an extremist closing the theaters and banning most sports. Children playing on Sunday afternoon were whipped. Adults were fined for swearing and for repeated cases, jailed. Makeup was prohibited and women wearing makeup had their faces scrubbed on the streets. The man who came to power being loved, was soon hated and died of malaria in September of 1658. It was said that, although not a king (he had refused the title), he wielded more power and authority than any king.

He wanted to restore morality but he used the law to accomplish his commendable desire. He was a good example of a good man out of control. His enthusiasm for morality trampled on the rights of others and his Puritan sympathies were obvious in his decisions and appointments. Yet, in a 2002 BBC poll in Britain, Cromwell was selected as one of the ten greatest Britons of all time! Even his biggest critics admit that Cromwell’s rule was the beginning of democracy in England.

When Charles II came to the throne in a restored monarchy, he had Cromwell’s body dug up, tried for treason and regicide, thrown on a garbage heap, and his head displayed on a spike outside Westminster Hall for decades as a warning to others. With the monarchy restored in 1660 the other religious bigots (Bishops of the Church of England) were back in control.

The newly crowned King Charles II desired tranquility and asked “can’t all of us just get along” but the Church of England thugs thought it was payback time. They wanted Puritan blood–and they got it. The punitive Act of Uniformity 1662 required all preachers to be ordained in the Church of England. The preachers who refused to comply were called nonconformists and dissenters but they were still in the Church of England. However, the act applied to separatist Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, etc.

In the 1600s, the government of England started losing control in Wales when hundreds of independent churches and chapels were established by Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and others who refused to conform to the established church. The nonconformists and separatists were gaining too much influence in England and Wales so the Bishop-controlled Parliament decided to bring them under control. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 required all ministers to assent to the rites and liturgy of the Established Church. In fact, all clergy, college professors, and schoolmasters had to agree with everything in the Book of Common Prayer! However, few knew what was in the new edition but they had to agree anyway!

All who refused to follow the common prayer book were ejected from the Church. Out of approximately 10,000 preachers throughout the country, about 2,500 were ejected (and some went to jail) but 20% to 25% of the country continued to worship illegally, holding secret services in barns and other unapproved locations. This was known as the Great Ejection of 1662. Such people, both preachers and laymen, paid a price for their principled decision for about 150 years. All the nonconformists who disagreed with the Church should have become separatists.

Another act, the Quaker Act of 1662, required subjects to swear an oath of allegiance to the king, which separatists and nonconformists did not do because of religious convictions. The Puritans did not want to perjure themselves to satisfy the newly restored Bishops. The Puritans had made oaths to reform the church in Cromwell’s day; and they could not swear an opposite oath to satisfy the Bishops that they agreed with every single word of the liturgy. But it got worse.

In 1664, the Conventicle Act was passed that forbade conventicles (a meeting for unauthorized worship) of more than 5 people who were not members of the same household. The obvious purpose was to keep the nonconformists and separatists from meeting. It got even worse.

In 1665, the Five Mile Act was passed forbidding nonconformist ministers, who were forbidden from coming within five miles of incorporated towns or the place where they previously lived. They were also forbidden to teach in schools. The screws were getting tighter.

The king, remembering his daddy had lost his head, wanted to be less severe–even showing tolerance; however the Bishops were adamant: the law must be enforced to the letter. With the religious bigots back in control, they were merciless now that they were in the catbird seat.

The bigots are still in control but they are called “Progressives” or more correctly, radical leftists. They have silenced most of the clergy who don’t really believe anything; they have intimidated and sedated ordinary citizens; they climbed into bed with Hollywood and the media; and they have taken the culture captive.

Many outstanding Christian leaders refused to leave corrupt denominations such as John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, who died in the Church of England. Clarence E. McCartney died still loyal to the Presbyterian USA, and W. A. Criswell and Adrian Rogers died loyal to the Southern Baptist Convention. All were among the greatest preachers who ever lived, yet refused to be a separatist. They refused to conform to the norm but did not break with corruption.

It is time for Christian leaders to bite the bullet and “come out from among them and be separate” paying the price such people have always paid. If they do that, then it won’t be the Great Ejection but the Great Rejection as they flee corrupt churches in protest.

Principled people who believe the Bible must flee false, failed, and fraudulent churches.

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!”

The lady is confused. There is never any justification for doing wrong even though everyone does! That sincere lady thinks her “oath on my family Bible” supersedes the clear teaching of Scripture! First and foremost is the Bible, not her oath. It’s a matter of priorities. Bible teaching is to prevail in everything. It is our standard. If not, then anything goes. No oath ever supersedes the Bible.

She used her Bible to swear allegiance to the state but her first allegiance should be to the Christ of the Bible. If her reason for keeping her oath can be justified then Christians who foolishly join secret societies can justify remaining in an ungodly organization. They don’t have to repent of their wicked, bloody vows they took without question. Mafia members who want out of the crime life can justify keeping their oaths to their illegal group. Young gang members swear loyalty to brutal gangs and often kill any who “snitch” on a fellow member. No, one does not have to keep a stupid vow.

Mordecai took an oath to the King of the Medes and Persians but he refused to pay homage to the king’s flunky Haman who planned to kill all the Jews in the Empire that stretched from Ethiopia to India. Daniel took an oath to the King of Babylon and was destined for a high political position yet he refused to eat forbidden food that was offered to pagan idols. Later, he pledged loyalty to King Darius and was the number two official in the land, yet he refused to obey the federal ban on prayers. He went to the den of lions as punishment (becoming a charter member of the Lion’s Club) but God protected him. Three young Jews were high officials in the realm of Nebuchadnezzar yet they refused to bow to a pagan idol.

In obedience to Christ, the Disciples taught that early Christians should pay legitimate taxes to the hated, oppressive Roman Empire; however, they refused to obey laws that conflicted with the Bible. City officials commanded them to stop preaching and they replied in Acts 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” So should county clerks and judges.

In the mid-1600s, Church of England preachers, many of them Puritans, had pledged loyalty to the church and nation at their ordination; however, the church became corrupt and the nation became despotic. They were told that they must obey every teaching in the Book of Common Prayer and agree not try to change the church in any way. They were to give higher allegiance to the Book of Common Prayer than to the Bible. Many refused to obey the government.

Internationally famous theologians broke their oaths since the church and nation no longer were what they were when the oaths were made. So, between 1800 to 2000 preachers (about 20 per cent of the whole clergy) were forced from the Church in 1662. They were forbidden to teach or preach and could not work for the government. Many went to jail while others were exiled to work on plantations at hard labor in Virginia. Such principled resistance is not seen much anymore.
Some guidelines for Christian officials and everyone to follow:

*Realize that government is of God but it never has priority over God. The Bible must be our standard or chaos will ensue. If there is no standard then anything can be right and nothing can be wrong.

*Make it clear to the voters that we are committed to Christ first, then to government service.

*Make every decision after asking, “Is this biblical?” As a member of the Indiana House of Representatives I asked that question before every vote. I was hated by most Democrats and grudgingly tolerated by Republicans.

*Determine to stand for truth if we must stand alone after all, it is better to stand alone than walk with a crowd going in the wrong direction.

*Never resign but force the “powers that be” to fire us in front of the world’s eyes. A good example of this was in N.C. where some local judges resigned rather than perform same-sex “weddings.” I respect their convictions but they should have told their superiors, the voters, and the media that they would not comply–period. No negotiation and no resignation. They would be removed from office but then they could decide to sue the county or state putting additional pressure on the bad guys not the good ones. Christians must remember that the courts are there for us as they are for everyone else.

When a legislature or court decides against clear Bible teaching then Christians are obligated to disobey that law whatever the consequences. The leftist bullies can only take everything we own and put us in jail! We should live as if the Court had not given their opinion. They can threaten to retaliate as all tyrants do but their power is limited (although don’t tell them that).

Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.” That would be doubly true of Bible commands. The Bible trumps your personal oaths, public opinion, or police orders.

Do right if the stars fall from Heaven!

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!”