Would You Vote For Any Person That Support Gay Marriages...

[John81]

It wouldn't matter what Party a candidate was in, if they are promoting evil, I'm not going to vote for them.

 

If the States were allowed to decide matters for themselves, per constitutional original intent, such would be fine. Unfortunately, that's not the case and the Feds are going to make sure they have their way over the States. That is the reason politicians saying they won't support or oppose something like homosexual "marriage" because they believe the States should handle the matter is a weak position. They know the Fed will have it's way and by not opposing the matter they are de facto supporting it.

[HappyChristian]

Not totally accurate, John - states have voted on it. Some have legalized it, some have not.  CA is a travesty of justice because of the court butting in, but that is to be expected when we as a people accept courts as lawmakers.

 

Yes, the fed is working overtime to exert authority over the states - and for too long we the people have allowed it to be so, so too many people are ignorant that it doesn't need to be so.  What is going on now is going to determine a lot of things, I'm thinking.  We do have some folks in Congress who have right principles.  We'll see if they win...them I would vote for, and not because of party, either.

[Alimantado]

Would you vote Republican if he or she agrees with Obama, that they can have gay marriages? I would not, Christians votings days are coming into a end. Or Vote Evil...

 

Would you vote for a candidate that promoted love of money? Or promoted the idea that one's nation, one's career or one's prosperity is more important than one's service to God? Jesus specifically warned us against idolatry, and in particular love of money, yet I can't think of many politicians who aren't for those things.

[The Glory Land]

Would you vote for a candidate that promoted love of money? Or promoted the idea that one's nation, one's career or one's prosperity is more important than one's service to God? Jesus specifically warned us against idolatry, and in particular love of money, yet I can't think of many politicians who aren't for those things.

 

To have a true Christian lead our Nation in the fear of God, in the Whitehouse. I believe this will not happen here again in the US. We not us, but our Nation have slap God in the face. All will pay for this, even the Saints. Don’t look for a Christian, a born again being in the Whitehouse. Would you be a pastor of a church if the members told you that you must accept gay marriages? The same thing will happen, with any of our political parties, if you want to run for president of the USA.  

[John81]

Not totally accurate, John - states have voted on it. Some have legalized it, some have not.  CA is a travesty of justice because of the court butting in, but that is to be expected when we as a people accept courts as lawmakers.

 

Yes, the fed is working overtime to exert authority over the states - and for too long we the people have allowed it to be so, so too many people are ignorant that it doesn't need to be so.  What is going on now is going to determine a lot of things, I'm thinking.  We do have some folks in Congress who have right principles.  We'll see if they win...them I would vote for, and not because of party, either.

Sure, the States can vote on it, just as they have on abortion matters, but when the Feds decide to make such laws national, those State laws won't matter. The president, as well as many in congress, along with many others you likely are already aware of, have made it clear that soon all homosexual "rights", including marriage, will become federally mandated law, forcing all States to comply just as they did with abortion and so many other things.

[The Glory Land]

Sure, the States can vote on it, just as they have on abortion matters, but when the Feds decide to make such laws national, those State laws won't matter. The president, as well as many in congress, along with many others you likely are already aware of, have made it clear that soon all homosexual "rights", including marriage, will become federally mandated law, forcing all States to comply just as they did with abortion and so many other things.

Don't forget the Obama scare, I ment care. :(

[JerryNumbers]

It wouldn't matter what Party a candidate was in, if they are promoting evil, I'm not going to vote for them.

 

If the States were allowed to decide matters for themselves, per constitutional original intent, such would be fine. Unfortunately, that's not the case and the Feds are going to make sure they have their way over the States. That is the reason politicians saying they won't support or oppose something like homosexual "marriage" because they believe the States should handle the matter is a weak position. They know the Fed will have it's way and by not opposing the matter they are de facto supporting it.

 

Sad but true, that day is coming. The Feds will make the states comply, perhaps some states with a republican governor will resist for a while, but the Feds will black mail them.

[John81]

Yes, and all this should helps us more clearly see that Christ is the answer, not politics.

 

Imagine the impact for Christ that might occur if all the politically active Christians turned their time, talent and treasure to spreading the Gospel, making disciples, supporting their local churches, evangelists, sound Christian schools and such rather than politics!

[HappyChristian]

Sure, the States can vote on it, just as they have on abortion matters, but when the Feds decide to make such laws national, those State laws won't matter. The president, as well as many in congress, along with many others you likely are already aware of, have made it clear that soon all homosexual "rights", including marriage, will become federally mandated law, forcing all States to comply just as they did with abortion and so many other things.

Yep, they are for sure trying to do that.  But, just as with abortion, there are people fighting it.  It's probably not a battle that can be won, but it is indeed worth the fight.  The answer is most definitely Christ.  People need to know about Him and His saving power. But as we allow our liberties to be taken from us while we sit back, we are making less and less of an inroad for Him.     And that makes those who want to push the homosexual agenda even stronger.

[John81]

Yep, they are for sure trying to do that.  But, just as with abortion, there are people fighting it.  It's probably not a battle that can be won, but it is indeed worth the fight.  The answer is most definitely Christ.  People need to know about Him and His saving power. But as we allow our liberties to be taken from us while we sit back, we are making less and less of an inroad for Him.     And that makes those who want to push the homosexual agenda even stronger.

Unless and amendment is passed that would clearly keep homosexual "marriage" a matter of State choice, simply saying it's a State matter and not fighting the battle at the federal level is a losing proposition. Some politicians are dodging the matter, not fighting one way or another, by saying the issue is a State issue and then leaving it at that. Everyone involved knows it's just a matter of time before the Fed mandates homosexual "marriage" nationwide.

 

For the most part, unless there is a very major change in who controls the federal government, the battle to have homosexual "marriage" matters be left to the States is lost. Even among Republicans there are few who will take that stand, fewer still who would fight for an amendment on this matter, and nearly all Dems would fight against it.

 

The time for this fight was a when Bush was president and Republicans controlled congress. Unfortunately, when Republicans have power in their hands, they fail to act. Already many Republicans have caved on this issue or have partially caved and will probably fully cave soon.

 

As one commentator pointed out, liberal Dems actually really believe in their Leftist values and will staunchly fight for them while most Republicans seem to have very few values they hold dear and are willing to fight for. On the occasions when Dems take some heat, they simply repackage their message and press on, while Republicans cower and cave.

 

Instead of learning from their mistakes of nominating liberal leaning candidates for president the past two elections and suffering defeat, the Republican Party leadership wants to continue more of the same. What is needed now is a candidate who is clearly, even starkly different from the Dem candidate but the Repub leadership rejects that idea in favor of their belief they need a candidate to the Left of McCain and Romney. They certainly aren't concerned with what the Repub base wants as the past two presidential elections have shown the base is greatly divided, unable and unwilling to come together and support any of the more conservative candidates, but most are willing to vote for the more liberal candidate once they have the nomination.

 

The Repub Party is walking just a few steps behind the Dems and just slightly to their right, but it seems they are trying hard to catch up to the Dems.

[HappyChristian]

No, an amendment is not necessary.  Education is.  The 9th and 10th amendments already cover it.  But not enough people understand it.  (other than that - and the Bush reference, because DOMA was in effect then - I agree with your post   )

[John81]

No, an amendment is not necessary.  Education is.  The 9th and 10th amendments already cover it.  But not enough people understand it.  (other than that - and the Bush reference, because DOMA was in effect then - I agree with your post   )

The 9th and 10th amendments are virtually dead. There have been so-called education campaigns going on about this for decades but the majority of voters don't care and federal politicians like them dead. If the 9th or 10th amendment were accepted to cover a major issue, which homosexual "rights" and "marriage" has become, that would open the whole can of worms for lawsuits to legislation to pour forth to get the same to apply to the plethora of other matters where the Fed violates those amendments.

 

Myself, I doubt that even a specific amendment passed to deal with this issue would resolve the matter. Just as other amendments, and the Constitution itself, has been and continues to be routinely ignored and twisted away, eventually the same would happen with a new amendment.

 

One of the main problems is that the homosexual issue isn't really one of politics, but of the heart. The heart of most politicians and an ever growing number of Americans is against that which is godly and toward secular humanism. This has even infected many churches as one constantly hears Christians saying they believe homosexuality is wrong but they believe homosexuals have a right to do what they want. As most of us know, when talking to folks these days many people have an "I don't care" attitude regarding homosexual "rights" or they instantly think someone a bigot for even discussing there might be something wrong with homosexuals "having the same rights as everyone else".

 

So long as our people continue to turn away from Christianity, the Bible and Christian principles, the country will continue to embrace more and more sin, wickedness and evil no matter what the law says. As we've seen over the past several decades, many laws which were grounded in biblical principle have been declared unconstitutional or otherwise discarded or voted away. Laws America had in place to keep homosexuality, abortion, adultery and many other things from rising from the fringes all failed as people moved away from hearts at least bent toward Christian principle to hearts bent toward humanism and hedonism.

 

Nothing short of a major revival or great awakening stands a chance of stemming the tide. America is moving more and more towards the ideology of Israel during the time of the judges. If laws stand in their way of "anything goes", they ignore them or change them, all with the goal of making it so everyone can do what's right in their own eyes, in the name of democracy and freedom.

[HappyChristian]

I agree revival is needed.  But disagree that the 9th and 10th amendments are virtually dead.  That is what the feds would like us to believe, and too many Americans sit back and let them assert power.

[ThePilgrim]

I think the question is should the government be involved in the marriage business in the first place.  I pretty much agree with this man's opinion of the matter.

 

"Five Reasons Why Christians Should Not

Obtain a State Marriage License

by Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, “everybody else gets one.” This pamphlet attempts to answer the question—why shouldn’t we go get one?

 

1. The definition of a “license” demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.” Why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? Why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says “no.” You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition “confers a right” to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

 

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

 

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, “your marriage license and their birth certificates.” Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

 

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical, immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

 

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State—literally! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of idolatry for me to do so.

 

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”

 

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

 

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parent’s authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

 

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, “You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission.” If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying of a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parent’s authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

 

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are literally a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State. Though many doubt you when you say this, nevertheless, it is true.

 

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled “With This Ring I Thee Wed.” It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle “Marriage Vows” states, “Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio.”

 

See, the State knows, the lawyers know, that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to God and your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State, and you are giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

 

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons—1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it doesn’t prosecute for adultery.

 

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses, and that is why witnesses should be recorded both on the marriage certificate itself and by keeping the wedding day guest book.

 

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

 

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington was married without a marriage license. Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

 

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would be illegal.

 

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

 

Give the State an inch and they’ll take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

 

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, “If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married.” Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, “If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license—who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license?” In reality, this contention that one is not really married unless they obtain a marriage license just reveals how Statist we have become in our thinking. We need to think biblically.

 

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

 

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as a legally binding document in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we."

 

 

God bless,

Larry

[heartstrings]

 

"Five Reasons Why Christians Should Not

Obtain a State Marriage License

 

One reason why they should

1 Peter 2: 13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

 

Oh yes, back on topic....

I still ain't voting for any 'gay marriage' supporters.