Bride, the church, marriage is a picture of the promise. Ephesians number five 3132 says for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined and the two shall become one flesh. You dont have to dash buchanans choose to embrace, god designed men and women were you can reject all of that and you can make your own alternative truth, but you cannot exchange what god has spoken and verified in nature, many have tried and history documents that folly. In the past, stating such a position was known as practicing religious freedom and freedom of speech. And thousands if not millions whose faith and conscience will not allow them to respect any decision that fundamentally rejects god his word and the natural order. If majority redefines marriage thousands of christians will respectfully refuse to acknowledge such a ruling has any jurisdiction over their lives. In the spirit of Martin Luther king we will do any attempt to enforce such a ruling isnt just. More importantly
Whatever happened to abraham lincolns pronouncement in the gettysburg address at hours that the government of the people, by the people and for the people. We make the decisions for ourselves. It is rapidly being replaced now by a government of the courts, by the courts and for the courts. Let me get to the bottom line. If the u. S. Supreme Court Redefines Marriage to an good samesex marriage, we all know you and i all know that this will not be the end of the matter. An avalanche of court cases will be filed unrelated issues that we can even imagine today. We believe or should i say i believe that religious liberty will be insolvent from every side. Indeed, that authority happened. Pastors may have to officiate samesex marriages and they could he prohibited from passages of scripture. Those who refuse to comply will likely be threatened legally and as the years go by, some will be subjected to prison sentences. Christians who operate as mrs. Will be required to dance to the government
Hard to think of any other kind of law where you can discriminate in that type of rational way. It doesnt lend itself to the economic regulation. The proponents of the amendment in the perry case, the natural argument and the things that got the attorney justice appeased, and they made a joke about it. They werent taking this argument particularly seriously. Theres been a lot of focus on the Supreme Court decisions but theres a real history that the court has had in addressing access to marriage that includes permitting people who dont pay Child Support to be able to marry, permitting individuals who are prison to be able to marry while they are in prison. There is this really huge issue that the Supreme Court has viewed marriage over 40 times over a couple hundred years. The court has consistently found that we have to give huge to individuals who are willing to marry. Theyre not interested in picking out who should and should not have access to the institution. The other piece of thi