Same-sex Marriage Debacle Part 6
The Wake-up Herald
And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof. Romans 13:11-14
Robert McCurry, Editor & Publisher
June 1, 2012
"Same-sex marriage" Debacle
by Robert McCurry
Court: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional;
Sodomy, same-sex marriage, constitutional
The terms ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ are incongruous; an ‘oxymoron’; ‘misnomer.’
oxymoron n. = a rhetorical device or figure of speech in which contradictory or opposite words or concepts are combined for effect.
misnomer n. = an incorrect or unsuitable name or term for a person or thing.
So-called ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ are contemporary, New Age legal fiction terms invented by secular religious illusionists; terms that would have been anathema in the not-too-distant past; terms that are now main-stream and bolstered by political, judicial and religious endorsements and activism.
Tobin Grant May 31, 2012, Christianity Today:
"The First Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Massachusetts, said that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) imposes a burden on both states and couples without a legitimate federal purpose. The decision is expected to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.
According to the court decision, DOMA affects more than 1,000 references to marriage in federal laws. As a result, same-sex couples who are married in U.S. states are denied substantial benefits from the federal government. Same-sex couples cannot file joint federal tax returns. Spouses cannot collect Social Security survivor benefits. Federal employees cannot share their health insurance with their spouses.
The First Circuit ruled that the burden placed on the more than 100,000 same-sex couples could not be justified. It rejected the argument that the underlying purpose of DOMA was “hostility toward homosexuality.” Support for traditional marriage, said the Court, did not mean moral disapproval of same-sex couples.
“Traditions are the glue that holds society together, and many of our own traditions rest largely on belief and familiarity--not on benefits firmly provable in court. The desire to retain them is strong and can be honestly held,” the court said.
Morality, too, was not a legitimate reason to define federal marriage as the union between one man and one woman. When passing DOMA, Congress said, “Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.”
The First Circuit cited the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (June 26, 2003), which ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. The Lawrence opinion said that morality was an insufficient justification for regulating homosexuality.
The First Circuit said that if the goal of DOMA was to strengthen and protect heterosexual marriage, then DOMA was a “poor remedy” to the problem. It ruled that Congress failed to show “any demonstrated connection between DOMA's treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage.”
Immediately following the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling, I wrote the following in my national Temple Times publication: June 26, 2003 must surely be one of the darkest and most grievous days in American history. On that day the United States Supreme Court struck down age-old sodomy laws in Texas and thirteen other states. In an angry dissent delivered from the bench Justice Antonia Scalia asserted that the majority opinion (which overturned the Court's own 1986 ruling upholding a Georgia statue that banned sodomy) "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation."
The decision threatens a "massive disruption of the current social order,” Scalia wrote, arguing that the ruling could pave the way for same-sex marriages and undercut laws banning bigamy, adult incest, prostitution, and other unlawful sexual acts. "Today's opinion is the product of a Court that has largely signed on to the so-called Homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote.
This court decision is an alarm and wake-up call to America, especially to Bible-believing pastors and churches everywhere. The Court's shameless defiance of God and His Word and its declaration that the wickedness of sodomy is "legal" should cause every Bible-believing pastor to call his church to prayer and fasting for God's mercy and protection in the face of this crisis and as danger and evil rise to flood stage.
Wake up, preachers! Wake up, Christians! Wake up, America!
Nine years later my warnings are now reality! And, sadly, there’s more yet to come.
The root cause of this abysmal sodomite catastrophe? Silent and passive pastors and churches!
Wake-up, Pastors! Wake-up, Christians!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Wake-Up Herald is published by Robert McCurry. The publication is designed to exalt the true God of the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and inform, inspire, and challenge its readers regarding biblical truth and real-life issues. The contents are the sole responsibility of Robert McCurry and do not represent or speak for or on behalf of any other person or group. There is no subscription charge. The publication is a ministry of faith dependent on the contributions of its readers. Contributions are not tax-deductible. Send all correspondence to: Robert McCurry,605 Moore Rd, Newnan, GA 30263 or firstname.lastname@example.org Remove? Send reply with “remove” in Subject line