PDA

View Full Version : Chuck Baldwin: A Solution For The Same-Sex Marriage Problem




William Tell
09-24-2015, 09:31 AM
Right now, the liberty movement is divided almost in half between those favoring the SCOTUS ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and those opposed (count me in the opposed camp). So, right now, the liberty movement is completely stymied over this issue. The only ones who win in such a case are big-government Orwellians.



To be sure, the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” was the result of decades of relentless propaganda from the national news media, liberal politicians, and college professors throughout America.



Think about it: what do Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor know that John Locke, Thomas More, Emer de Vattel, Algernon Sidney, William Rawle, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, William Penn, James Wilson, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams, John Jay, Daniel Webster, Francis Scott Key, Hugo Black, Rutherford B. Hayes, and William O. Douglas didn’t know?



In other words, just as in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion-on-demand, the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex “marriage” was judicial activism pure and simple. There were no precedents for either decision. Think of the brilliant minds in law, philosophy, and religion over two thousand years of Western Civilization that somehow missed the “right” of homosexuals to “marry.”



What I’m saying is, I realize that militant homosexuals, ultra-leftists, and judicial activists have been waging war on America’s historic Christian values for decades--and they won a huge victory with the Obergefell decision. I also understand that these people will never be satisfied until they have totally and thoroughly expunged these values from America’s public life. There is no question they will resort to any tactic--no matter how morally unjust or constitutionally corrupt--to achieve their radical, amoral agenda. Kim Davis will not be the last Christian to be persecuted for her faith in this country.



That said, the Obergefell decision has successfully divided the liberty movement almost in half, between those who agree with the decision (on whatever grounds) and those who disagree. But, instead of arguing over the SCOTUS decision, here is what ALL OF US in the liberty movement should be doing: we should be using whatever influence we have to promote the idea of taking marriage OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE STATE ALTOGETHER.



Most of us realize that marriage is sacred; that it's much more than just a civil contract. (Only the state itself reinvented marriage as being merely a civil contract.) One doesn't have to be a Christian to acknowledge this distinction. Throughout the history of Western Civilization, the state seldom had authority over marriage. Think of it: for over 1,800 years of Western Civilization, the state had little--if anything--to do with marriage. (In America, only the colony of Massachusetts is recorded as requiring State marriage licenses before the mid-nineteenth century.)



So, why do we even look to the state for a license to marry? The fact is, WE SHOULDN'T. All of the bickering over Obergefell only serves to ensconce the notion that the state has legitimate authority over marriage. IT DOESN’T.



In Pilgrim America and in Colonial America--and until only recently in modern America--Common Law (Natural Law) marriage was universally recognized as being, not only lawful, but sacrosanct. The idea of asking the state for permission to marry was as absurd as asking the state for permission to take communion or to be baptized.



For example, the State of Pennsylvania didn’t outlaw Common Law marriage until 2005. And the only reason the vast majority of states do not recognize Common Law marriage today is because the Church has completely surrendered the Scriptural teaching on the subject and has willingly (even happily) turned what is uniquely a divine institution over to the state.



In other words, ladies and gentlemen, the only one to blame for the decision of the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage is THE CHURCH. The ultra-leftists and militant homosexuals would have had NO CHANCE of achieving victory at the Supreme Court had the churches of America been doing their job over the last half-century or more to educate people on the historic Natural Law principles governing marriage and the state. (Virtually ALL of the major problems we are dealing with today are the result of the absence of sound instruction from the pulpits of America.)



But since the Church’s surrender of the sanctity of marriage, here is the current reality: 40 states do not legally recognize Common Law marriage. That means, those 40 states see only the state as having authority over marriage. But the state has NO AUTHORITY over marriage and cannot legally sanction ANY marriage. I remind you Jesus said, "What therefore God hath joined together . . . ." Only GOD can join couples in marriage.



The best that I can determine, these are the 10 states that still recognize Common Law marriage: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Texas, Utah, and Oklahoma. And Utah only seems to recognize Common Law marriage after the fact. In addition, Oklahoma is currently in the process of banning all State marriage licenses. This is exactly what all 50 states should do. (New Hampshire recognizes Common Law marriage for inheritance purposes only; so it should not be included as a Common Law State.)



So, including Utah, the people in ten states are free to marry WITHOUT a State license. And that's exactly what every freedomist in those states should start promoting--and promoting LOUDLY. And freedomists in the other 40 states should start demanding that their State legislatures once again recognize Common Law marriage. Maybe people in those states should even consider civil disobedience and marry outside the licensing authority of the State. After all, if God has joined a man and woman together, what difference does it make if the State--or anyone else--recognizes it or not? If enough pastors and churches would do this, it wouldn't take long for State legislatures to enact appropriate legislation.



Let the state recognize or not recognize to its heart's content; let it embrace all of the perversion it wants. You can bet polygamy will be legalized next. And then what? Pedophilia? Bestiality? At some point, the sacred institutions of marriage and the Church will be forced to separate themselves from a suicidal society just as they did when the Roman Empire was collapsing. In Rome--as in oppressed nations today--Christians and churches mostly took their worship and sacred ceremonies underground. And, if history teaches anything, it teaches us that no civilization has long survived after socially embracing aberrant sexual behaviors. And America won’t either.



Let's face it: the federal government in D.C. is leading America over an economic, political, moral, and cultural cliff. So, why do we keep looking to D.C. to fix the problem? THEY WON'T DO IT. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem."



And the two institutions we should IMMEDIATELY extract from government--the two institutions that should have NEVER been allowed to be placed under the authority of government to begin with--are the institutions of marriage and the Church.



How in the name of common sense can pastors and churches take a Scriptural stand on the sanctity of marriage when they have allowed the Church itself to be bastardized by accepting the 501c3 tax-exempt organization status from Washington, D.C., and incorporation status from the states?



Think of it: our spiritual “leaders” have allowed the two most sacred institutions on earth (marriage and the Church) to be prostituted on the altar of state recognition. Think of it another way: our 501c3 pastors have become little more than pimps for the IRS and, now, a radical, activist Supreme Court. Do pastors really want Caesar’s blessing that badly?



Regarding marriage: we should marry under Natural Law (Common Law) ONLY.



Regarding the Church: it should be removed from 501c3 non-profit organization and State incorporation status--and if the pastor and church refuse to extract themselves, we should extract ourselves from THEM.



We either "come out" from this leviathan or we will be swallowed by it.



Yes, the radical left and militant homosexuals will continue to press their anti-Christian agenda with every means possible. Yes, those of us who have Christian, traditional and moralist convictions are going to be forced to defend these historic principles tooth and nail. But there can be no victory whatsoever by willfully surrendering the Natural Law principles upon which our convictions are predicated. Neither can there be victory by pretending that Caesar’s law is Supreme Law, because it’s not! There is a Court above the court. There is a King above kings. There is a Law above law.



Our founders gave their lives in order to bequeath to us a country in which we didn’t have to decide between obeying God and obeying government, as this constitutional republic was designed to protect our duty to God. Current national leaders--facilitated by America’s spiritual leaders--are taking that wonderful bequeathment away from us.



Therefore, say it anyway you want, “Don’t tread on me,” or “We must obey God rather than men,” but say it we must. And if Christian men and women cannot say it in defense of the sanctity and autonomy of marriage and the Church, they cannot say it at all.





P.S. I have a four-message DVD that I believe is absolutely essential for Christian people--and others who believe in our founding principles--to help them understand Natural Law. The title of the DVD series is “Liberty And Law.” Here are the message titles:



*Biblical Evidence for Natural Law (I show you the Scriptural evidence for Natural Law in this message.)



*Christ’s Law of The Sword (This message explains what Christ meant when He told Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matt. 26:52, KJV) Believe me, He did NOT mean that Christians are supposed to lay down their means of self-defense and never use the sword. I show from the Scriptures exactly what Jesus was saying to Peter. And, trust me, it will probably surprise you, as I doubt you have been taught this truth in church. And it will also help you to better understand a whole host of other scriptural principles as a result.)



*The Law of Necessity (This is a basic Natural Law principle that was demonstrated repeatedly throughout the Bible, including by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.)



*Liberty in Law (There is true liberty only in Law; but this Law does not ALWAYS mean the laws of men.)



This is one of the most important message-series I have ever delivered. And its truths are needed as much NOW as they were when our pastors thundered them forth in the churches of Colonial America--maybe more so.



To order my DVD, “Liberty And Law,” go here:

Liberty And Law (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Store/LibertyAndLawDVD.aspx)

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3364/A-Solution-For-The-Same-Sex-Marriage-Problem.aspx

H. E. Panqui
09-24-2015, 01:41 PM
chuck bible thumps: 'Neither can there be victory by pretending that Caesar’s law is Supreme Law, because it’s not! There is a Court above the court. There is a King above kings. There is a Law above law.' ​

:confused:

(...of course, in that great 'Court above the court' :rolleyes: chuck is always innocent...and chuck is a 'judge' equal to or better than all other 'judges'...;)...

...i have a hard time with chuck and the constipation party...chuck and the rest of the republicrat prohibitionists still haven't apologized for their absolutely monstrous support of 'drug prohibition,' etc. stoooooooooopidity, ad nauseam...chuck, like the rest of 'them' is ineffective in getting at the root$--he's probably ignorant--of the private, commercial bankster control over our money, 'economy,' etc..if he were effective and enlightened about said banksters he would spend a lot more time talking about/expo$ing banksters and a lot less time braying about homosexuals, etc. pig-headed bible thumping issues galore...;)

euphemia
09-24-2015, 01:55 PM
Revoking tax exempt status would be a little bit difficult. Those who give to their church have already been taxed on that money. To then tax the church on its income would not seem quite fair. Other tax exempt organizations, like Planned Parenthood, also receive money from the government, yet they pay no taxes on donated dollars.

Churches have a need to maintain facilities--especially in urban areas--so they can offer ministry to the homeless and hungry. Our church isn't in an urban area, yet, in winters they send transportation to the city so they can bring homeless people to the church to come sleep in the church and be out of the cold. They are also provided with a hot meal, shower facilities, and breakfast and a sack lunch the next day. Without a facility, it would be impossible to provide that. There is not a public shelter for the homeless in town. They are all run by Christian churches or Christian organizations. If churches were forced to pay taxes on their income and property, it would make it all the harder to provide for the needs of the poor. It is already expensive enough to have a facility for worship and fellowship in some areas because the zoning regulations are so rigid.

If church members did not already pay taxes, it would not be a problem to give more to the church. And just so you know, pastors and those who make a living through a church ministry are considered self employed for the purposes of personal taxation. The government does not recognize God as an employer. So the people who make very little are taxed at a very high rates. Churches can offer the compensation package in a way that relieves the tax burden somewhat, but the staff ministers still pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than most people in the church.

phill4paul
09-24-2015, 02:23 PM
Chuck's finally getting around to "getting it?" Did he ever "get it" before the SCOTUS decision or were things all hunky-dory back then?

ClydeCoulter
09-24-2015, 02:31 PM
chuck bible thumps: 'Neither can there be victory by pretending that Caesar’s law is Supreme Law, because it’s not! There is a Court above the court. There is a King above kings. There is a Law above law.' ​

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

(...of course, in that great 'Court above the court' http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif chuck is always innocent...and chuck is a 'judge' equal to or better than all other 'judges'...http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif...

...i have a hard time with chuck and the constipation party...chuck and the rest of the republicrat prohibitionists still haven't apologized for their absolutely monstrous support of 'drug prohibition,' etc. stoooooooooopidity, ad nauseam...chuck, like the rest of 'them' is ineffective in getting at the root$--he's probably ignorant--of the private, commercial bankster control over our money, 'economy,' etc..if he were effective and enlightened about said banksters he would spend a lot more time talking about/expo$ing banksters and a lot less time braying about homosexuals, etc. pig-headed bible thumping issues galore...http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

@H.E.Pannqui,

You don't know who Chuck Baldwin is, do you?

You just spoke about him doing something if only he were more informed on issues, and don't even know that he has been educating and pushing against those very things that you rant about and "Assume" he doesn't.

A simple "google" could have saved you a lot of typing out of ignorance.

William Tell
09-24-2015, 02:31 PM
Chuck's finally getting around to "getting it?" Did he ever "get it" before the SCOTUS decision or were things all hunky-dory back then?

I dunno what you mean, he's been against marriage licenses for at least 4 years. He's not like most pastors at all.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFhtKSJ3zIQ

Kade
09-24-2015, 02:32 PM
Can someone explain to me how a person can call themselves a member of the liberty movement and at the same time be opposed to gay marriage? It is pretty clear that this 'movement' has really become an extension of theocratic conservatism. How are those poll numbers doing?

phill4paul
09-24-2015, 02:37 PM
I dunno what you mean, he's been against marriage licenses for at least 4 years. He's not like most pastors at all.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFhtKSJ3zIQ

Oh, I was just wondering. From the op/ed it seemed like this was some kind of new revelation. Though, in truth it seems he should have been on the "government out of marriage" for a lot longer. Of course it was only eleven years ago that the first state allowed gay marriage. I'm probably gonna stay out on the limb here and go with my initial assessment that it is only because of the rise of gay marriage that he is against it now.

William Tell
09-24-2015, 02:47 PM
Oh, I was just wondering. From the op/ed it seemed like this was some kind of new revelation. Though, in truth it seems he should have been on the "government out of marriage" for a lot longer. Of course it was only eleven years ago that the first state allowed gay marriage. I'm probably gonna stay out on the limb here and go with my initial assessment that it is only because of the rise of gay marriage that he is against it now.
Nope, not new at all. He opposes having churches under 501C3 government control as well. He wrote a book on it. That's kind of his thing, one of his main focuses, and it has been for quite a while due to his beliefs.

William Tell
09-24-2015, 02:49 PM
Can someone explain to me how a person can call themselves a member of the liberty movement and at the same time be opposed to gay marriage? It is pretty clear that this 'movement' has really become an extension of theocratic conservatism. How are those poll numbers doing?

Lol. We can't disagree with anything if we are part of the liberty movement? We can't be against Cheetos, Sprite, or Pepsi either?

Kade
09-24-2015, 02:50 PM
Lol. We can't disagree with anything if we are part of the liberty movement? We can't be against Cheetos, Sprite, or Pepsi either?

I would assume you would have to stand for liberty, in a liberty movement. At the bare minimum...

euphemia
09-24-2015, 02:52 PM
For the record, I'm not saying churches should be tax exempt, but it's not the only problem with the tax code. I'm not thrilled about paying a truckload of taxes, then giving to a nonprofit group only to have them fork over a big chunk of that money to the federal government.

LibertyEagle
09-24-2015, 03:56 PM
I would assume you would have to stand for liberty, in a liberty movement. At the bare minimum...

I'm not for people "marrying" their pet goat, either.

Ender
09-24-2015, 04:20 PM
Revoking tax exempt status would be a little bit difficult. Those who give to their church have already been taxed on that money. To then tax the church on its income would not seem quite fair. Other tax exempt organizations, like Planned Parenthood, also receive money from the government, yet they pay no taxes on donated dollars.

Churches have a need to maintain facilities--especially in urban areas--so they can offer ministry to the homeless and hungry. Our church isn't in an urban area, yet, in winters they send transportation to the city so they can bring homeless people to the church to come sleep in the church and be out of the cold. They are also provided with a hot meal, shower facilities, and breakfast and a sack lunch the next day. Without a facility, it would be impossible to provide that. There is not a public shelter for the homeless in town. They are all run by Christian churches or Christian organizations. If churches were forced to pay taxes on their income and property, it would make it all the harder to provide for the needs of the poor. It is already expensive enough to have a facility for worship and fellowship in some areas because the zoning regulations are so rigid.

If church members did not already pay taxes, it would not be a problem to give more to the church. And just so you know, pastors and those who make a living through a church ministry are considered self employed for the purposes of personal taxation. The government does not recognize God as an employer. So the people who make very little are taxed at a very high rates. Churches can offer the compensation package in a way that relieves the tax burden somewhat, but the staff ministers still pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than most people in the church.

It's not about "revoking" tax-exempt status. Churches have always been tax-exempt, since before the Constitution.

It's about churches not becoming 501(c)3 corporations. That immediately puts them under the jurisdiction of the state. An unincorporated church is still tax-exempt and not a slave to the state.

euphemia
09-24-2015, 04:43 PM
I don't think any church I've ever belonged to was a 501(c)3. My husband has been on boards where the legal responsibility was on him and a group of laypeople. That may be something that would differentiate churches that are "owned" by higher church government as opposed to those who are congregationally governed. That's why I'm a little askance. 501(c)3 would be the same category as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. They are federally chartered. Living in the Buckle of the Bible Belt, what I hear is that most of the congregationally governed churches are passing by-laws to protect themselves from being forced to host or endorse any same-sex marriages

There are many who think churches should not be tax exempt in any way. If the government doesn't see God as an employer, then they really can't tax God for what is freely given to him.

Ender
09-24-2015, 06:21 PM
I don't think any church I've ever belonged to was a 501(c)3. My husband has been on boards where the legal responsibility was on him and a group of laypeople. That may be something that would differentiate churches that are "owned" by higher church government as opposed to those who are congregationally governed. That's why I'm a little askance. 501(c)3 would be the same category as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. They are federally chartered. Living in the Buckle of the Bible Belt, what I hear is that most of the congregationally governed churches are passing by-laws to protect themselves from being forced to host or endorse any same-sex marriages

There are many who think churches should not be tax exempt in any way. If the government doesn't see God as an employer, then they really can't tax God for what is freely given to him.

99.9% of all churches in the US are 501(c)3 corporations. They were fooled into this as THE right way to be tax-exempt, without realizing they already were lawfully tax-exempt w/o gov interference.

ClydeCoulter
09-24-2015, 08:29 PM
Lol. We can't disagree with anything if we are part of the liberty movement? We can't be against Cheetos, Sprite, or Pepsi either?

What? Cheetos? No liberty minded person can be against that! Especially the hot ones.

I think we will part here. ............................................:D

ClydeCoulter
09-24-2015, 08:30 PM
I voted for Chuck in '08. And I'm not even Christian. Opps, is that allowed in the liberty movement?

ClydeCoulter
09-24-2015, 08:31 PM
Oh, I was just wondering. From the op/ed it seemed like this was some kind of new revelation. Though, in truth it seems he should have been on the "government out of marriage" for a lot longer. Of course it was only eleven years ago that the first state allowed gay marriage. I'm probably gonna stay out on the limb here and go with my initial assessment that it is only because of the rise of gay marriage that he is against it now.

There's no need to defend something until is has been under attack.

But, I think he probably didn't think government should be involved, but it wasn't as big an issue.

I see marriage as a "label" that people used for a long time. Marriage was considered between a man and one or more women.

There were homosexuals as long as there has been heterosexuals, probably. But, the institution was based on heterosexuals. Then, the bible and Christianity and Islam and other religions came along and it became a "thing". Now that "thing" is being forced into "another thing". It's a mind fuck.

ClydeCoulter
09-24-2015, 08:39 PM
I dunno what you mean, he's been against marriage licenses for at least 4 years. He's not like most pastors at all.



He's a Ron Paul Pastor.

MelissaWV
09-24-2015, 08:49 PM
Can someone explain to me how a person can call themselves a member of the liberty movement and at the same time be opposed to gay marriage? It is pretty clear that this 'movement' has really become an extension of theocratic conservatism. How are those poll numbers doing?

I am opposed to Government marriage licensure on any level. You can still have marriage at the two extreme ends of the spectrum: churches can marry whomever they want (and REFUSE to marry whomever they want), while you can also draw up a legal contract between yourself and a spouse of your choosing and endeavor to make it as enforceable as possible. You could also just get together with your family around and say some words.

That only really works, though, if we get rid of a lot of the benefits tied to marriage and a lot of the discrimination that goes on if you aren't.

Ronin Truth
09-25-2015, 08:12 AM
Same-sex marriage has been nothing but a bogus fabricated non-issue from the very beginning. Just another meaningless power and control distraction and diversion.

How many folks are actually being affected and involved by this, nationwide?

William Tell
09-25-2015, 08:16 AM
What? Cheetos? No liberty minded person can be against that! Especially the hot ones.

I think we will part here. ............................................:D
Oh! I didn't say I was against Cheetos. It was just hypothetical.:o

phill4paul
09-25-2015, 08:19 AM
Same-sex marriage has been nothing but a bogus fabricated non-issue from the very beginning. Just another meaningless power and control distraction and diversion.

How many folks are actually being affected and involved by this, nationwide?

Dunno. I'd estimate between 100k and 300k.

Ronin Truth
09-25-2015, 08:52 AM
Dunno. I'd estimate between 100k and 300k.


Out of 300+ millions. Big WOO. :p :rolleyes:

phill4paul
09-25-2015, 10:46 AM
Out of 300+ millions. Big WOO. :p :rolleyes:

I could see that number rise to perhaps 2 million. Apparently it portends an extinction level event for the human population.

Christian Liberty
09-25-2015, 10:56 AM
Can someone explain to me how a person can call themselves a member of the liberty movement and at the same time be opposed to gay marriage? It is pretty clear that this 'movement' has really become an extension of theocratic conservatism. How are those poll numbers doing?


Lol. We can't disagree with anything if we are part of the liberty movement? We can't be against Cheetos, Sprite, or Pepsi either?

Yeah, this segment of the "liberty" movement is a joke. The only "liberty" that matters to these types of people is the liberty to be a pervert, and it doesn't even matter if you try to use "liberty" to enforce your perversion on others (which is what gay "marriage" is being used for.)

And if you can't support Chuck Baldwin because he's a social conservative... yeah we don't have much in common. This guy is a Ron Paul guy. He's solid. I don't agree with him on everything, but hey, I don't agree with anybody on everything.

H. E. Panqui
09-25-2015, 11:50 AM
@H.E.Pannqui,

You don't know who Chuck Baldwin is, do you?

You just spoke about him doing something if only he were more informed on issues, and don't even know that he has been educating and pushing against those very things that you rant about and "Assume" he doesn't.

A simple "google" could have saved you a lot of typing out of ignorance.

:rolleyes:

(...?your bible-thumper, baldwin, is the standard-bearer for the stinking, republican-mutation, constipation party...the stinking platform of your stinking constipation party includes, for one of many stinking things, the following:

The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

...also, i've never heard him, or any of the other gd puppet presidential wannabees, ever clearly expose, 'the debt that ought not to be debt'...(see jerry voorhis)

...a lot of simple google searches could have saved you from apologizing for/defending goddamned awful fool constipation party republicrats... ;)

Brian4Liberty
09-25-2015, 11:57 AM
Chuck Baldwin: A Solution For The Same-Sex Marriage Problem

Sorry Chuck, even if this is a "problem" (which is debatable), it is such a minor thing on the greater list of problems that it doesn't warrant a minute of our time.

Yes, the activist court and Constitutional process and interpretation is an issue, but that is an overarching and separate issue.

Ronin Truth
09-25-2015, 11:59 AM
I could see that number rise to perhaps 2 million. Apparently it portends an extinction level event for the human population.

5 billion fewer human population, really works for me. About what it was in 1900.

Voluntarist
09-25-2015, 01:27 PM
xxxxx

Tywysog Cymru
09-25-2015, 02:14 PM
Baldwin continues to be great, despite a few disagreements I've had with him most of what he says is right and he's not afraid to tell the truth.

pcosmar
09-25-2015, 07:39 PM
I'm not for people "marrying" their pet goat, either.

Neither am I.
And I do not believe that God would sanction it even if the state issued a valid license to do so.

So regardless of what the State called it,, or what some people would call it,, it is not a marriage.

It is not even an issue for me.. like as total irrelevance.

Start treating State Licenses as exactly what they are.

Drivers licenses do not make good or safe drivers.. nor do they prevent bad ones.
Barbers licenses do not make good barbers, or guarantee a good haircut.
And a Marriage License does not make a marriage.

It does not matter. Quit trying to pretend it does.

Brett85
09-25-2015, 08:34 PM
Can someone explain to me how a person can call themselves a member of the liberty movement and at the same time be opposed to gay marriage? It is pretty clear that this 'movement' has really become an extension of theocratic conservatism. How are those poll numbers doing?

Perhaps because you don't have to be a libertarian to be a part of the liberty movement? Ron Paul had a large number of supporters who were old right paleoconservatives.

Heck, Ron Paul was never in favor of gay marriage either. Does that mean that Ron Paul isn't even part of the liberty movement?

H. E. Panqui
09-26-2015, 10:18 AM
...(help me out folks...how do i get william tell off my back?...i mean i can hardly express an honest, validated opinion on THE RON PAUL FORUMS without getting a red mark from this obviously naive, tongue-clucking republicrat...:confused:

...WILLIAM, i bet it's your diet!...more fresh veggies, fruit, good water, exercise, good humor and positive thinking!!...much less msg, aspartame, republicrattery, ludwiggery, neg-repping of panqui, etc..;)

pcosmar
09-26-2015, 01:19 PM
Heck, Ron Paul was never in favor of gay marriage either. Does that mean that Ron Paul isn't even part of the liberty movement?

He was not in favor of State Marriage. Period.
The state has no business denying nor approving of any marriage. Period. (the ability to approve is the ability to deny)

heavenlyboy34
09-26-2015, 02:14 PM
:rolleyes:

(...?your bible-thumper, baldwin, is the standard-bearer for the stinking, republican-mutation, constipation party...the stinking platform of your stinking constipation party includes, for one of many stinking things, the following:

The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

...also, i've never heard him, or any of the other gd puppet presidential wannabees, ever clearly expose, 'the debt that ought not to be debt'...(see jerry voorhis)

...a lot of simple google searches could have saved you from apologizing for/defending goddamned awful fool constipation party republicrats... ;)
IIRC, Chuck parts ways with his party on the drug issue. Someone better informed, plz correct me if I'm mistaken.

euphemia
09-26-2015, 03:35 PM
99.9% of all churches in the US are 501(c)3 corporations. They were fooled into this as THE right way to be tax-exempt, without realizing they already were lawfully tax-exempt w/o gov interference.

It might be that way for 99% of churches where the larger denomination owns the property, but it's not always the case for independent, congregationally governed churches.

euphemia
09-26-2015, 03:39 PM
Can someone explain to me how a person can call themselves a member of the liberty movement and at the same time be opposed to gay marriage? It is pretty clear that this 'movement' has really become an extension of theocratic conservatism. How are those poll numbers doing?

Of course we can be opposed to same-sex marriage. Some of us, from a postion of religious conviction, do not think the federal government should be defining marriage, or determining eligibility. To be quite honest, government discourages marriage between poor people because the government only benefits when someone with assets dies.

People who want marriage *equality* will find out it's not so great at tax time, when one of them dies, or when they decide they don't want to be married any more.

Brett85
09-26-2015, 08:01 PM
He was not in favor of State Marriage. Period.
The state has no business denying nor approving of any marriage. Period. (the ability to approve is the ability to deny)

Sure, and that's the position that Chuck takes as well. But the person I was responding to made it sound like you can't be a libertarian if you don't support state sponsored gay marriage. He criticized Chuck Baldwin and others like him for not supporting state sponsored gay marriage. So I was just responding to his comment which seemed way off base.

Ender
09-26-2015, 10:12 PM
It might be that way for 99% of churches where the larger denomination owns the property, but it's not always the case for independent, congregationally governed churches.

My ministry in unincorporated, but I know very few other churches that are.

Sola_Fide
09-26-2015, 11:47 PM
chuck bible thumps: 'Neither can there be victory by pretending that Caesar’s law is Supreme Law, because it’s not! There is a Court above the court. There is a King above kings. There is a Law above law.' ​

:confused:

(...of course, in that great 'Court above the court' :rolleyes: chuck is always innocent...and chuck is a 'judge' equal to or better than all other 'judges'...;)...

Huh? He was talking about God, not himself.

Theocrat
09-27-2015, 07:32 AM
Can someone explain to me how a person can call themselves a member of the liberty movement and at the same time be opposed to gay marriage? It is pretty clear that this 'movement' has really become an extension of theocratic conservatism. How are those poll numbers doing?

Kade, that's easy: liberty is a gift from God (not from nature, human rulers, nor human institutions), and since God created man and woman, after His own likeness and image, to complement each other in marriage, He has the supreme authority to regulate what their sexual behavior ought to be, towards that end. Marriage is a gift from God, and we use liberty to marry whom we want without coercion nor authorization by those who wish to supplant God's sovereignty (like our current state and federal governments).

Kade
09-28-2015, 08:08 AM
Of course we can be opposed to same-sex marriage. Some of us, from a postion of religious conviction, do not think the federal government should be defining marriage, or determining eligibility. To be quite honest, government discourages marriage between poor people because the government only benefits when someone with assets dies.

People who want marriage *equality* will find out it's not so great at tax time, when one of them dies, or when they decide they don't want to be married any more.

Is this what you actually believe? It is convenient for the religious to go immediately to the "they won't like it' argument, or far worse, an appeal to consequences fallacy. While the government is, in fact, defining marriage, equality is a must. That is all that matters. The laundry list of benefits that are unfairly denied include such things as estate inheritance, family partnership filing, veteran's and military benefits, medical decisions, employment (family leave, bereavement, worker's comp, etc), adoption or foster rights, family zoning housing, and a litany of rights associated with the "right to sue" (wrongful death, communications privileges, etc).

Please spare us the weeping heart. At least have the fortitude to admit that you are opposed to for religious reasons, and that it is a pure example of being unable to tolerate 'freedom for the rest'.

When all things are fair, and these things are outside the government, then you can, by all means, go on being against your church supporting whatever partnerships it wants...

Kade
09-28-2015, 08:09 AM
Kade, that's easy: liberty is a gift from God (not from nature, human rulers, nor human institutions), and since God created man and woman, after His own likeness and image, to complement each other in marriage, He has the supreme authority to regulate what their sexual behavior ought to be, towards that end. Marriage is a gift from God, and we use liberty to marry whom we want without coercion nor authorization by those who wish to supplant God's sovereignty (like our current state and federal governments).

Well, as you don't need me to remind you, Faith is 'believe without evidence'; and there is no god or gods.

H. E. Panqui
09-28-2015, 10:42 AM
sola fide writes: Huh? He was talking about God, not himself.

:confused:


(sola fide, i believe you can be forced to admit/acknowledge that "god" (one letter away from 'good') is a VERY personal, individual concept... so when chuck or you or anyone else is invoking 'god' you are doing so in your own unique interpretation...affected by your VERY personal, individual experiences, prejudices, ignorance, insight, fears, hopes, etc. ad gd nauseam...so chuck and ?you and every other bible, torah, koran, etc. ad gd nauseam, thumpers are always ALWAYS talking about yourselves when you are 'talking about "god"'... ;)

...kade has exposed the constipated republicrats so clearly even i, the great panqui, ;) will find it hard to add anything of value..but, of course, i'll try...;)

Rad
10-01-2015, 06:15 PM
The government shouldn't regulate marriage period as long as it is between consenting adults.