| |
I read a great article in Wisconsin Christian News last week by Julaine
Appling of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin ( www.fri-wi.org
). You can too, by clicking the link:. http://www.wisconsinchristiannews.com
On the National level the Constitution Party is against the Federal
Marriage Amendment but here in Wisconsin the CPoW is in favor of our
own version of a Defense Of Marriage Amendment to the State Constitution.
From a national perspective the Party line is that the federal government
has no business dictating a moral code to the states because that is
not part of the duties and responsibilities outlined in the Constitution.
Also, former president Clinton signed the federal Defense Of Marriage
Act in 1996, effectively defining marriage as between one man and one
woman, although that legislation has yet to come before the United States
Supreme Court on a Constitutional test. I think it was done more to
prevent people from other countries having their unholy union recognized
here - but don't quote me on that since I haven't researched it.
In following the Party line on the National level I believed (past tense)
the same would be true for the State, that it would be a bad idea to
amend the Constitution because once the government defines something,
it can then redefine it at some point down the road.
Well, after reading what Julaine wrote in her article I had to reconsider
my opinion. At the state level I now understand the need to define marriage
in our State Constitution and I will support the amendment when it comes
up for a vote in November. More importantly, I will help promote the
passage of this amendment from now until the election since most people's
minds will be made up prior to stepping into the voting booth.
However, while I understand and support the need for this it thoroughly
disgusts me that it is necessary.
Marriage is ordained by God and has been since the beginning of time.
So why do we now need to absolutely, positively tell people that Wisconsinites
define marriage the same way God does?
Well, think of the last time you went to a wedding ceremony. At the
end of the service you probably heard these famous words from the pastor
/ preacher / minister / priest / justice - "and now, by the power
vested in me BY THE STATE OF ... I pronounce you...". The State
has usurped the God-ordained and is now in the business of defining
a thing it never "owned" in the first place.
I'm studying Genesis with my men's group right now and one of the commentaries
I've been using made a great point. In Genesis chapter 2 God allows
Adam to name all the creatures of the earth. This is because God has
given man dominion over the earth and part of the authority that goes
with this position is the right to name, or define, the things under
his authority.
Since the State requires a marriage license to be purchased before a
couple can unite in matrimony, the State, as owner of the certificate
granting marriage, can absolutely define what a marriage is. So it is
perfectly natural for our legislators to want to amend our Constitution
to absolutely, positively define marriage. Of course, that means at
some point down the road they can, and probably, sadly, will redefine
it but with legislation rather than an amendment.
If it's illegal to hunt, fish or drive a vehicle without a state license,
then is it really illegal to get married without one? Those who oppose
the amendment want you to believe that, but in reality it isn't "illegal"
as much as it is "unrecognized" by the State. People don't
go to jail for getting married without a marriage license, they just
can't partake in any of the benefits of a legally recognized marriage,
such as submitting your tax return as "married filing jointly".
Where have we let ourselves go? To what dark place do we live in? Think
about this for a moment - if a marriage is authorized by state law rather
than natural law then who is responsible for the marriage? And since
the product of marriage is typically children, who "owns"
the product of state ordained, state licensed marriage? I can see you
squirming right about now, but it goes deeper.
When a child is born in a hospital the attending physician is required
by law to fill out a Record of Live Birth. Who gets that record? Not
the parents, all we receive is a form from the hospital requiring us
to pay a fee to obtain a copy of the "birth certificate" from
the state. The Record of Live Birth goes to a government agency, typically
the Bureau of Vital Statistics, a division of the Department of Health
and Family Services here in Wisconsin.
And, when that child is born the hospital is also required to file a
request for a Social Security number for that child, whether or not
the child was the product of a married couple.
Again I ask where have we let ourselves go? Once upon a time children
were born out of the blessed union between a man and a woman within
the bonds and confines of Holy matrimony, raised and educated by (usually)
loving parents until such a time that they were old enough and responsible
enough to leave their parents and be joined to their own spouse, beginning
the cycle a-new.
Children born today are more properly defined as products and possessions
of the State, according to all the licensing and registering that must
take place before a married couple have children! And it is pretty well
established that the government is the "second parent" in
a single-parent family situation since the support of that single parent
and those children comes from the government rather than a spouse.
And when a child turns 18 they are required to register with Selective
Service for a potential draft into the military. Whether that happens
or not, as youth come of age and begin to earn their own money in the
workforce they are already contributing to their taskmaster, the government,
through the federal withholding program thanks to that nine digit number
issued at birth.
DOMA's real objective? Supporters want you to believe that it is to
defend traditional marriage while those in opposition want you to believe
it is 'hate speech' directed solely against the homosexual crowd. In
my opinion there is an unholy agenda at work here that goes way beyond
the surface of this. As I've said, once the state defines a thing it
becomes easier to redefine it. In twenty, maybe fifty years, as our
society continues to slide down the slippery slope of moral decay, it
will be much easier for a different set of legislators to change the
definition of who can receive a license for marriage.
Although it has taken centuries to unfold we are now living in a time
more noticeably ruled by the evil one than at any point in history.
Attitudes and mindsets are changed with each generation. What was unthinkable
25 years ago is commonplace today so it is safe to assume the same will
hold true 25 years from now. Unless...
All I can do is look to God and remember His promise. Christ is coming
again as a triumphant King and He will put an end to this. Until then,
as a Christian I am told what to do in Matthew 28:19-20. As a parent
I am instructed in many places throughout the Bible on how to raise
my children.
But as a member of the Constitution Party the one thing I am concerned
with is seeing MY government returned to THE PEOPLE. We are a political
organization bound together by a common belief that the current system
of government is more of a socialist democracy than the representative
Republic it was set up to be. Our common goal is to elect statesmen
to office so we can return to our proud heritage and once again be the
land of the free.
If that means questioning every level of government and every piece
of federal or state law, and returning those things that rightfully
belong under the jurisdiction of natural law, then we certainly have
a daunting task ahead of us. And while we know Christ's return is imminent,
we do not know the day nor the hour so we must fight the good fight
until such a time as He has appointed.
The battle is before us, many battles in fact, and the time for action
is at hand. Stand up with your brothers and sisters in battle, whom
ever they may be, whatever church they may attend! The Constitution
Party must remain focused on our common political enemy and seek to
win elected office or all our time and effort thus far will have been
for nought.
|
|
