"HOLY" MATRIMONY ADMINISTERED BY A SATANIC STATE

June 29, 2015

"Holy" matrimony administered by a Satanic state

By Donald Hank

Karl Denninger, who normally writes about secular stuff like economics, just wrote a particularly thought-provoking opinion piece on the Supreme Court decision by which that body, intended to be part of the judiciary, took a stab at legislating. Another one. The article was posted by Stephanie Jasky at FedUpUSA:
http://www.fedupusa.org/2015/06/scotus-steps-in-it-gay-marriage/

A long time ago, Steph had said that the notion of the government getting involved in marriage was a scam and that marriage should remain outside of government institutions.
The idea that Christians should just "shack up" sounded so outlandish – and also a bit libertarian, that I just filed it away, not knowing how to respond. I tended to disagree but didn't know why.

Since yesterday, this whole idea of cutting the government out of the marriage business takes on a whole new luster.
I am no longer in a position to disagree and can't think of any reason why I should.

After all, the government says that the marriage contract can be broken unilaterally under the so-called no-fault law. So unlike any other contract known in law, it is really not a contract at all, but only a scam, because it lacks enforcement potential. Worse, once you put your neck in the government's noose, and then once the other half files for and gets that divorce, the one with the most propertybefore the marriage is the one who loses, often big time. Men generally lose anyway because mom gets the kids and juicy child support checks, which she is in no way obliged to spend on your kids. She can be the most abusive and negligent mom in the world but she will almost certainly get the kids and the monthly checks. That's hardwired into the system.
There is something, well, conservative about us conservatives. If it was done a certain way before when we were kids, then that is how it should be done now and forevermore. But what was done before was often part of a desperately wicked system. We just didn't see it.

It was called "holy matrimony," but it was contracted within the framework of a mostly atheistic state, which by now has gone full-bore Satanic. And even if the officials involved were not in their majority atheists, at least the laws that they were bound by were generally not in any way motivated by Christian principles.
So what was so holy about a marriage certificate?

Nothing. Not even if the ceremony was performed by a priest or pastor or whatever.
None of the Christian spirit of the officiating cleric was transferred to the legal document. Thus, the "matrimony" was not holy at all. It was a suckers' transaction, a contract of vows that the law had no intention of enforcing, a trap intended only to spread the wealth.

I do not make recommendations. However, I see no wrong whatsoever in a pastor performing a wedding in a church, particularly one that has freed itself of its 501(C) status, but without any involvement by the state whatsoever. You can try to stigmatize the children born in that arrangement as "illegitimate" if you like. But you can't fool kids. They know who mom and dad are and they will generally assign significantly more legitimacy to a good couple of parents than they will to any soulless state apparatus.
I realized a while back that the tax exemption for churches was merely a subterfuge to make religion subservient to the State.
There is no Biblical basis for this system, and its intended result is that pastors, a timid lot to begin with (with some notable exceptions, like Chuck Baldwin), are afraid to speak out against officially endorsed sin.
Now, since the abominable Supreme Court decision, Christians are at a crossroads.
We now have the opportunity and a compelling motive to break away from the Satanic state. Or we can just fold as we have always done in the past.
One thing is certain: unless we take drastic measures to protect marriage and traditional Christianity as a whole, your pastor or priest will someday be forced to perform gay weddings. Your marriage will then be on a par with something recognized since the earliest times as wicked. The symbolism is unavoidable.

And since a high percentage of clerics are liberal left-wingers or simply spiritually squishy to begin with, they will pretend that they are just being meek as bidden by Jesus. Aww, how sweet... it is not!
Pastors all over the US are boldly saying "no" to the Supreme Court abomination. But how many of them are willing to put their money where their mouth is and part with their precious tax deduction?

Those who do will certainly be part of that remnant of the end times as mentioned in the Bible. Sadly, the rest may well share the same fate as unbelievers in the Last Judgment.
© Donald Hank

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150629

OVERTHROW THE JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP

June 29, 2015

Overthrow the judicial dictatorship

By Cliff Kincaid

Commentators have missed the real significance of Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the gay marriage case. He calls the decision a judicial "Putsch," an attempt to overthrow a form of government – ours. His dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, was written "to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy."
His comment about the Court using the kind of reasoning we find in a fortune cookie is a funny line. But there is much of the Scalia dissent that is not funny and which serves as a warning to the American people about what the Court has done to us.
Scalia understands the power and meaning of words, and he chose the word "putsch" for a specific purpose. One definition of the term means "a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government...." Another definition is "a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed."

Hence, Scalia is saying this was not only a blatant power grab and the creation of a "right" that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he says.
In that sense, he is warning us that we need to understand the real significance of this decision, and go beyond all the commentators talking about "marriage equality" and "equal rights" for homosexuals. In effect, he is saying that the decision is really not about gay rights, but about the future of our constitutional republic, and the ability of the people to govern themselves, rather than be governed by an elite panel making up laws and rights as they go.

Scalia's dissent cannot be understood by listening to summaries made by commentators who probably didn't read it. Although I may be accused of exaggerating the import of his dissent, my conclusion is that he is calling for nothing less than the American people to understand that a judicial dictatorship has emerged in this country and that its power must be addressed, checked, and overruled.
The implication of his dissent is that we, the American people, have to neutralize this panel, perhaps by removing the offenders from the court, and put in place a group of thinkers who are answerable to the Constitution and the people whose rights the Court is supposed to protect.

He says the majority on the court undermined the main principle of the American Revolution – "the freedom [of the people] to govern themselves" – by sabotaging the right of the people to decide these matters. The Court destroyed the definition of marriage as one man and one woman "in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law." In other words, the Court acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally.
Scalia called the decision "a naked judicial claim to legislative – indeed, super-legislative – power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government."
Justice Scalia goes on to attempt to explain why this is happening. He basically says, in so many words, that the majority of the Court is un-American, completely out of touch with American traditions and the views of ordinary Americans. He rips the Federal Judiciary as "hardly a cross-section of America," people from elite law schools, with not a single person from middle-America, and not a single evangelical Christian or even a Protestant of any denomination. He calls the Court, on which he serves, a "highly unrepresentative panel of nine," that has engaged in "social transformation" of the United States.
More than that, after examining the elite views and backgrounds of the "notorious nine," he declares that while the American Revolution was a rejection of "taxation without representation," we have in the gay marriage case, "social transformation without representation."

One cannot help but think that Scalia wants readers to recall Obama's promise of the "fundamental transformation" of America, except that in this case Obama has been assisted by five judges who did not represent, or even care about, the views of America as a whole.
While Scalia zeroed in on his colleagues on the Court, we can easily apply his analysis to the unelected members of the liberal media who pretend to offer the American people an objective and sensible interpretation of the decision.

On CNN, for example, anchor Brooke Baldwin "moderated" a discussion between lesbian liberal Sally Kohn and liberal pro-gay "Republican" Margaret Hoover. The only issue was when the Republican Party would accept gay rights and sell out conservative Christians. Baldwin herself is a member, or at least a supporter, of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.
Conservatives watching Fox News and hoping for a pro-traditional values perspective are likely to be seriously disappointed as well. The new Fox star, Megyn Kelly, is getting rave reviews from the liberals for defending homosexual and transgender rights. A special report by Peter LaBarbera examines how Fox has been almost as biased on this issue as other media, calling the channel "unfair, unbalanced and afraid." The word "afraid" describes the general failure to challenge the homosexual movement, into which Fox News has been pouring a significant amount of money for many years. Indeed, some "conservatives" have gone way over to the other side, with Greg Gutfeld, another rising Fox star, insisting that gay marriage is a conservative concept.

The Scalia dissent demonstrates why the fight for traditional values cannot and must not stop. That fight must continue because our form of democratic self-government is in grave jeopardy, and has in fact suffered a major blow. A federal constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage is one obvious course of action. But that won't solve the basic problem of an emerging judicial dictatorship willing to redefine historical institutions, make up rights, and defy common sense.
The court's reputation for "clear thinking and sober analysis" is in danger because of this terribly misguided decision, Scalia writes. In other words, the Court is drunk with power and cannot see or think straight.

The same can be said about the major media, which cover this decision as just another controversial ruling that people will disagree on.
In fact, as the Scalia dissent notes, this decision will live in infamy. It is as if a Pearl Harbor-type attack has been achieved on America's moral fabric and constitutional foundations.

In this context, Scalia talks about the Court overreaching its authority and moving "one step closer to being reminded of our impotence." In my view, this is an open invitation for responsible elected officials to take power away from this Court and return it to the people.
But how will the Republican Party respond? Some big money players are demanding the white flag of surrender, so the GOP can "move on." This is what the British "Conservative" Party has done, and we see the consequences there, as Christians are now being arrested by police or fired from their jobs for expressing views in favor of traditional values and traditional marriage.

Scalia's discussion of "social transformation" of the United States without the voluntary input or approval of the people captures the essence of the coup that has been carried out. This process now has to be explained in terms that most people understand. It is, in fact, the phenomenon of cultural Marxism, an insidious process explained so forcefully in Professor Paul Kengor's new book, Takedown.
As Kengor notes, gay marriage is only the beginning of this cultural transformation. By redefining the historical institution, the Court has opened the door to multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.

A country that descends to the bottom of the barrel morally and culturally will not be able to defend itself against its foreign adversaries and enemies. Indeed, we have the evidence all around us that, as the culture has degenerated, our ability to defend ourselves has simultaneously been weakened. The recent Pentagon gay pride event featured a male general introducing his husband, as a transgender Pentagon civilian employee looked on.
The next step, from the point of view of those objecting to this fundamental transformation of America, has to be to find those elected leaders willing to act. The presidential campaign of 2016 is an opportunity to find out who understands the crisis and whether they have a way out.

© Cliff Kincaid

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kincaid/150629

My comments: SOTUS Signed America's Death Warrant before the Living God. The White house is now a Homosexual SHRINE lite up in "Gay" colors. And America is now DEFENSELESS against her Enemies having forsaken the Protection of Almighty God. It remains to be seen what Moral Character is left in the American Electorate and on that basis who they Elect to Public Office. The Spiritual IGNORANCE  of the American electorate has brought us to this point. Will they continue to Elect godless, Socialist, Secular Humanists, who will take America to Complete RUIN?

Americans sign petition to ban U.S. flag

Americans sign petition to ban U.S. flag

Conservative author Mark Dice took to the streets to conduct a petition drive on banning the American flag – just to see what would happen – and the results were somewhat shocking: Far too many Americans signed with seeming abandon

BETWEEN THE LINES

JUDGMENT, NOT JUSTICE, COMES LIKE THUNDERBOLT

Exclusive: Joseph Farah interprets Obama 'victory' on marriage through Romans 1 lens

Barack Obama pondered the Supreme Court edict pronouncing as discriminatory the institution of marriage, as it has been known for 6,000 years of human history – with men and women joined together in sacred unions.

From the White House Rose Garden he spoke in slow, deliberate, carefully chosen words suggesting America had just triumphed over an enemy of unimaginable evil and ignorance – that right had won over wrong, that justice had prevailed over oppression.

“Progress on this journey often comes in small increments, sometimes two steps forward, one step back, propelled by the persistent effort of dedicated citizens,” Obama said. “And then sometimes there are days like this, when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.”

I found that last line to be revealing.

In the Bible, justice indeed can come swiftly as an act of God. But the only time the word “thunderbolt” is used in Scripture, in Psalm 78:48, is to describe judgment on the land of Egypt during the Exodus.

That’s what I believe hit America like a thunderbolt Friday – not justice, but judgment.

God is giving America over to her lusts and pride because, like ancient Israel, she has turned away her heart from Him, though He was like a faithful husband to them both.

America is, indeed, getting justice, but not the way Obama and the moral anarchists think of it. They are getting their just deserts, as are the rest of us who have not been the salt and light needed to hold back judgment.

Judgment isn’t just coming. It is here. This is it. It could get worse, but the Supreme Court ruling on marriage was, in fact, itself a form of divine judgment on America.

Let me risk prosecution for “hate thoughts” by raising what the Bible says about homosexuality, the behavior that opened this spiritual Pandora’s box.

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

Paul wrote in Romans 1:17 that “the just shall live by faith.” That suggests that justice can only be reckoned through the prism of faith in the One True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – the God of the Bible.

He continues in the Romans 1:18-22: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. …”

That’s what we saw last Friday in the hallowed chambers of the Supreme Court.

But there’s more.

You see, judgment doesn’t always come with a thunderbolt. It sometimes comes when God simply allows people to have the desires of their heart.

As Paul continues in Romans 1:24-32 – which is like a word-picture of what is happening within American society today: “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Reject God and you will accept anything. That’s the message here. And that is precisely what America has done, as have so many nations and empires before her.

It’s not about justice, which is defined only by God. It’s about judgment. God will accept you just the way you are should you reject Him. But you won’t like what that means, because it means living apart from truth and justice. It means existence in a living hell. That’s what it means to be apart from God.

There are two important lessons to be drawn:

• Obama and those rebelling against God and His ways will have their moment of celebration over their “victory.” But it will be short-lived. They will not be satisfied. Look what comes next for them in Romans 1. They will not be joyous for long. They will turn fierce – especially against their “enemies,” the people of God.
• For the people of God, don’t think your hands are clean. Had we been following the 2 Chronicles 7:14 prescription for revival and restoration, America could never have reached this breaking point. And until and unless we, “His people,” do humble ourselves and pray and seek His face and turn from our wicked ways, judgment will increase.

There were no thunderbolts last week. But, rest assured, they are coming.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/judgment-not-justice-comes-like-thunderbolt/#fl08F1WmL7Kzx233.99

My comments: AMEN!

WND CRIME

'50 TEENS' STORM WALMART IN DESTRUCTIVE RAMPAGE

Store contents 'shattered, destroyed, turned over and thrown about'

Published: 52 mins ago

(13WMAZ) — An incident report from the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office says 40 to 50 teens trashed the Walmart around 1:45 a.m. Sunday.

The report says the length of the store, from front to back, was lined with items “that had been shattered, destroyed, turned over and thrown about.”

A police officer who viewed store video also said it showed the crowd pulling a man from an electric wheelchair and throwing him to the ground.

The video showed Kharron Green entering the store first, showing gang signs and then showing the crowd following him, according to the report.

Read the full story ›

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/50-teens-storm-walmart-in-in-destructive-rampage/#DkrwLqoQshSUh6bM.99

WND EXCLUSIVE

NEA 'ATTACK' ON HOMESCHOOLERS BLASTED AS 'OUTRAGEOUS'

Writers rebuff idea 'comprehensive education experience' lacking

Paul Bremmer

The National Education Association has launched an attack on the practice of homeschooling, and one leading education expert is not taking it lying down.

“The National Education Association’s radical attacks on constitutionally protected liberties and homeschooling families in particular are outrageous and should be vehemently denounced by every real educator and every real American,” internationalist journalist and educator Alex Newman declared.

The NEA’s 2014-2015 resolution on homeschooling begins like this: “The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience.”

Freelance writer Patrice Lewis, who homeschools her children, seethed at that line.

“Who has the authority to define ‘comprehensive?’” Lewis asked. “The NEA? Why should they be the ones to define comprehensive and not the parents? Each family may define a ‘comprehensive’ education differently, and each parent should have the right to choose how they want their children educated.

“‘Comprehensive’ as defined by a far-left progressive agenda-driven union and special interest-supported legislators and bureaucrats is almost guaranteed to fly in the face of the morals, values and traditions of parents who don’t have similarly leftwing progressive agenda-driven views.”

Newman, who co-authored the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children,” pointed out that if homeschooled children weren’t getting a good enough education, they wouldn’t be beating public school students like they are now.

“The undeniable fact is that homeschooled children outperform victims of NEA-controlled government schools on every objective metric by huge margins,” Newman claimed. “The NEA knows this, and it is undoubtedly one of the association’s central motivations for this reckless attack.”

Lewis, a WND columnist, seconded that point.

“To the frustration of the NEA, homeschoolers have become well-known for their academic strengths,” she said. “This has been demonstrated over and over again when homeschoolers whup the fannies of publicly educated kids on standardized test scores.”

Indeed, the National Home Education Research Institute reports homeschooled students typically score 15 to 30 percentile points higher than public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. And this is regardless of the parents’ level of formal education or the family’s household income.

Lewis noted homeschooled children earn higher GPAs in college and graduate at higher rates than their public-schooled peers despite the supposed lack of socialization associated with homeschooling. But the fact is they’re actually more socialized than other kids, she said.

“That’s because homeschoolers aren’t locked in the artificial environment of classrooms, and instead are out in the real world, making friends of all ages and experiencing life outside of structured field trips,” Lewis explained.

“Additionally, and unlike many public-schooled kids, homeschooled children are almost uniformly mature, socially capable, polite, well-spoken, ethical and hard working. These intangible benefits are every bit as important as the tangible academic subjects for a well-rounded ‘comprehensive’ education, and in fact arguably are more important in terms of long-term job prospects and security.”

The NEA actually wants to discourage homeschooled kids from socializing with their public school peers. Part of the organization’s resolution states, “The association also believes that homeschooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.”

Lewis’ reaction was, “Um, who’s paying for public schools in the first place? Answer: taxpayers, which include homeschooling parents. They should have every right to participate in extracurricular activities they’ve paid for.”

Lewis said it makes no sense for schools to bar homeschooled children from extracurricular activities, because even if those students participate, they are still using far less of the school’s resources than regular public-school students, even though the parents of the homeschoolers are still paying the same amount in taxes.

“The fact that the NEA is against such homeschooling participation in extracurricular activities smacks of petty vindictiveness and a punitive, spiteful attitude, rather than intelligent reasoning or – more likely – the lost opportunity to indoctrinate another child into the progressive brainwashing,” Lewis opined.

Furthermore, the NEA homeschooling resolution states: “Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used.”

But if every child learned from a state-approved teacher and a state-approved curriculum, the results would be similar to what is seen in communist countries, according to Lewis.

“We would have dismally identical uniformity of thought, behavior and morals,” Lewis said. “We would have no creativity, no diversity, no thinking outside the box. We would crush the spirits of children whose interests, skills and abilities fall outside what the NEA deems acceptable.”

America is such a diverse land, according to Lewis, that uniformity in education makes no sense.

She said, “No one wants to have their children shoehorned into an educational system that gives no variety, no opportunities for the exceptionally gifted or exceptionally slow; a place with no permitted variation in opinions, learning methods or viewpoints. That’s what communist schools do. Does America really want rigid uniformity in its youth? I thought the left was all about ‘diversity.’ Why not in education? Or are progressives lying when they claim to support diversity?”

Newman, for his part, believes giving government schools an even greater monopoly over education would be “the worst possible education policy.” But he thinks more Americans will begin to homeschool as they realize the public schools are failing their children.

“As more and more Americans – people of every race, religion, political creed, and socio-economic background – realize what a disaster government schools have become, the homeschooling movement will continue to grow by leaps and bounds,” Newman predicted.

The author said he would like to be able to laugh off the NEA’s resolution, but the association is so powerful that he must take it seriously.

“The fact is that, through compulsory unionism and dues, this extremist outfit has amassed a vast fortune and an army of lobbyists to attack educational liberty,” Newman said. “The NEA and its agenda must be exposed and stopped. In the meantime, serious educators who value freedom and quality education should immediately distance themselves from the NEA and its disgusting attacks on educational freedom, the American people and unalienable rights.”

Lewis believes the bottom line is the NEA doesn’t want any children to escape government control, thus the attack on homeschooling.

“They abhor the thought of allowing children to be ‘brainwashed’ into sincere religious beliefs, conservative or traditional values, and – heaven forbid – a biblical worldview (which to progressives is a fate worse than death for those poor kids),” Lewis exclaimed. “Instead, the NEA and the government want children ready for the ‘Brave New World’ where the state is the supreme authority, values and morals are fluid and situational, and the worldview is based on ‘Fifty Shades of Gray.’”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/authors-nea-attack-on-homeschoolers-outrageous/#qk62mGHsqUGDirUY.99

My comments: The godless, Socialist, Secular Humanists want ABSOLUTE CONTROL  of America's Children. They are out to CONVERT EVERYONE to their Debauched Religion--and by FORCE if necessary.

WND EXCLUSIVE

RAND PAUL: SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT'S MARRIAGE RACKET

Supremes' ruling prompts plunge in respect for court from skeptical Americans

Bob Unruh

The Supreme Court ruling requiring states to recognize “same-sex marriage” not only failed to resolve the controversy, it has triggered a wave of vows to ignore the court, caused respect for its opinions to plummet and put momentum behind a bar federal judges from ruling on the issue.

“This ruling by the five lawyers is no law at all,” said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a prominent legal defender of biblical marriage. “It is lawless and must be treated as such.”

Multitudes of Americans joined in pledging to not submit to the decision, and Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion described it as “five lawyers” shutting down debate and enacting “their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Roberts pointed out the Constitution doesn’t refer to marriage.

“Just who do we think we are?” he asked.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., wants to remove the government from marriage completely.

He said “some rights are more equal than others” and concluded “perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not government recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

“Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do – taxed it, regulated it and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right,” he said.

‘Takedown’! Who really sabotaged marriage – $4.95 today only!

Paul pointed out that some states are “beginning to understand this as they begin to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether.”

Vote to limit

Some want Congress to limit the courts’ jurisdiction over marriage issues.

A recent iteration of that idea comes from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, whose plan was announced just weeks ago.

“For too long, federal courts have overstepped their constitutionally limited duty to interpret the Constitution,” he said then. “Rather, federal courts have perverted the Constitution to make law and create constitutional rights to things such as privacy, birth control and abortion. These unenumerated, so-called constitutionally protected rights were not envisioned by our Founding Fathers.”

The bill stipulates that federal courts wouldn’t have jurisdiction over marriage, which is not mentioned in the Constitution.

In Alabama, the state Supreme Court, which already has challenged the authority of a federal judge regarding marriage, noted Monday there is a 25-day period in which case participants can petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a rehearing.

The Alabama court is accepting comments on its own orders against same-sex marriage in a case brought by the Alabama Policy Institute and Alabama Citizens Action Program against a federal judge’s ruling that the state must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Friday said states cannot refuse to issue licenses to same-sex duos, nor can they refuse to recognize licenses from other states.

‘We must not pretend’ opinion ‘should be respected’

“We must not pretend that the opinion of five lawyers should be respected as the rule of law,” Staver said. “The marriage decision is so far removed from the Constitution that it is merely the opinion of five people. The only authority the justices of the Supreme Court have is the Constitution of the United States. But five lawyers violated their oath by disregarding the Constitution and seeking to impose their own opinion.

“These five lawyers are entitled to their own opinion, however wrong it may be, but they have no authority to impose their personal opinion on the rest of the country.”

At Conservative Review, Daniel Horowitz said the Supreme Court has threatened the nation’s foundational principle.

“We have seen the court redefine statutes. We have seen the court redefine the Constitution like they did with Obamacare and in Roe v. Wade. But now we witness the court go a step further and void out natural law, the very foundation on which the Declaration of Independence was constructed – the document that asserts fundamental rights and liberties.”

The decision, he said, was based on “indefensible” assertions and “is not just immoral.”

“It is irrational and illegal,” he said of the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Exclusive province of the states

Horowitz pointed out that in a previous case, Kennedy acknowledged, “Regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the states.”

Horowitz noted Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has a plan to protect religious liberty, and Sen. Ted Cruz is on board with a plan to “strip the courts of their jurisdiction over marriage.”

“They say there is a fundamental right to abrogate the laws of nature that God has established as fundamental rights in the first place,” Horowitz wrote.

Two years ago, WND reported on the movement to remove government from marriage.

David Boaz of the Cato Institute asked in a 1997 Slate commentary why government should be in the business of “decreeing” who can and cannot be married.

Conservative talk host Larry Elder told WND readers in 2004 that marriage licenses made as much sense as licensing barbers or taxi-cab drivers. The state should “leave marriage to non-governmental institutions like churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship or private institutions.”

Former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said in 2012 that he “would like the state to stay out of marriage.”

“A voluntary association shouldn’t be interfered with by the state, so I’d just as soon that the state not issue licenses or define marriage,” he said.

Paul wanted to “let the individual, let two people define marriage,” arguing it “would get rid of this whole debate and we wouldn’t be arguing over the definition of marriage.”

But Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said marriage deserves a privileged place in the law because it brings benefits “that are important to the well-being of society as a whole and not just a couple.”

Chief among those benefits is children “for the continuance of the human race.” Marriage is “the only type of relationship that results in the [natural generation of children] and provides children with both a mother and father,” he said.

‘Marriage can exist without the state’

“Marriage can exist without the state and in fact the institution predates the state,” said Sprigg. Even so, “there is value in having the state recognize marriage, because without that recognition it would be much more difficult to protect the rights and obligations of spouses and to distribute the benefits that the state gives.”

Herbert W. Titus, former dean of the Regent University School of Law and Government, pointed out that marriage licenses actually serve a useful purpose because they “screen out those people who were violating the rules the Bible laid down as to who could be married and who could not be married.”

He cited Leviticus 18, which forbids sexual relations between close relations, family members and individuals of the same sex.

But once the law allows same-sex marriage, Titus said, “then it’s very difficult to see that there are any … barriers to marriage,” and that opens the door to sodomy and polygamy.

WND reported shortly after last week’s decision some state legislators and judges are considering getting out of the marriage business entirely, refusing to offer licenses to anyone.

Mississippi State House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson, R-Braxton, told the Jackson Clarion Ledger one possibility could be for the state to quit issuing licenses.

“One of the options that other states have looked at is removing the state marriage license requirement,” Gipson said. “We will be researching what options there are. I personally can see pros and cons to that. I don’t know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it’s an option out there to be considered.”

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said he’s reviewing the state’s options.

The idea also surfaced in Oklahoma this year, where the House passed a bill that would remove state judges and county clerks from the whole process, leaving clergy and notaries to sign marriage papers.

Pull the plug

And in Alabama, two probate judges have pulled the plug on weddings altogether.

Probate Judge Wes Allen, who issues marriage licenses in Pike County, Alabama, said in a statement: “My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in February, and I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business. The policy of my office regarding marriage is no different today than it was yesterday.”

Friday’s Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Allen argued, didn’t void the Alabama law that says “marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate” in the state.

Also, in Geneva County, Alabama, Judge Fred Hamic declared, “I will not be doing any more ceremonies.”

As WND reported in October, Idaho state Sen. Steve Vick told Radio America’s Greg Corombos he was seriously considering legislation to get the state government out of marriage entirely because he fears churches will be the next target in the aggressive homosexual agenda.

Similar proposals were developing in Texas and Louisiana.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/rand-paul-shut-down-governments-marriage-racket/#DwVtm4JT41I26tA4.99