«No. 12-144 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States -DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et ...»
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. (Emphasis added.) When this Honorable Court sits in judgment on a matter, not only is the whole world watching, but God is watching. “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods,” Psalm 82:1, Holy Bible. Dr. John Gill says, “... civil magistrates are meant, the rulers and judges of the people, who... are so called because they are the powers ordained of God, and representatives of him, are his vicegerents and deputies under him; should act in his name, according to his law, and for his glory, and are clothed with great power and authority from and under him.”17 Charles Spurgeon expounds: “He lends them his name, and this is their authority for acting as judges, but they must take care that they do not misuse the power entrusted to them, for the Judge of judges is in session among them.”18 This commentary by Dr. Gill can be found Online at http://bit.ly/UubQxv.
This commentary by Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1934England’s best-known preacher for most of the second half of the nineteenth century, pastor of London’s New Park Street Church can be found Online at http://bit.ly/UZDkP9.
The standard of God for marriage is one man, one woman, for life. Christ speaking in Matthew 19:3-8,
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
The Apostle Paul in his epistle to the church at
Ephesus, in Ephesians 5:31-32, Holy Bible:
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
When this nation tampers with marriage as properly defined in the Scriptures, it is tampering with the very symbol of Christ and His Bride, the Church.19 It is a very serious matter; same-sex marriage is totally contrary to the standard of God.
The parties and amici will spend considerable time on the issue of whether or not the government has a legitimate interest in steering procreation into opposite-sex marriages; whether the law at issue here properly carries out such an interest; and all of the legal issues pertaining thereto. Unquestionably it is best for the health, safety and welfare to follow God’s standard on marriage, and the benefits of a proper scriptural opposite-sex, one-man-one-woman-for-life marriage are enumerable, that being a lovely symbol The Bible also says no divorce, and no remarriage. See, e.g., Malachi 2:16, Holy Bible (The Lord hates a man putting away his wife); Mark 10:11, Holy Bible (whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her); Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39, Holy Bible (the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives). Divorce rates in America are still above 30%, http://bit.ly/Vvwj60, and a 2008 Gallup Values and Beliefs survey found that 70% of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable, see poll results Online at http://bit.ly/VKyjHk. That is an unfortunate fact to be faced by some of the parties and amici in this and similar legal proceedings. Never mind. The standard of God has not changed, nor has the responsibility of government to protect the health, welfare and safety of the people – first and foremost by upholding the standards of God on critical moral issues.
of Christ and His Bride,20 and being a great blessing from God.21 But of far greater importance is the fact that the government has no greater responsibility than to protect the people from such grievous sin that the inevitable result will be the outpouring of the wrath of God on the land, being great mayhem, carnage and destruction. Nothing is better for the health, safety and welfare of the people than to obey God. When a critical moral issue becomes the centerpiece of the discussion, and is put squarely before this Honorable Court, or before any governmental body, the duty is to follow the standard of God. Not invent a multitude of sociological, pseudo-scientific, historical or any other theory or reasoning that leads to ignoring and disobeying the plain standard of God. The highest interest of government is to follow the standard of God;
appeal to the people to follow the standard of God;
and establish policies and laws that follow the standard of God. This nation has gone astray, letting fornication, adultery, abortion-for-convenience-on-demand, E.g., “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him;
for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready,” Revelation 19:7, Holy Bible. “For the husband is
the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:
and he is the savior of the body,” Ephesians 5:23, Holy Bible.
E.g., “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge,” Hebrews 13:4, Holy Bible. “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD,” Proverbs 18:22, Holy Bible. “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies,” Proverbs 31:10, Holy Bible.
divorce, remarriage and sodomy become the norm. It may not be too late. The prophet Jonah feared it was too late for the thriving city of Nineveh, whose repentance (starting with the King) turned back God’s wrath, and spared that nation for another one hundred years. Homosexuality is destructive in every way, to the individual and to the nation. Government should not put its seal of approval on that unholy union by issuing a marriage license. Government’s interest is in doing the opposite, for the good of the people and the nation.
Compare the book of Jonah to the book of Nahum.
Matthew Henry’s commentary on Nahum 1:1, Holy Bible:
About 100 years before this Jonah had, in God’s name, foretold the speedy overthrow of this great city; but then the Ninevites repented and were spared, and that decree did not bring forth. The Ninevites then saw clearly how much it was to their advantage to turn from their evil way; it was the saving of their city; and yet, soon after, they returned to it again; it became worse than ever, a bloody city, and full of lies and robbery. They repented of their repentance, returned with the dog to his vomit, and at length grew worse than ever they had been. Then God sent them not this prophet, as Jonah, but this prophecy, to read them their doom, which was now irreversible. Note, The reprieve will not be continued if the repentance be not continued in. If men turn from the good they began to do, they can expect no other than that God should turn from the favour he began to show, Jer. 18:10.
This commentary by nonconformist puritan preacher and expositor Matthew Henry (1662-1714) can be found Online at http:// bit.ly/XeRaMg.
This is a nation that was built on Bible principles.
[T]his is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. * * * If we examine the constitutions of the various States we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. * * * There is a universal language [pervading], having one meaning: they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S.
457, 465-472, 12 S. Ct. 511, 514-517, 36 L. Ed. 226, 230-232 (1892).
It seems to me rather obvious, when we get back to the early expression of those ideas [which found expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution] and consider the general historical situation out of which the older colonies arose, that one chief source of these ideas was the popular knowledge of the Bible in the Protestant countries of that time.23 The Bible was nothing short of the underlying fabric upon which American society was founded.... The rule of law began, not with the rules of man but with the rules of Henry Thatcher Fowler, “Influence of the Bible in American Democracy,” Christian Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, October 1919, pp. 22-25.
God. * * * To find [social] sails and helm, [Americans] turned first to the Bible.... The emergent collaboration between church and state (even if these two arms remain separate while at the same time working together) has remained a fundamental axiom embedded in the nature of American policy ever since.
* * * [T]he influence of biblical law continued to be felt in American jurisprudence well into the twentieth century. * * * To the extent that a modern system is derived from biblical social precepts or even unwittingly presupposes that such precepts are operational in society, the lack of any of the essential elements of that constitutive system may give rise to serious problems in the resultant system. * * * Democracy in America has succeeded because its society has possessed an underlying moral order, and historically that order has been informed largely by basic ideals supplied by the Bible....24 Neither this Court nor all governments in this nation are precluded from making decisions based on the standard of God. “What Baptists and other dissenters wanted, in [Philip] Hamburger’s assessment, was a political voice for their own religious views, unconstrained by establishment; neither they nor the establishment clause of the First Amendment ever John W. Welch, “Biblical Law in America: Historical Perspectives and Potentials for Reform,” 2002 Brigham Young University Law Review 611, at 619, 630-631, 636-637, available Online at http://bit.ly/VEBX8j.
intended to keep Christian conviction out of American governance, as secularists today insist” (emphasis added).25 “[T]he separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension.” As we explained in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 79 L.Ed.2d 604, 104 S.Ct. 1355 (1984): There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789. * * * Recognition of the role of God in our Nation’s heritage has also been reflected in our decisions.
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 686, 687, 125 S. Ct.
2854, 2861, 162 L. Ed. 2d 607, 616, 617 (2005).
.... “[W]e find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313-314, 96 L.Ed. 954, 72 S.Ct. 679 (1952).
Id., 545 U.S. at 684, 125 S. Ct. at 2859, 162 L. Ed. 2d at 615.
Tracy Fessenden, “The Nineteenth-Century Bible Wars and the Separation of Church and State,” Church History, Vol.
74, No. 4 (Dec. 2005), pp. 784-811, at 809, available Online at http://bit.ly/UBefrF.
Robert N. Bellah, “Biblical Religion and Civil Religion in America,” Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Winter, 1967, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 1-21, Online at http://bit.ly/ 13cLjuc.
Separation of church and state has become a battle cry for enabling sin. That was never the intention of the forefathers, but rather they intended to let each member of the new union serve God according to his or her conscience, not according to the dictates of an official state church.
The principle of church-state separation – from the time of Becket, to Blackstone, to Benjamin Franklin, to today – has long meant, among other things, that religious communities and institutions enjoy meaningful autonomy and independence with respect to their governance, teachings, and doctrines.
This independence, recognized and vindicated in a long line and wide array of decisions by the Supreme Court, is entirely consistent with the appropriate powers of civil authorities.28 [B]ut it was reserved for the people and governments of this last settled among the lands to announce the religious equality of all men and all creeds before the law, without preference and without distinction or disqualification. Here, among all the benefits to mankind to which this soil has given rise, this pure religious liberty may be justly rated as the great gift of America to civilization and the world, having among principles of governmental policy no equal for moral insight, and for recognition both of the dignity of the human soul and the spiritual majesty of the Church of God.
Sanford Hoadley Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America, p. 2, available Online at http://bit.ly/UCAUaP.
Berg, Colby, Esbeck & Garnett, “Religious Freedom, Church-State Separation, and the Ministerial Exception,” 106 (Continued on following page) The fact that issues of doctrine and church governance are beyond the jurisdiction of civil government is not the equivalent of civil government abrogating its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people by promulgating laws and policies consistent with the standards of God and the dictates of Holy Scripture.