Gay Marriage To Be Overturned, Suit Filed, SCOTUS Will Overturn Obergefell. #MRGA
(youtu.be)
𝕊ℙ𝕀ℝ𝕀𝕋𝕌𝔸𝕃 𝕎𝔸ℝ𝔽𝔸ℝ𝔼
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (108)
sorted by:
Marriage is a church institution? Sorry I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you on the broader question of whether the state should be involved in it or not but what do you even mean when you say that it’s a church institution? Do you mean “church” invented it? Do you mean it’s something churches support and involve themselves in or what? What exactly does that mean and how do you suppose that impacts whether the state can or should be involved and how? Should the government simply not issue marriage licenses at all? Or do you think that if they do they should only issue them to straight couples or what?
When I say marriage is a church institution, I don’t mean that Peter was sitting in Rome in 50 AD drafting up wedding paperwork, or that some medieval bishop invented the idea one rainy afternoon after losing at chess. I mean that marriage is a creational ordinance from God, given before there even was a civil magistrate, and entrusted to the stewardship of God’s people. In other words, the “church” didn’t invent it, but the Author of Scripture did, and His people have always been the primary guardians of it. The state didn’t create it any more than the state created gravity, and therefore the state doesn’t get to redefine it without looking like a toddler trying to “redefine” bedtime.
So how does that impact state involvement? Well, biblically speaking, the magistrate’s role is to recognize and protect what God has established, not to pretend it can legislate reality into existence. If the state wants to require marriage records for property and inheritance purposes, fine—but that’s an administrative function, not a theological one. What the state must not do is try to make a counterfeit covenant and then stamp its seal on it like that somehow makes it genuine. That’s like a DMV deciding your bicycle is a semi-truck because they issued it a license plate.
Should governments stop issuing marriage licenses altogether? Ideally, yes—because the state should not be in the business of “authorizing” what God has already commanded and defined. They should recognize lawful marriages (male and female, covenantal, permanent) as they recognize any other pre-political reality. But if they are going to issue licenses, they have no more right to issue them for two men than they do to issue “pilot’s licenses” to penguins.
In short: marriage belongs to God, is stewarded by the church, and should be respected by the state. The state is a witness to the covenant, not the author of it. And when the witness tries to forge the document, it’s time to take the pen away.
“I mean that marriage is a creational ordinance from God, given before there even was a civil magistrate, and entrusted to the stewardship of God’s people. In other words, the “church” didn’t invent it, but the Author of Scripture did, and His people have always been the primary guardians of it.”
So the Bible should be used to define it based on…what exactly? It’s a religious claim you’re making, but it’s a real-word practice engaged in by many other cultures that predate the Bible. So how exactly do you expect such an argument to hold weight wity the Supreme Court if in fact they agree to hear this case? So the Bible says stuff about the God it touts ordaining marriage, how would such an argument hold up in a court of law? Again, I’m not saying it shouldn’t, and I genuinely appreciated and enjoyed your answer, I’m not sure I disagree with it, but I’m not sure I feel comfortable with it yet either. How do you think the most conservative justices on SCOTUS will view that argument and why?
Well, the short answer is that this “religious claim” is only religious in the same way “gravity is real” is religious. Yes, the Bible reveals it, but it also happens to be woven into creation itself. Marriage is not a denominational quirk like whether you sprinkle or dunk at baptism. It’s a creational ordinance rooted in male-and-female biology, the begetting of children, and covenant fidelity. The Bible doesn’t so much “introduce” marriage as it does identify, define, and fence in what God already built into the world before anyone was around to scribble hieroglyphs about it.
As for the “other cultures predating the Bible” bit, that’s like saying “people believed in air before scientists wrote it down, therefore the scientists can’t define it.” The existence of marriage across cultures is actually proof of its creational universality, not evidence that it’s up for reinvention. When pagan cultures got marriage right, it was because they were borrowing God’s blueprint, even if they refused to give Him credit. When they got it wrong, the results were predictable—broken homes, social collapse, and men marrying goats.
Now, on the matter of SCOTUS—America’s own legal tradition is already soaked in biblical categories whether people admit it or not. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn’t drop out of the sky in Philadelphia in 1787; they were distilled from the general equity of God’s law. And if that sounds like preacher-talk, just go read the Supreme Court’s own ruling in Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), where they explicitly stated that “this is a Christian nation.” That wasn’t some theocratic slip of the tongue—they were simply recognizing the obvious historical DNA of our law.
Even the most conservative justices know they are operating in a framework that assumes certain pre-political realities—rights given by a Creator, not the state. Marriage is one of those. If a case like this went before the Court, the strongest constitutional argument is also the strongest biblical one: the state is a witness and protector of what God ordained, not a sculptor free to chisel out whatever statue it likes.
Or, to put it bluntly, if the government claims the authority to redefine marriage, it is claiming to be God. And the last time a civil magistrate tried that, we called him Pharaoh, and he ended up chasing Israelites into the Red Sea.
This is a Q forum. Q not only says "God Wins" but like our founding fathers, also quotes bible verses. The Christian worldview is the objective standard that this movement, like our nation, is built upon. You can either stand on the objective foundation of Truth and morality that comes from that worldview or you can reject it.... But if you do, there is no objective truth or morality. Everything just becomes preference. That has utterly failed throughout history. But if you want to be a socialist, go right ahead.
It seems that sex itself is more akin to the comparison you made to gravity than marriage itself. If we’re getting biblical with it, then that leaves the door wide open to polygamy, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all practiced it. So is it one man and one woman, just men women regardless of the number of women? If the state’s job is to support that which makes a nation strong and to keep it from collapsing in on itself, as you seemed to imply there, then how can the state NOT be involved in setting parameters for marriage? And if the Bible is to be out guide on how marriage should be structured according to the state then what would you argue that structure to be if the fathers of what you called God’s chosen people, who the Bible suggests walked in God’s ways, then why isn’t polygamy being considered as a legitimate marital structure? And if it’s not, then what happens to the claim that the Bible is the authority we are following, or ought to follow, in light of that?
In terms of the wrongness of gay "marriage" it goes right back to Genesis: First with Genesis 1:27, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." and then Genesis 2:20-24, "But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."
I believe they were saying it is a religious thing and not a government thing. AKA government marriage is only to screw over men with the guise of no fault divorce and alimony and child support etc. If these things were fair to men then they would work. As they are now is one of the top reasons marriage rates are abysmal and divorce is SO high. Modern feminism ideas have gutted it as well.