RAMIFICATIONS OF SAME SEX "MARRIAGE"

Below is a video that documents some of the side effects same sex "marriage" can have on a society. Same sex "marriage" has the potential to drastically increase the power of the state and lessen the power of the individual.

THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

Webster as of 2008 defines marriage as: "(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as a husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Here is the Webster 1828 dictionary definition of marriage: "(1): The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children." Note that Webster relates current and common use of words in a culture.

The difference between the two definitions is almost so different as to make one believe they are not the same word. When Mosiah discovered the people of Zarahemla, he could not understand them because their language had become corrupted. The source of the language corruption was the fact that no records had been brought with them.

The people of the United States have allowed the government to take over the religious institution of marriage. Moral decay in Western Civilization has given rise to the revised definition as reflected in Webter's Dictionary. The overt religious reference to God has been stripped away completely. The definition and semantics of this word have obviously changed for the majority of society since 1828.

Per the 1828 definition, marriage is (1) a contract between a man and a woman; (2) it is the means of securing the well being, education, nourishment and prosperity of children, (3) it is a sacred obligation between a man and a woman to remain faithful and true to one another. By removing the critical components of the true definition, marriage has evolved into nothing more than a simple contract which can be voided anytime one party is tired of the arrangement.

A contract is an agreement creating and defining the obligations between two or more parties. Both parties have obligations to one another. The debt incurred by one is the debt of the other. The assets acquired by one are the assets of the other. The two parties contract in essence to become parties to a single entity.

The sacred obligation to remain true and faithful to one another is the covenant aspect of marriage. A covenant is a solemn promise to engage in, or refrain from a specified action. In contrast to a contract, it is a one way agreement whereby the covenanter is the only party bound by the promise. It may have conditions and prerequisites that qualify the undertaking, but there is no inherent agreement by such other parties to fulfill those requirements. In this sense only person making the covenant can break it.

A popular passage from traditional marriage ceremonies includes the following: "Do you take this woman, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, rich or poor, until death do you part?" The officiator of such a ceremony is asking one party to make a solemn promise (covenant) to love and cherish his wife even if she becomes ill, poor, disabled, disfigured. So for example, something happens to her in the future and she is burned in an accident and becomes disfigured. The man becomes revolted at her appearance and abandons her. Such a man has broken his solemn promise (covenant). She did not break any covenant as remaining perfectly healthy was not a condition of the covenant. Her husband promised to love her no matter what physical circumstances might occur in life.

The current Webster definition reflects a view of marriage nearly devoid of its original meaning. No matter what laws are passed, no matter how the definitions are reworded to appeal to the thought police, my view of marriage is and always shall be based on its original meaning. Our civilization is founded upon the fruits the original definition has provided. Even the phrase "the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them" has been removed.

I am thankful for the modern day prophets who offer the Lord's will and counsel regarding critical issues such as marriage. I am grateful and proud to be a supporter and activitst for the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in my home state of California. It is time people reaffirm what the true meaning and definition of marriage is. It is time we stop letting outside influences such as government, media, and activist groups change the meaning of the word in our society. Marriage the way the Lord intends, is the most noble union between a man and a woman that can be achieved in mortality. It is an ideal to aspire to and proclaim.

Below is a video that was sent to me by my Bishop. It was made by CatholicVote.com. It is a powerful message regarding the moral issues that face our nation this next election day.

SEPTEMBER 17, 1787

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America..."

221 Years ago today, the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified on September 17, 2008. Our government is unique in human history, in that it was established by the WILL of the people. Nearly every other government on earth was historically established by brute force, i.e. the person with the most weapons seized control. The rise to power for history of governments has been through fraud, force or accident.

Many of the American "Founders" who sacrificed their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in establishing the Constitution referred to final version of the document as a "miracle." [1]

In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette on February 7, 1788, George Washington wrote, "It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates from so many different states (which states you know are also different from each other, in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national government." [2]

James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in France on December 9, 1787, saying it was "impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle." [3]

The prosperity, liberty, and freedom achieved in the United States of America is a direct result of the limitations placed on government by the Constitution. In order for secure our freedom, prosperity, and continued liberty, we must become familiar with the document that has had such a large part in creating it.

One of the most damaging causes to worldwide peace and prosperity is the foreign policy of the United States of America. Our current foreign policy has strayed radically from the original intent of the Constitution and from the intent of the people who wrote it.

J. Reuben Clark, former Under Secretary of State and former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, described the role of America as a great world peacemaker. He wrote:

"America, multi-raced and multi-nationed, is by tradition, by geography, by citizenry, by natural sympathy, and by material interest, the great neutral nation of the earth. God so designed it. Drawn from all races, creeds, and nations, our sympathies run to every oppressed people. Our feelings, engaged on opposite sides of great differences, will in their natural course, if held in due and proper restraint, neutralize the one [with] the other. Directed in right channels, this great body of feeling for the one side or the other will ripen into sympathy and love for all misguided and misled fellowmen who suffer in any cause, and this sympathy and love will run out to all humanity in its woe....

"Having in mind our position as the great world neutral, ... we should announce our unalterable opposition to any plan to starve these innocent peoples ... -- the women, the children, the sick, the aged, and the infirm -- and declare that when actual and bona fide mass starvation shall come to any of them, no matter who they are, we shall do all that we properly may do to see that they are furnished with food....

"If we shall rebuild our lost moral power and influence by measures such as these which will demonstrate our love for humanity, our justice, our fair-mindedness, we ... shall then be where ... we can offer mediation between the two belligerents.

"America, the great neutral, will thus become the Peacemaker of the world, which is her manifest destiny if she lives the law of peace." [4]

Washington then made his famous declaration of the Founders' policy of foreign relations:

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

Only recently, Washington had seen certain American politicians getting the United States embroiled in European quarrels. He saw these operating to the distinct disadvantage of the United States. Therefore, he warned:

"Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interests, humor, or caprice?" [5]

Take time today to think of the tremendous blessings that have arisen in your life due to the Constitution of the United States of America. More importantly take time in the future to study the Constitution and vote only for people who will truly support and defend it.

[1] Bowen, Catherine, Miracle at Philadelphia. p. 213
[2] Skousen, Cleon, The Making of America. p. 4
[3] Ibid.
[4] Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap. pp 276-278.
[5] Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington, 35:234.

RALLY FOR THE REPUBLIC - TOM WOODS

My brother-in-law recently created two videos of Tom Woods' recent address at the Rally for the Republic convention on September 2. The total speech is about 15 minutes long and addresses economic issues, foreign policy, and personal liberty. The video is in two parts. These are serious and critical issues that affect our society and the well being of the human family.

Part 1 (10:32)



Part 2 (5:49)



My brother-in-law has also posted many other videos relating to issues of foreign policy and personal liberty. Visit his Youtube site by clicking here.

THE EROSION OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

The following article was brought to my attention by my mother-in-law. It is chilling. I apologize for not posting much lately, as I mentioned before I am in the process of studying for my last CPA exam and my wife and I have purchased a home and plan to move very soon!

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty - NPR.org

June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services:

Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing:

In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools:

California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls'parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services:

A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services:

A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants:

A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services:

A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services:

A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities:

Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use,therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's
Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups:

The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other likeminded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

END OF ARTICLE.