"Evangelical Christians are not doing very well in the debate over “same-sex marriage” and other issues in regard to “gay rights.” Why is this? Let us consider two factors.
First, Evangelicals do not appeal to Scripture in the public debate, but base their arguments on reason and “natural law.” By so doing they surrender the only real authority and power they have (Isa. 8:10; Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12) and are forced to stand on the same ground as their opponents. Not only does this method disarm the Christian, it is also disingenuous. The leading reason why Christians reject homosexual behavior is because the Bible teaches them to do so. In refusing to stand up and say this, especially since their opponents know that their chief objection is based on the Bible, they appear to be dishonest and ashamed of their faith. It is much better to be bold and forthright in defending biblical morality by using the Bible! Even if their enemies reject their arguments, Christians cannot help but gain a measure of respect for their honesty and courage.
Second, Christians seem blind to the hypocrisy of treating homosexual conduct so seriously and adultery and divorce so lightly. Evangelicals cry out that they must defend “traditional marriage” against the danger of “gay marriage.” But the greatest threat to traditional marriage is not from without but from within; from the rampant adultery and divorce that is found in heterosexual marriages. Churches preach against “gay marriage” (and rightly so), but tolerate adultery, divorce, and adulterous remarriage within their own memberships. The divorce rate among Christians is a disgrace. The church is so morally compromised by adultery and sexual sin (e.g., addiction to pornography and fornication) among its heterosexuals that it has lost its power to confront the plague of homosexuality."
Time to impeach Judge Vaughn Walker
Contact your representative today and urge him to start impeachment proceedings
August 5, 2010
Dear Friend,
Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.
In doing so, he frustrated the express will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.
Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.
Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."
In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.
What can be done?
Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.
Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.
Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.
Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.
“…to say that equal civil protection cannot and should not be afforded without qualification to any and all “religious” commitments is not at all to imply that the civil magistrate has the right to take unto himself ecclesiastical authority. Just as surely as the Old Testament forbade kings to arrogate priestly functions to themselves (e.g., the case of Uzziah in 2 Chron. 26), the New Testament separates “the keys” of the kingdom from the “sword” which the state bears (cf Matt. 16:19; Rom. 13:4; 2 Cor. 10:4). There is no Biblical warrant for thinking that the civil magistrate has either the competence or the divinely given authority to settle all religious matters of doctrine.
The law of God does not, contrary to popular misconception, allow the civil courts to judge heretics or resolve theological disputes between different schools of Christian thought. Thus theonomists readily and fervently insist upon the “pluralist” [GD: “pluralism” among Christian denominations] view of the state found in our best Reformed heritage and even the U.S. Constitution. Lutherans should not use civil power to persecute Presbyterians (and vice versa, etc.), and the federal government should not establish Presbyterianism (or Anglicanism, etc.) as the state church.
There is indeed a line to be drawn beyond which the civil magistrate is not to step in matters of faith and worship. But the theonomist would argue that this line is to be drawn by the exegesis of God’s written word—not by some authority higher than the Bible, nor by the equivocal slogan of “equal protection for all,” nor by some individual’s interpretation of the lowest common denominator in religion. Religious liberty is too precious a commodity to be grounded upon anything other than God’s authority, expressed in His infallible and unchanging, written word. It must be understood and applied in theonomic fashion.”
