In Defense of the God-Defined Institution of Marriage

Commentary by Scarlet Holland
Counter Progressive Unit
Founding Member and Director


On May 8th, North Carolinians will have a very important chance to stand up for traditional marriage as designed for mankind by his Creator, between one man and one woman by voting whether or not to add a section to the North Carolina Constitution. It reads:


"Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."


This is important because it makes it that much harder for those who oppose the natural state of mankind, and his Creator, to have the law overturned and perversion become the law of the land.


The description of how marriage came to be taken from the second chapter of Genesis:

¹⁸ And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” ¹⁹ Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. ²⁰ So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

²¹ And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. ²² Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

²³ And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

²⁴ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

The people who oppose the Marriage Amendment have tried to claim this proposed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution is a violation of their rights or some even claim that they were born homosexual. However, the Book of Romans, chapter 1 makes it very clear that whenever any person lives in a homosexual or lesbian lifestyle, it is a choice they made, not a genetic predisposition that cause them to be that way:


20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; (Romans 1:20-28, New King James Version)

 The Word of God is the final authority on the sexual orientation of all human beings. God made us male and female and it was the purpose of His creation that males have relation ship with females. If a person is in a same sex relationship, that is a sin choice that they have made, just as any other sin choice. There is forgiveness and eternal life available for anyone who repents of this lifestyle and surrenders their life to Jesus Christ.


I have friends who once claimed that they were “born gay” and today have turned from their sin and have been living happy and fulfilling lives by being married in heterosexual relationships . All of them admit that they used the excuse that they were born gay to justify their sin, but in reality they knew in their hearts that what they were doing was wrong. I personally believe that all people know when the way that they are living is wrong by the witness of God’s Spirit with out spirit.


All those precious people who suffered through the loss of one or both parents in their families as they were growing up can find the love and the acceptance they were longing for in a loving relationship with Jesus Christ. He longs to meet the needs of the broken hearted and hopeless. Remember to pray for those who are still suffering the pain of missing the loving family atmosphere of having two parents who loved and nurtured them.

Here is a copy of Senate Bill 106


GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2011






SENATE BILL 106


Short Title: Defense of Marriage.

(Public)

Sponsors:
Senators Forrester, Tillman, Soucek; Apodaca, Blake, Brock, Brown, Daniel, Davis, East, Goolsby, Gunn, Harrington, Hise, Hunt, Jackson, Meredith, Newton, Pate, Preston, Rouzer, Rucho, and Tucker.
Referred to:
Rules and Operations of the Senate.
February 23, 2011

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL UNION THAT SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new section:
"Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
SECTION 2. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the State at the statewide general election on November 6, 2012, which election shall be conducted under the laws then governing elections in the State. Ballots, voting systems, or both may be used in accordance with Chapter 163 of the General Statutes. The question to be used in the voting systems and ballots shall be:
"[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
SECTION 3. If a majority of votes cast on the question are in favor of the amendment set out in Section 1 of this act, the State Board of Elections shall certify the amendment to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall enroll the amendment so certified among the permanent records of that office.
SECTION 4. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act becomes effective January 1, 2013.
SECTION 5. This act is effective when it becomes law.

Senate Bill 106

Read More

President Obama and the Honduran Constitution

Eric Erickson has an excellent column at Macon.com, and here is the money quote that tells us all we need to know about President Obama:

The Hondurans are so concerned about potential despots, that Article 239 of their constitution states that any president who proposes extending his term in office is automatically removed from office. Article 313 of the Honduran constitution allows its Supreme Court to deputize the Honduran military to carry out its orders, including removing politicians from office who seek to extend a president’s term.

Ignoring the constitution, President Manuel Zelaya, a man less popular in Honduras than George Bush was when he left office in this country, ordered a “non-binding” referendum be put to the voters on extending his stay in office.

Glenn Garvin wrote in the Miami Herald, “After the Honduran supreme court ruled that only the country’s congress could call such an election, Zelaya ordered the army to help him stage it anyway. ... When the head of the armed forces, acting on orders from the supreme court, refused, Zelaya fired him, then led a mob to break into a military base where the ballots were stored.”

The Honduran Supreme Court, congress, attorney general and members of Zelaya’s cabinet opposed his move as unconstitutional. The supreme court ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office. Honduras has no impeachment process as we know it.

Source: Macon.com (via @ewerickson)

Commentary

It is notable that President Obama (who has been accused of being a Communist, Marxist, Socialist, etc has managed to side with Chavez and Castro on this issue (and many others).

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called on the Hondurans to uphold their constitutional processes...the very thing they did when they got rid of the would-be dictator Zelaya.

I guess the Obama Administration should be up for some sort of Orwellian Award for doublespeak.

Read More

To Raise the Edifice (Geo. Washington on the Constitution)

Guest Commentary by John Armor


From time to time, I return to my favorite subject, which I freely admit is a tad boring for most people. That subject is Constitutional Law. This time, George Washington made me do it.

An article in the New York Times on 27 April reported on the find of a previously unknown letter from George Washington in May, 1787, to Jacob Morris. It was contained in a scrapbook gathered by a 10-year-old girl in 1826, and was found among the trunks and boxes of her descendants’ gift of their mansion and its contents to the State of New Jersey, in 2007.

The letter is important for several reasons. First, it is a “new” document from the hand of Washington. Second, it makes a mysterious reference to General Horatio Gates. Certain Members of Congress wanted at one point to replace General Washington with Gates, as a result of Washington’s unending series of defeats prior to the Battle of Trenton.

For me, though, the value of this short letter lies in when and where it was written, and what it says about the Constitution. Washington was readily elected President of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, because all the factions present at that meeting respected him. And it was from that place and time that he sent this letter. Its second paragraph says,

“The happiness of this Country depend much upon the deliberations of the federal Convention which is now sitting. It, however, can only lay the foundation — the community at large must raise the edifice.”

Washington was a man of deeds, not words. He led by example. He spoke on the floor of the Convention only once, on its closing day. He favored the final amendment, to set the size of Congressional Districts at 30,000 people each rather than 40,000. His choice was followed, as it was with the decision not to limit the terms of the President to two. (That choice he’d expressed only privately.)

But when Washington did write, and speak, his vision was keen, and his words clear and precise. With 218 years of experience of living under the Constitution, we can see now that Washington’s statement was correct. The endurance of the Constitution does not depend solely on the excellence of its design, or the wisdom of the amendments made to date.

It is an excellent design. It has survived longer as a written constitution than those of any other nation in history. And with the exception of Prohibition, installed in the Constitution and later removed as a failure, the amendments have been successful. Other nations have lost their constitutions in military coups, or legal coups when they were redefined into dictatorships.

The key to the durability of the US Constitution is not found in the courts, or in any part of the federal government. It is found in the hearts and minds of all Americans. In 218 years it is we, not our government, who have “raised the edifice” of the Constitution. But sadly, in recent decades, it is we who are tearing that edifice down, again.

As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, the Constitution “is sacredly obligatory upon all,” until and unless it is changed “by the authentic act of the whole people.” By that he meant it should be amended only by the people, as defined in Article V. It was not to be amended merely by the Courts, or Presidents, or Congresses, acting on their own hook.

Here is a one-question quiz, from which each of you can judge whether you are part of maintaining the Constitution, or bringing it down: If the Supreme Court hands down a decision that obeys the Constitution but is contrary to what you wanted in that case, will you support that decision?

That is a simple but telling question. Is the Constitution more important to you than the decision in any particular case? If you answered that first question “no,” it means you are willing to sacrifice the Constitution to win a specific, political point. And if too many Americans think that way, as George predicted in his letter long ago, the edifice of the Constitution is not long for this world.

- 30 -

About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.

- 30 -

Read More

Borrowed Time

America, and Western Civilization, are Living on Borrowed Time.

We must begin to stop the Tide of Destruction that is making a mockery of our Constitution.

American Citizens must begin to take back what our Government is giving away.

We must overwhelm our elected officials with our complaints, and make them understand that the Second Amendment is the Reset Button on our Constitution, and we are very close to having to resort to that option to protect Private Property Rights, our Rights as Citizens, and the new taxes being levied on us with out representation.

I have spoken with people who are revealing to me how bad the problem is, and I am preparing to take steps to change the entire dynamic on Public Discourse.

I am also committing to raise up ten locally like me, who may not agree on every issue of philosophy, but agree that our Constitutional Republic is slipping through our fingers, and those peoiple will be charged with raising ten each after a time.

Read More