License to Marry
The open conversation over “marriage equality” or gay “marriage” has given rise to the question of whether a couple planning to marry should obtain – or be in any way compelled to obtain – a state-issued license to do so in the first place. Licenses are normally required for activities that are unlawful without them, such as operation of a motor vehicle, fishing, hunting, businesses, etc. Prior to the first American Civil War, and when there was no such thing as a state-issued marriage license in the United States, states uniformly outlawed marriages between blacks and whites, called miscagenate marriages, and after the Civil War commenced issuing licenses for such marriages in order to excuse mixed race couples from such laws. But, as is characteristic of any form of government, states saw their chance to expand their powers and ultimately the Federal government’s Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act of 1923 provided the template from which all states in the Union would pass laws “requiring” all marriages to be licensed by 1929.
Given that the State has arrogated to itself jurisdiction over marriage, and that no-fault divorce laws proliferating since 1968 have enabled millions of divorces based upon one party suing the other for the nullification of a state-issued license, the state has therefore become a party to and the enabler of the cataclysmic decline of marriage and family as the sociological foundation of Western civilization. Whereas, prior to such licensing (ca. 1865), all marriages in the U.S. had been ordained by God based upon the couple’s recording of their covenant in a Family Bible.
So, after the state has issued a decree of divorce, does the couple then go back to the church where they had invoked Almighty God (or whatever deity) to bless their marriage, and now ask Him to cancel their original vows, or forgive their error? The Methodist and Congregational churches of today actually offer an ending-of-marriage ceremony, and the Catholic religion its annulment, the Jewish religion has its get, and Shin Buddhism offers a divorce ritual.
Not satisfied with its power to put marriages asunder through its court system, the State now seeks to totally pervert the definition of marriage by including same-sex. Homosexual activists refer to the No. 2 item on the Homosexual Agenda which seeks to “Remind the world that marriage is a legal term and standing in the US, and not a spiritual one as believed by Christians.” The ultimate objective of redefining society as a homosexual-tolerant and accepting one, indeed of making their perversity one that is protected by state fiat is being leveraged against the myth that marriage is a state-defined institution which must be redefined by the state to define same-sex marriage as the equal of opposite-sex marriage. No one sees homosexuals petitioning God to rewrite Holy Scripture to redefine marriage, though some homosexuals and/or their heterosexual sympathizers have had the audacity to write their own version of the Bible to suit their wishes. Published in 2012, The Queen James Bible, which no more redefines gay as “OK” than the Catholic Bible redefines Peter as “The Rock.”
The community of organized homosexual activists has, with the United States Supreme Court decision of June 26, 2015 succeeded in fully legitimizing their perverse form of sexuality as equally legitimate with God-ordained, male-female within the legal jurisdiction of the society of the United States essentially by hijacking the otherwise non-God-ordained state licensing “authority.” And by doing so, the United States Supreme Court has forever nullified itself as a legitimate entity of government and jurisprudence by so utterly perverting the very meaning of words and of the Constitution to appease and placate a noisome and decidedly malevolent fringe element of society.
It is herewith submitted that the true reason homosexuals have petitioned the state to sanction their “marriages” is because they certainly would not have dared request the same sanction from God and were thusly forced to make a rear-guard or back-door action to force their way into the appearance of legitimacy under the auspices of the state, as if the state’s power somehow outranks God’s.