Marriage! Who created it? God did!

Genesis 2:24 says, after the description of how God created Eve (woman), “ ... a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” God created marriage/families to strengthen relationships and societies. 

Obviously, with same-sex partnerships one of God’s primary purposes — to have children — isn’t possible. We’re not made that way!

So, if God created marriage, then how and why is the government involved?   It used to be that couples were required to have a blood test before being granted a license to get married. That was done away with around 1990. So why is there still a licensing requirement? 

Galveston County issues about 2,000 (at $81) licenses a year generating $162,000 in revenue. But all the needs for licensing could be dealt with through “partnership agreements” eliminating Government from the process entirely.

Our “progressive” friends tell us we need to keep church and state separate. OK, so if marriage was created by God, shouldn’t it be restricted to religious institutions? The logical conclusion is if two people wanted to get “married” they would go to their local church, synagogue, or mosque and have such a ceremony conducted where a covenant is made between the two people and their God. 

But what if the people don’t believe in God? Simple, create a civil contract with each other leaving God out of the equation. 

The contract could spell out the terms of their partnership. If they ever wanted to break up the partnership they could do so in the courts based upon their contract with each other.

Going a step further; what if two people of the same-sex wanted to get “married” and doing so doesn’t fit the guidelines/beliefs of a mosque, synagogue, or church? 

Will “progressives” try to force (or bully) their agenda upon these religious institutions as well? This has already started! At what point do we say enough is enough?

Quite frankly our issue is about groups wanting to force acceptance of their belief system or their agenda upon those who have a religious objection, it’s about religious freedom! 

It’s one thing to want a wedding cake or flowers for same-sex union and going to a baker or florist who’s willing to provide them. It’s quite another when prospective couples — instead of going to an establishment around the corner that’ll provide these goods/services — go to a shop that has a religious objection and then attempt to force (bully) them to either provide the goods/services or face an expensive legal battle — perhaps forcing a “ma and pa” shop out of business. Oregon state government even took the extreme measure of placing a gag order on a shop’s Christian owners — a violation of their religious and free speech rights!

We ask “Is this about getting a good/service or is it about forcing a person/business to act in opposition to their religious beliefs?” 

This issue isn’t about discrimination; instead it’s an attack on religious freedom!

Bill Sargent, Mark Mansius and John Gay are writing a series of columns on timely issues for today. All three ran in the 14th Congressional District primary.

(25) comments

PD Hyatt

Bravo.... It is and has been about the destruction of the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Next they will go after the freedom of assembly.... The so called party of tolerance is only tolerant if you believe in their perverted ways....

Christopher Fluke

No, it's never been about the destruction of the freedom of religion and freedom of speech for those of us who are gay. I am a tax paying individual that was born this way and don't believe in the same religion as you, and you, and your kind, have been trying to force your religion and stop my freedom of speech for millennium.

You can believe whatever you want to, and practice your religion as you see fit, but DO NOT FORCE IT ON ME!

Doyle Beard

At the same time man dont try and force me to have to accepts your views either. Dont force them on me if you please.

Michael Jozwiak

This country was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but on a wide range of individual freedoms. Why are so many afraid of people who will not hurt you nor infringe on your own freedoms? Tell me anything Jesus said for or against gay people? Nothing is found in the New Testament. Written here by former office seekers, they only jump on the bandwagon to keep their names out front of a public that has already rejected them on the ballot. Religious comments here are like the purpose of religious wars over the centuries: .... to give everyone the right to worship YOUR WAY!

Carlos Ponce

Jesus LOVES the Homosexual, as he died for all sinners. But He asks all sinners to " Go. From now on sin no more." To his apostles He gave authority. "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." And his apostles spoke of homosexual behavior as sin. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." So to say "Nothing is found in the New Testament" is false. But we are all sinners, saved only by the Grace of God. By turning to the Lord and calling upon His name we become new. Time is growing short. I don't want you to worship my way but in Jesus' way. "and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil....."

Doyle Beard

Michael needs a history lesson.

Paula Flinn

"Quite frankly our issue is about groups wanting to force acceptance of their belief system or their agenda upon those who have a religious objection, it’s about religious freedom! " (The 3 Musketeers)

Apparently, right or wrong, the State of Oregon said the discrimination and inequality shown to the gay couple by the Kleins trumped their "religious rights" to refuse to bake and sell them a cake. The decision was based on discrimination and inequality, not on religion.

If the Kleins had won their case, then Christian teachers or professors of gay couples would have the right to put them out of their classrooms. Christian doctors of gay couples would have the right to not administer to them. Christian-owned hotel owners would have the right to not admit gay couples. Christian-owned restaurants would have the right not to let gay couples in or serve them. Christian-owned airlines would have the right not to fly them. Think of the repercussions.

This is not an attack on someone's religion. Have a little common sense! People still have the right to follow any religion they choose. However, the Bible was not written to be a governmental rule book.

Carlos Ponce

Why should adhering to your religious beliefs be considered discrimination? As to your example "Christian teachers or professors of gay couples would have the right to put them out of their classrooms" if you are doing your job as a teacher, that is, teaching your subject, a child's sense of sexual identity should never come up. And in the normal course of business, a restaurant, an airline, a hotel, a physician NEVER asks about sexual orientation. IT JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN. In the case of "Sweet Cakes by Melissa", Melissa's interview of the "couple" was well known and documented on social media. The Lesbian woman knew that Melissa would ask ask about the "groom". She knew she would be turned away when revealed it would be a same-sex union. Melissa was set up. It was an attack on the Klein's religious beliefs. Let's see how far this case goes especially the gag order issued where they cannot speak about their religious views. This is an attack on religion.
Here is a partial of damages the Lesbian couple claimed (there are 178 claims total): "concern for privacy at home; concern for safety at home; dislike of going to work; distrust of former friends; distrust of men; fear of not being able to get another job; fear of being alone; felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful; future job opportunities damaged; hysteria; inability to find work; irritability with family and friends; loss of opportunity for bonding with infant; migraine headaches; nightmares; not wanting husband (?) to touch her; pale and sick at home after work, etc."

Paula Flinn

Carlos, do you live in a vacuum? In high school you can tell who is gay and who is not. They hold hands or kiss in the halls & stairwells. They look at each other lovingly. Girls talk about their girlfriends. They have prom pictures taken together with their arms around each other. They danced together. The teacher does not have to say a word, and shouldn't.

People who take reservations in restaurants and who register married gay couples in a hotel can tell. It is not a secret anymore. Doctors know. Gay people talk to their doctors. And, I say, in the normal course of business, if you are doing your job as a baker & seller of wedding cakes, maybe you should overlook the fact that there will not be a groom on the cake. How does that affect YOUR religious rights?

I did not rule on this case, the State of Oregon did. Did they go too far? In my opinion, yes, with the fine and the gag order, but the State probably wanted to set a precedent that no one in business can discriminate for any reason, and that everyone should be treated equally. Otherwise, you would have many other cases like this tying up the courts.

Carlos Ponce

" In high school you can tell who is gay and who is not." No I cannot. Students on task don't act sexually. And I rode as a chaperone with the band for many years. After graduation we learned about a few that were but they did not act out in the bus.
"They hold hands or kiss in the halls & stairwells". Tangible courtship is against the school rules where I taught. Must not be where you teach.
" They look at each other lovingly.". Not in class, in the cafeteria, ball games, bus etc. And I taught in the High School that produced the first openly "gay" NFL player. No one knew except his close friends I am told, not even his coaches.
"They have prom pictures taken together with their arms around each other." I attended many proms never saw it. I saw friends take pictures together. Did I classify them as homosexual? No. The girl came with a boy to the prom and later she married a young man. Just because you see two or more of the same gender taking prom pictures doesn't mean anything. Prom pictures are not just for lovers. If they were I'd be in trouble since I took many a picture with young ladies and men who wanted a picture with their teacher. And yes some put their arm around me, the ladies and the dudes. Paula, no student ever asked you for prom picture shot?
You must live in a world where you classify. You see straight, You see LGBT. I see PEOPLE. Do you go places , church, school, restaurants, etc thinking "that person is straight, that person is gay"? That's your life, not mine.
I'm glad you agree that Oregon went too far. I hope that law is tossed out or modified. So easy to say I can't accommodate you but are other places that will ala Wal-Mart and the Confederate Flag Class Ring.

Christopher Fluke

Carlos, you have no idea and no clue about the prejudice I face all of the time. As I have first hand experience of bigotry and hatred of simply who I am, I can tell you plenty of people can tell that I am gay. I am not flamboyant by any means and can try to "hide" if I want, but it does not work in reality.

Do you talk about your family at work? Do you talk about anything personal at school? Do you talk about anything other than the specific event, function, etc. that you are at? EVERYONE talks about their personal lives. You are asking us to hide in the closet.

This is a free country but I can't simply walk down the street, or outside of my house, holding the hand of the person I love without fear of being harassed or beaten up, which has happened to me.

When in school, everyone knew I was gay because I didn't like girls. I never told anyone I was gay but I sure was harassed and bullied for being gay. Even closeted I couldn't escape it. Heck, I even tried to date a few girls to "hide" but they caught on and spread the rumors themselves (except for a few lesbians who were trying to hide as well and one very nice girl who I am still friends with).

I have had poor service at hotels and on a cruise line recently because I asked for a single king bed instead of two doubles. The last cruise I took, the steward was very nice at first. It went south when he apologized that the bed was a king and argued with me when I told him it was correct and that me and my partner sleep together. Unlike every other cruise, I never saw him the rest of the cruise and the service was barely minimal at best.

Restaurant? Have you ever held the hand of your wife, or significant other, at a restaurant or other public place? How about a hug? How about a sweet little kiss? You are asking us to hide. What about valentines? Yeah, I have been denied service as a restaurant that had a special valentines dinner for two, straights only.

I've had three doctors ask me about my sex life as part of of an understanding about my medical needs. Urologists and Colon Surgeons are doctors who do ask about that, as well as my GP. Most doctors don't because they assume you are straight and easily figure it out in the casual conversations most people have with their doctors. Are you asking me to lie and say I have sex with women?

etc. etc. etc.

So, a viewpoint from a straight person who doesn't see prejudices is wrong when talking about prejudice. It is categorically wrong to say "IT JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN" when I, and many of my gay friends, see it all of the time. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE STRAIGHT AND MOST GAY PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED TO HIDE!

We are tired of hiding and being subjected to someone else's religious views that are impending our freedoms and religious rights. No one is asking you to be gay. No one is asking you to not be Christian. Don't ask me to be straight. Don't ask me to follow your religion.

Carlos Ponce

Christopher, if I would encounter you, I would not know if you were "gay" or "straight" unless you told me. I make no judgements. I would accept you as a fellow human being.When my former students at reunions introduced me to their"partners" I shook their hands and gave anecdotes of their antics in high school as I would with any "straight" couple. Like I told Paula I don't go looking at other's behavior in public. We were probably brought up differently but I was taught that public displays of affection was socially unacceptable. I save that for private moments. Consider this, after asking about your sex life did the medical professional treat you any differently? The only difference would be in looking after your specific medical needs relevant to your lifestyle. The church welcomes homosexuals. However as previously posted the church also calls such to a celibate life. "Homosexual persons are called to chastity and to a self-mastery to gain inner freedom. If supported by disinterested friendship, prayer, and the sacraments they can approach Christian perfection." Catholic Catechism 2359 These words are not to condemn but to secure inner peace and secure you a place among the elect. May God Bless you.

Christopher Fluke

Carlos, I am sure you are a good person. Just because you don't see the prejudices around you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that was my point. You are also probably blind to all of the straight people that do show affection in public, which happens all the time around us.

I was at a fundraiser recently. At least three straight couples directly around me were holding hands. Most people wouldn't even notice. I noticed because if I did it, people would notice it. The subtleties of this are lost on most people except those of us who are impacted by it.

I was at the movies. A man and wife are buying popcorn. He subtly moves his arm around her waste and says "what would you like dear?"

I was watching the Fourth of July fireworks. A man was leaning against a wall, his wife/girlfriend was leaning against him with his arms around her and their hands intertwined. There was countless straight couples sitting in chairs next to each other with one of their hands on the lap of the other or around the other's shoulder.

At a clothing store, a woman hands her purse to what appears to be her husband, kisses him on the cheek and says, "thanks for holding my purse honey while I try these cloths on".

All of those are subtle public displays of affection that go unnoticed every day. What people think about public displays of affection are typically full on kissing and groping, not all of these subtle clues that they are a couple.

As far as doctors, ask the Pediatrician in Detroit about not treating a baby because of religious objections over having lesbians as parents. Most doctors have to provide services because of how the laws are written and the systems they work for have policies against discrimination of any form. This does not mean that they have to make it pleasant, or that they are required to do everything possible to care for the person, it just means that most are required by some method to not discriminate. I would have to say that most doctors care about people period, which is a good thing.

Also, with doctors, or other important services in my life, I, along with many in the LGBT community, make it a point to know the providers stance on the LGBT community, as I do not want to waste my time or efforts on someone who is bigoted towards who I am. The places that are hard to do that at are things like grocery stores, gas stations, cake shops, etc.

I respect that you have religious convictions. The issue is when we start allowing religious views being forced onto others. It's a two way street. If you want to allow a store to discriminate based on their religious views, it needs to be all or nothing. They need to be a private club and not public. If a Christian wants to not serve gay people, good for them, but they must also refuse service to Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, people who have been divorced, etc.

To me, it is ironic that the people claiming they are being persecuted for their Christian religious beliefs are the very ones that have predominantly persecuted me and the LGBT community based on their religious beliefs. That, to me, is hypocritical and the epitome of bigotry.

If your god is so callous to create me this way and to make my life horrible, kill millions and millions of people, and have the first born calfs killed along with the first born male children, I'm not sure I care to believe in that religion. Thanks, but no thanks.

Carlos Ponce

Like I posted I don't go around looking at other people gay or straight for outward or subtle signs of affection. I spent over 30 years managing students making certain they remained on task so carrying that chore outside the classroom is not for me. At church I greet people as they enter and shake their hand. I know that we are all sinners. If sinners were not permitted, the pews, choir loft and the pulpit would be empty. I do not judge people on how they are dressed; the man on the cross is shoeless and shirtless. If people approach me to receive the Body or Blood of Christ or a Blessing I do not judge what state their soul is in. I pray that they are right with God if they receive Communion. God is not callous. We all have our own cross to bear. You are fully aware of yours. Leave your burden at the Cross. May God Bless You.

William Ferrary

No.

Paula Flinn

Yes, if you want community property rights and benefits, spousal rights and benefits, inheritance rights and benefits, visitation rights in hospitals, paternal or maternal rights, rights of children born in a marriage, child support payments after divorce, etc. Without the government and the ability to take someone to court, no one could claim these rights. The government also needs to be involved in divorce.

The title of this piece is (pardon me) a dumb question.

Carlos Ponce

A contract as they propose doesn't take care of that?

Christopher Fluke

What do you think a marriage license from the governments viewpoint is? It's a contract. I'm all for renaming it to civil unions but when we tried that it failed. Do you know that not only did some states create bans of "marriage", they created bans on "civil unions" of same-sex couples.

Christopher Fluke

If you don't want government involved with marriage, than you should take all benefits of marriage away from everyone. You cannot say in one breath that you don't want government involved and then immediately say you want the government to extend benefits.

I have paid my taxes, just like every other straight person. I was born this way. Stop forcing your religion on me. We tried civil unions and the ones that are against marriage now are the same ones that fought us on civil unions.

PD Hyatt

From what I have seen the so called party of tolerance are only tolerant if you accept their perverted lifestyle.... Jesus did talk about sin which is what happens with homosexuals, and it is called fornication. Jesus did talk about marriage and if you would read Matth 19 you would see that he spoke of marriage as between a man and a woman.... Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fullfil the law.... Sex outside of marriage is a sin and marriage is between man and woman.... Man may have changed the law, but he can not change the way God set it up....

Christopher Fluke

Let me start off by saying; I know I am not going to change your deeply held views; likewise, you will not change my deeply held views. This response is mainly to express my views because you called my kind perverted, which is intolerant and hypocritical.

Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Tolerance is not necessarily acceptance. You are confusing the two. When you don’t tolerate someone else because of who they are or what they believe, that is by definition intolerance (and another word that I won’t say but fits). I don’t expect you to accept who I am but I expect you to be tolerant of my kind.

I am very tolerant of your religious beliefs and practices in your own home and in your churches. You can still practice everything that you stated. If you believe that homosexuality is fornication, don’t practice homosexuality. If you believe marriage is between a man and woman, don’t marry the person of the same sex. If you don’t believe in sex outside of marriage, don’t have sex outside of marriage. You are free to practice all of that and your churches are free to deny religious marriage to anyone they want. I am not here trying to tell you not to practice that.

The government should not be in the religious business, period. Congress shall make no law respective of religious beliefs, FOR or AGAINST. Government marriage is a contract. If you don’t like the word Marriage being used, get congress to rename it Civil Unions, and all the respective laws that have the word Marriage in it. I am all for that, and most in the LGBT community would be fine with that. Heck, we even tried Registered Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions, and guess what, your side made it so difficult to even do that. Talk about intolerant. You aren’t just trying to protect your religious views; you are trying to impart your religious views onto my kind.

Your side is mad because the government contract of marriage has been extended to loving same-sex couples, which is intolerance. You are saying that because of your religion, government should get out of the marriage business, which at that point changes your views from being tolerant to in-tolerant and trying to force your religious beliefs upon my kind. By spouting off religious scripture in your defense to make, change, or remove laws, you are at that point imposing your religion onto others. The claim that extending the government contract of marriage to same-sex couples infringes on your religious beliefs is preposterous. None of the changes to the law will deny you from practicing your religion as you see fit, including religious marriage.

You called me, and my kind, perverted. I have the majority of mental health professionals on my side, and enough observations of nature, that agree that homosexuality is naturally occurring. It is people on your side that say they want tolerance of their views but haven’t been tolerant of other people’s view on homosexuality (for an extremely long time) and your side is now crying foul when we refused to bow to your religious views. Had your side not actively fought against us and worked towards a solution, such as changing to Civil Unions, we wouldn’t have gotten to this point. And had you left off the first sentence of your post calling my kind perverted, and just spouted off your religious views, I would not have even wasted my time commenting, as I do believe in your freedom of religion and speech. When you call my kind perverts, you cross the line of intolerance from my point of view and might as well call us what you probably really want, and that is faggots, dykes, queers, etc.

Let’s ask this question; shall we allow Muslims to add sharia law into our government? What about Pagans and Satanists? I guarantee that if any of those groups used their religious texts to try and influence the laws of the United States, you would be protesting that the government should not make laws for or against a religion because it would infringe on your religious beliefs. Stop doing the same thing.

I don’t care if you accept me, or my kind. Call us perverts, faggots, queers, dykes, whatever you want, we’ve heard it for millennium and suffered through all the hatred before. We aren’t going to go away. As the number of humans ever increases, so will my kind, science and statistics tell us that simple fact. We are now large enough, and loud enough, to no longer be oppressed by intolerant people or hide in the closet because it goes against yours, or anyone else’s, religious views.

So go to your church, stand at the pew and preach whatever you want. No one is stopping you from doing that. It’s a free country, even more so now. Tolerance is allowing you to continue to do that.

Paula Flinn

I agree with everything you said, Christopher Fluke.

Doyle Beard

Lots of fabrication in your post.Fluke

Christopher Fluke

Glad I stated my first point. I repeat, though I know nothing I say will change your deeply held believes, you called me a lier, so I must respond.

There are only a few places that aren't my personal experience or my opinion, and would be subject to fabrication.

1) Mental Health professionals? The largest mental health organizations, like the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the World Health Organization, say so. As quoted by the APA: "...the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality...." Lots of links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

2) Observations in nature. 1500 species observed with homosexuality within their species. There is an exhibit in Norway with all the species. People wonder why I want to live there. Help me get there and I'll gladly move away. Lots of links here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
http://www.nhm.uio.no/besok-oss/utstillinger/skiftende/againstnature/index-eng.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

3) Government shouldn't be in the religious business? Read amendment 1 of the bill of rights, it's in English and pretty clear..

4) We tried RDP and Civil Unions. Want a list of states that banned Civil Unions and/or any type of contract between gay people that would give the same benefits as marriage? Guess what, as soon as we went towards Civil Unions, the second state to ban Gay Marriage also banned Civil Unions. Here in Texas it was "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type

5) The definition of tolerance? That came from "define: tolerance", which you can google if you don't believe me.

So tell me, what fabrication are you talking about exactly?

Paula Flinn

Doyle doesn't know, Christopher. I believe he called you a liar (fabricator) just to "stir the pot." He probably did not think that you had such a completely true answer for him (and all). JMHO [smile]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.