UPDATE

It appears I was wrong in my understanding that estrogen acts in an abortifacient manner if ovulation has already occurred. I do not fully understand the medical science behind all this, and I tried to read the article I was referred to, but I did not find it easy to comprehend. I will quote from the discussion on Facebook, and link to the article in question.

Dr. Paul didn’t say progesterone, he said estrogen. According to my research, an estrogen shot tends to inhibit ovulation and fertilization, but doesn’t seem to have any affect on implantation of an already fertilized egg. It would basically have the same effect as a woman breastfeeding an infant, although presumably would not be as strong given a single shot. Some have mistakenly assumed he was speaking about a treatment that would inhibit implantation, or even worse, would cause the shedding of an implanted embryo, but those assumptions just aren’t factually correct. Those may actually be effects of a regimen of low dosage birth control pills with estrogen and progesterone, but that’s not how the estrogen shot works. (This is particularly ironic in light of recent revelations of candidates who have cheerfully voted to fund PP dispensing birth control under Title X … )

Here is a link that discusses some of the science, from a Christian perspective: Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications

Dr. Paul didn’t handle the interview well, but I don’t believe he said anything inconsistent with a true pro-life position.

So my position is further strengthened if this is true so I’m glad of that. But I am sorry that I in any way contributed to what appears to be myth.

Original article follows unaltered…

I’ve been wanting to write about this since it first started blowing up a couple weeks ago, but I haven’t had the time. I don’t technically have the time this morning, but I’m going to write about it anyway because I need to. I need to get my thoughts out there on this. I need to get it off my chest

Please be aware that this topic can be sensitive. I’ll be talking about some things quite frankly so please, if you are a minor reading this post, I highly encourage you to ask your parents to read this first and let you know whether it is appropriate for you to read about this subject. I will try to keep it clean certainly, but this topic over which allegations are being presented against Ron Paul includes rape, abortion etc. So please be advised.

So with that necessary disclaimer out of the way, let’s get started.

What’s the problem?

It all starts with this video (at least that seems to be what has instigated the current trend of dropping support for Ron Paul like a hot potato). I have set the video to start at the specific time code of the views in question.

The gist of this is that Ron Paul would give a shot of estrogen to a women who comes in to an emergency room and who has just been legitimately raped. She would obviously not like for this to result in a pregnancy. She wants to know what can be done. Ron Paul says a shot of estrogen would do the trick.

The problem seems to revolve around the idea that estrogen can cause a fertilized ovum (otherwise known to Christians as a baby!) to fail to implant on the wall of the uterus. This results of course in a very early miscarriage. The idea is that to purposely cause this is not a pro-life position.

Of course I’ve seen other views espoused on this issue too. Such as that all sexual intercourse should be able to result in a pregnancy and that even in the case of rape you should not try to prevent pregnancy. This is usually in line with the view that all forms of birth control, whether abortifacient or not, are wicked and evil.

Advancements in medicine

As anyone who knows me might guess, I think the issue is much more complex and nuanced than either of those two views allow. Consider this; we have made enormous strides and advancements in the last 100 years or so (give or take) in medical science, technology, knowledge, technique, etc. I do not have a problem with this, I see this as part of the dominion mandate. I am not espousing at all the idea that our dominion over this area of life is not good or that we should go back to the dark ages of leeches and bloodletting. But I do want to point out that we wrestle with ideas and concepts that no other generation has had to before. And we have a problem as well that many of the men and women in the field of medicine are not Godly at all but wicked and evil. They do not see medicine as an area of taking dominion as prescribed by a biblical dominion mandate. Rather they see our advancements as evidence that we are in the place of God. That we may make decisions on life and death, that we may kill babies. There are lots of ethical and moral dilemmas to consider, but this seems to cause the most uproar among Christians, and I would even say rightly so. We should protect life, no matter the age, no matter the status, inside or outside the womb.

The beginning of life

Let me state for the record here and now, I firmly believe life begins at conception. Not at implantation, not when cell division occurs, but when a sperm fertilizes an ovum. This places me firmly in the perhaps stereotypical evangelical pro-life camp. But, Ron Paul has stated in the video above that he also believes unequivocally that life begins at conception. Further, in his book Abortion and Liberty, Ron Paul had this to say:

To permit abortion at one day of gestation justifies it at two days; if it’s permitted one day before three months, it’s justified one day after three months; if it is permitted at one day before ‘viability,’ a nebulous term that has no meaning, it is justified at any time. Allowing abortion at six months gestation minus one day precludes an argument against abortion two days later. Attempting such an argument is a legal joke, a medical impossibility, and a moral hoax. Just as a pregnancy of one week cannot be put aside as “insignificant,” claiming it is only a ‘touch’ of pregnancy, abortion, regardless of the reason, cannot be downplayed as only a limited and qualified disregard for human life. Disrespect for life and liberty, once planted, grows rapidly.

I think this easily shows Ron Paul’s position on the matter. Ron Paul is pro-life.

What’s Paul saying in the video then?

The gist of it is, I think, this. How can one regulate the use of estrogen? Do we regulate that a woman can’t have a shot of estrogen under these certain circumstances but can in any other? Do we outlaw estrogen? Further complicated, a pregnancy can’t be confirmed at this stage. I daresay women have done things that caused a very early abortion without realizing it. This is the approach I see Ron Paul taking.

To me the medically challenging part is this: As far as my understanding goes, the large dose of estrogen will cause a thickening of mucus that would prevent the egg from being released (ovulation). It also causes mucus thickening in the uterine walls. This could have one of two effects.

1. If estrogen is administered immediately after sexual intercourse and before ovulation has occurred, it will prevent ovulation. If ovulation does not occur, the sperm will find no egg, and fertilization (conception) will not take place.

2. If estrogen is administered after ovulation, the thickened mucus on the uterine wall will have the abortifacient result of preventing implantation.

This is why Ron Paul says this is a moral choice and not one the state should be involved in regulating. And I agree it’s a tricky issue. I also admit to not having a clear cut answer. Though I disagree with his personally stated choice of saying he would administer the estrogen presumably without finding out more about the woman’s current state in her cycle, I do not know personally whether we should have state intervention that would prevent this. As I stated previously, on what basis would we propose such regulation? And it’s complicated by the fact that women can and do chart their cycles in such a way as to know whether they have ovulated or not, whether they are close to ovulation etc. My wife does this. She, along with our midwife, has been able to predict with a high degree of accuracy the due date of each of our three children based on when she ovulated from her charting. In the case where a woman was legitimately raped, was charting and knows that she has not yet ovulated but is close, would a shot of estrogen to prevent ovulation from occurring be morally wrong?

You see what I mean by this issue being nuanced and complex? It’s not cut and dry. I personally believe we should always err on the side of life. If there’s even the slightest doubt, then I would preserve what I believed may be the life inside the rape victims body. This is a stance that many find hard to stomach, and I know I have not been faced with this circumstance personally. But I believe that were my wife (or in the future my daughter) to be raped, God forbid such a thing would happen, but if it were to happen, and a life were to be conceived because of such a circumstance, then it would be our duty, my duty, to preserve and care for this life.

What does this mean for my voting conscience?

Ron Paul has stated on many occasions that as president, he would only support legislation that defined life as beginning at conception. He makes absolutely no exceptions. And his record over the many years he has served proves his pro-life position beyond a shadow of any doubt. He is the most pro-life candidate we have seen in a very long, long time.

After much consideration, this has not impacted my voting decision at all. I still support Ron Paul for president. I believe that when considering all the possibilities and weighing all things carefully, it is the best possible choice I could make. It is the best possible choice any Christian could make for president. Upon reflecting on this issue, I have determined that absolutely nothing has changed.

One more thing

I want to put out this final thought. I think perhaps those of us who bleed conservatism when pricked, who are as far to the right of the conventional American “conservative” as the east is from the west, those of us who for years and years and years have been on the outside looking in because the so called conservatives in this country were just less liberal but still so, are so very used to being in the minority and on the outside that we are unconsciously uncomfortable with having a candidate get anywhere close to mainstream. Ron Paul’s surge in popularity has scared us and so our subconscious minds began looking for something wrong. And when this popped up, I think many jumped on it (again, unconsciously). It was like, “Ah HAH!, I knew it! We just can’t support those main stream candidates. They’re all the same.” This is a defeatist mentality, and one I suggest we dump immediately! Ron Paul probably isn’t even going to win this, so what do you think would happen if we actually advanced a candidate into a position where he would actually win? Let’s loose this defeatist attitude, and I mean right now!

I debated writing this… I’m going to get some push back on this for sure (or at least I’m fairly certain. Or perhaps people will read this, shake their heads in disgust and move on).

So there’s this picture of a quote from Stephen Colbert (above) going around “The Facebook” and it goes like this:

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.

Now, before I go any further, understand this; I am in no way opposed to helping the poor and needy. I am in no way suggesting that we despise the poor and oppressed. Indeed, as Christians, it is our duty to help the poor and needy as Stephen Colbert indicates.

What I am going to push against is the implied notion that this help must necessarily be done by means of the government. Again note that I feel this is implied in the statement. But it is not explicitly stated. Since it is not explicitly state, I could be getting the wrong implication.

However, the point I am going to make stands regardless.

This is the argument I hear from folks who want to perpetuate government welfare programs (for instance). That as a Christian Nation, we have a duty to help the poor, so therefore we must have welfare, government healthcare, free education (provided by the government) etc. etc.

If I were to say something like what Colbert said, I would rephrase the first part to this:

“If we are going to be a Christian nation, but the people of this nation are not characterized by their generosity to the poor…”

You can see from my rephrasing where I might be going with this. There are three spheres of authority that are biblically delineated. Those are:

1. Family
2. Church
3. Civil

There is of course some overlap of all three, but the idea that civil government would be involved in charity is misplaced in my judgement. Helping the poor and needy, the widows and the orphans falls into two of the three spheres of authority: Family and Church. For the civil government to care for the needy would necessitate (as we see today) that they derive those resources from those under it’s jurisdiction. For the government is not a producer of resources, but must therefore acquire those resources by taking them from someone. This is known by another name: Socialism. It is nothing more than wealth redistribution.

Government is there for the enforcement of civil law and for defense of the land. That (along with a couple of other very limited things) is the job of the civil government according to a Biblical worldview.

The real problem we have in this nation is that the Church, and her members (families) have abdicated the God given calling to exercise care for the poor, for the widow and orphan. We have allowed our civil government to take over this duty that belongs only to us and it is wrong. But it’s a vicious cycle. That the government does this makes it hard for us to do that which we have been called.

Because it is a circular problem, it is very hard to break, but break it we must in order to get our nation back into a biblical framework.

I posted this on Facebook, and I’m also posting it here. So if something appears to be in the context of Facebook, that’s why.

I’m writing this over my lunch break, because of some things that have happened on Facebook over the last several weeks.

In the last few months, it seems I have acquired quite a few new Facebook friends, many whom I do not know. That’s fine. The more the merrier. But I think there’s some things you should know about me, because sometimes there seems to be some confusion.

The idea of writing this sounded far less self important when I thought of it. However, hopefully without sound too self important, allow me to go into a few things you can expect to see from me. Read if you’re interested. If not, that’s fine too. If you’re like me, you’re really busy and don’t have time to read every long winded thing on Facebook.

So here we go, a few things you should know about me:

1. I am without apology and without compromise, first a foremost a Christian. This means I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. I acknowledge my sinfulness, inherited through the sin of Adam (original sin), and my need of a Savior. God sent His Son to redeem His people, of whom, because of His grace, I can count myself among. This motivates and drives everything I do. I desire to advance the Lordship of Christ in any capacity He has called me. Christ is King!

   This is first for a reason. It is because I identify myself with Christ’s Church, and many churches that I count to be part of The Universal Church may not hold to the specific doctrines or political views I do. Yet I still count them as brothers and sisters.

2. I am Reformed Presbyterian in my Theological understanding. This means among other things that I believe in what is commonly called the Doctrines of Grace (or sometimes Calvinism). I believe in the Total Depravity of Man, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement (that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross accomplished all that it was intended to. Sometimes referred to as the efficacy of the atonement), Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints. Though not all Reformed Presbyterians are, I am Post Millennial in my understanding of eschatology. This means I believe Christ is ruling and reigning right now. He is King!

   I subscribe to The Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Westminster Standards and Confession of Faith.

   I hold to, as does the Church where I am a member, Liturgical, Covenant Renewal Worship. And as a Presbyterian, I believe that the New Covenant is not only for adults, but for the families, the Children of believers. And just as in the Old Covenant where the children were given the sign and seal of the covenant in circumcision, so too do New Covenant children receive the sign and seal of our Christian faith; that of baptism. And, this is important in how we understand our Worship. We do not whisk our children away from us as soon as we enter the door of the church, to be off and worshipping apart from us. We believe that Children should worship along side us, as members of the congregation.

   And one points leads into another…

3. I am a strong advocate for Christian education. My preferred method is homeschooling, but the primary goal is Christian education and parental responsibility over a child’s education which should not be abdicated. I do not believe this must be homeschooling, but that I believe is the best way.

   But primarily, Christian parents are to raise their covenant children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Christian children do not “belong” to the parent, nor do they belong to the evil one. They belong to Christ. They are not enemies of the gospel, they are Christ’s disciples. Christian parents are to realize that the children entrusted to them are not their own but Christ’s. We are to take heed to follow the instructions of the Bible when it comes to raising our children. We are to be faithful to teach them correct and sound doctrine, in short we are responsible for every aspect of our children’s training. We do not have the authority to abdicate and hand that off to someone else. Not to the Church, not to government schools, but we bear the weight and responsibility entirely.

4. Politically, I am very conservative. And at this time, I am strongly “campaigning” you might say for Ron Paul. In fact, you will find at the moment, because I am so passionate about this, that most of my Facebook statues, updates, posts, whatever you want to call them, have to do with Ron Paul. It’s a phase I’m going through (because I believe it is very important right now), and I’ll become slightly less annoying on this topic after the elections (probably).

   Some other political points you will often see me making, and that I believe strongly:

   I do not believe it is the responsibility of government to feed the poor, to hand out welfare checks, to meddle in our affairs for our safety. It is the Church’s responsibility to care for the poor, the fatherless, the widows. That the Church has largely abdicated her responsibilities has led to the disastrous situation we are faced with today.

   I believe we should seek to elect Godly, Christian men to office in our country on every level of government.

   I support shrinking the size and scope of the federal government.

   I believe we should return to a constitutional and Biblical monetary system. The system we have now is based on fiat currency which is unjust and unbiblical (a.k.a. unjust weights and measures; Lev 19:36; Prov 16:11).

   I believe we should only engage in Biblical, and constitutional wars.

   I support state’s rights.

   I desire to return our nation to a Biblical and constitutional foreign policy.

   However, though I am very passionate on political subjects, none should make the mistake that my faith is in politics; who wins, who looses. God is in control whoever wins and looses. He has already written the history of the future. Nothing surprises him or catches him off guard. My faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And now, if you cared to read this, you know a little bit more about me and what to expect.

Today Michael Farris, founder of HSLDA came out with both barrels blazing against Ron Paul. It deeply saddens me to see this turn of events. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the commitment Mr. Farris has to defending homeschooling. As a friend of mine said,

I could fill my page saying nice things about Mr. Farris and all he has done to secure and promote homeschooling freedoms in the US and around the world.

source

But here, I deeply disagree with Mr. Farris:

Ron Paul is an enemy of the legal principles that the homeschooling movement has used successfully to defend our freedom to teach our own children.

Look, just because bad law has been used and argued successfully in favor of homeschooling does not mean it is not bad law. Mr. Farris is making an argument of expediency rather than principle. Farris seems to hold the 14th amendment up very high; and it has helped him to win many battles in favor of homeschooling. But all the more do liberals use the 14th amendment, including organizations like the ACLU. Indeed, the 14th amendment has been used to take power away from the states. This is why I agree with Ron Paul that the 14th amendment has been greatly abused.

It saddens me to see that Mr. Farris is such a “one issue” voter that he cannot see the bigger picture. He would take the approach that states rights should be sacrificed so that we may take our issues on homeschooling to the federal level. The problem is that things on the federal level hardly ever work in our favor. We need to get these issues back in the realm of the states where they belong.

I’m afraid that Mr. Farris, while well intended, is arguing the wrong argument. He would argue for the federal government’s ever encroaching powers so long as it suited his purpose. Dr. Ron Paul is the champion of liberty here. And just because one of the steps on the road to reducing the size, scope, and power of the federal government cuts down one of the primary ways Mr. Farris has been arguing for homechooling at the federal level does not mean that Ron Paul is anti-homeschooling. I dare say, given Paul’s stand for liberty, that he is very much for the rights of parents to homeschool their children. Remember that Ron Paul wants less intrusive government, not more. Mr. Farris wants a federal government with a broader scope of powers so that he can argue in favor of homeschooling at that level, and it’s like using a jackhammer to drill a hole in drywall for hanging a picture, it’s just not really going to work out well.

And let me bring up another point, what things require a constitutional amendment anyway? Why do we need them? What happens that makes them seem necessary.

I am making a point here… The problem is not that we don’t have the right laws in place. The problem is not that we need amendments to the constitution to get things where they need to be. The reason we have the problems in our country that we are dealing with now is because of the evilness and rebelliousness of men’s hearts. We don’t need more laws to secure our freedoms. And we all know that all the laws being written today do nothing to secure our freedom, but are actually trying to take away our already granted constitutional freedoms. No, we do not need more laws and more amendments. We need for men to repent and believe the Gospel.

I’ll link here to a few things. First, to Mr. Farris’s original post on Facebook:

Mr. Farris blasts Ron Paul

And next to a piece by Bojidar Marinov which I mostly agree with. I say mostly, because in his sixth point, Mr. Marinov is a little less charitable to Mr. Farris than I think he should be and attributes motives to Mr. Farris that I don’t think he has.

Bojidar’s response

And now read Mr. Farris’s follow up. Note in the comments (if you have time to wade through such garbage) that some more things come out about Mr. Farris’s issues with Ron Paul. He cites his issues with Ron Paul over his stance on Israel. This flows out of the bad theology that most Christians in America are slaves to.

Michael Farris’s follow up

And finally, one more bit from Mr. Marinov responding to Mr. Farris’s followup.

Bojidar follow up

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

→ Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas

However, as I have had a chance to read more, think more and reconsider whether the dubious pleasures of being a cynical, condescending, self-righteous jerk is worth the cost of God’s eternal judgment (it isn’t): eventually I concluded that I needed to re-think these issues from the bottom up. First, there IS a legitimate theological question on whether or not it is ethically appropriate for Christians to celebrate Christmas, since we have no explicit command to do so. But as I am going to try and demonstrate in this essay, in reality, MOST of the reasons given against Christmas are misinformed at best; and sometimes are mere rationalizations to justify something a bit unsavory in our characters. So if you think you already KNOW all about “Christmas” and its “Pagan past” maybe I can help you to rethink some things.

This is, all in all a great article and I highly recommend that you read it!

Three elderly South Florida women say TSA made them strip

Three South Florida women, all elderly and with medical problems, say Transportation Security Administration officers made them take off their clothes during the screening process at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport last week.

All three, one with a defibrillator, one with a colostomy bag and the other with diabetes, say they were forced to disrobe in a private room at the same terminal.

I’m so glad the TSA put a stop to those potential terrorists. Those elderly people must be the scum of the earth.

You know, words like national security are thrown about a lot, but sometimes the price is just too high. And this is just despicable.

Interview with a pepper-sprayed UC Davis student

emphasis in following quote mine

We’d been protesting at UC Davis for the last week. On Tuesday there was a rally organized by some faculty members in response to the brutality on the UC Berkeley campus, and in response to the proposed 81% tuition hike.

One of the reasons I am involved with #OWS, and advocating for an occupy movement on the UC campus, is to fight privatization and austerity in the UC system, and fight rising tuition costs. I think that citizens have the right to get an education regardless of economic condition. Most people are not going to get a job where they can afford to pay off student loans. But to exclude people from knowledge is unconscionable.

I’m not going to spend too much time on whether the police should have done what they did, whether pepper spray should have been used, whether the students had the right to be there. That said, I will make a couple of general comments on that.

1. The university has clear rules about camping, which were waived for one night. They were then asked to vacate and refused. They were then warned they would be forcibly removed if they did not comply. The students were not on their own property (the property is of course paid for by tax dollars, which is another issue that should not even be, but probably the topic of another post) and were asked to vacate said property in accordance to the rules.
2. I don’t think there was a need for the police brutality that took place. At least not yet. It may have escalated to that, it may not have, we won’t know now. I’m very much against a police state, but some method of law enforcement is necessary for situations when a person, or persons will not vacate property that is not their own when they have been told to do so (of course this is but one instance of when police or some means of enforcement may be necessary in a society). It seems like that applies here.

But moving on to the main point I want to make, what’s truly frightening to me is the part I quoted above. This student apparently believes he has the right to receive an education at taxpayers expense. While I agree he has the constitutional right to pursue any education he would like to, he may not use someone else’s money to do so unless that money is freely given to him.

We in this country (save for a very few of us) have come to have a warped sense of what a right is. We now believe many things are rights that are not. Healthcare, welfare, education, you name it. The American people now think they are entitled to privileges that should only be theirs when they have exercised their true rights to work and earn such things.

I fear much for this country.

Let me start right up front by saying 9-11 was bad. In fact, it was really bad. I really do mourn with those who lost loved ones. I’m not going to argue who’s fault it was, what we could have done to prevent it, etc. etc. However what I am about to say may be offensive to some, but I think it needs to be said. So before I say it I just want to make it clear. I think 9-11 was a very real tragedy, and it is indeed something to be mourned, to be remembered, even something to bring some patriotic spirit out in us. And it has indeed done such to me today. It was after all, my country that was attacked.

However, as I considered 9-11 today, I remembered something else. A tragedy, no less real, occurs in America every single day. It is a tragedy of murder! But more than that, if I may speak collectively for a moment, this is not a tragedy that has come upon us at the hands of terrorists or any other third party. This tragedy is being perpetrated by us. Yes, you read that correctly, it is being perpetrated by us. The statistic I saw (and I don’t know if it’s accurate or not, but it’s really not the point) was that 3,700 babies are murdered each and every day in this once great country while we stand by. In fact many of us condone it, some vehemently so, championing women’s rights and all that. But the fact of the matter is that, overshadowing the mourning of 9-11 for me today, is this holocaust, this wholesale slaughter of little human beings who can’t even speak up to defend themselves.

So if we want to be really patriotic today, let’s remember, and then do something about this tragedy that is far greater than 9-11. While all the conservatives are getting all fired up about fiscal things right now (and well they should), it seems that we’ve become comfortable with this holocaust because it’s not affecting us, or so we think. I hear far more talk about rights, freedoms, national debt, “those stupid liberal democrats,” and the president’s vacations than I do about this very important issue, one that I believe is more important than our own rights and freedoms.

So you know what I have done about it? There’s not much I can do other than using my voice, which I have done and will continue to do. And I’ve stood and held signs in protest. All these things I have done. But what I am really doing is this; I have pledged to myself, and I’ve made it known to others, that I will never knowingly vote for anyone who is for abortion, or who will not oppose abortion at every chance they get. That is the first and most important consideration when I look at a candidate for any political office, I don’t care what that office is, local, state, national.

So that’s what 9-11 ultimately did for me today, is it led me to remember the real tragedy and renew my vow to make it the most important issue above my own rights and liberties.

I am not for mob rule, but it should be noted that the people of california have spoken, and they said homosexual “marriage” should be banned! However, unless you’ve been living under a rock (has anyone noticed I use that phrase a lot on my blog?), you probably already know that Judge Vaughn Walker has struck down proposition 8.

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Judge Vaughn Walker
Decision Striking Down Proposition 8

See, here is the problem. We, the United States of America have ousted the Bible from carrying any authority, certainly any moral authority. But now what do we base our morals on? Without the law of God there is no law, there is no morality, there is no order. Morality becomes something less then an objective standard, something that is at our whim. Morality becomes defined by us and so we are now redefining it. You see the real issue here is not a question of rights. No one has the “right” to deny anyone marriage. No, at stake here is the definition of marriage, and who defines it. Since God’s law has been thrown out, we are now looking to man’s laws to define what a marriage is, and man is now attempting to say that marriage can exist between any two people regardless of gender.

Let me take an extreme example, lets say a man (or a woman) wanted to marry a computer. Would they take this to court because they couldn’t get a marriage license? Marriage is a fundamental right, so shouldn’t a person be allowed to marry their computer?

It’s a fairly silly notion, but it illustrates my point, and that is this; no one is denying these homosexual couples the right to marry. The problem is that marriage has not been defined as being between two members of the same sex… until now. So these people have been free to marry… any consenting member of the opposite sex. Marriage requires two people of opposite sexes.

Let me illustrate further, suppose a person wanted to marry their mother. For the sake of illustration, lay aside for a moment the issue that this would be heinous sin. According to our laws is a man allowed to marry his mother? Of course not, that falls outside the definition of marriage. A man may not marry his mother, for the time being that is not lawful even by man’s laws. It would certainly cause a lot of problems if it was lawful. Same goes for siblings, you may not marry your sibling.

If marriage is not an objective standard with objective limits and boundaries, then marriage has no meaning. God has instituted marriage as being between a man and a woman. No one is allowed to redefine it!

So in closing, while I do not believe proposition 8 is/was unconstitutional, I don’t care. If it is, the constitution would need to conform to God’s law.