The Unholy Marriage License


In Justice Kennedy’s majority ruling legalizing same sex marriage, he stated that, “The homosexuals’ hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” In his mind, homosexuals are not condemned to live in loneliness because they are homosexuals. They can have “sex” and get rid of that loneliness anytime they want to. He considered them condemned because they didn’t have what every pious church-going person has worshiped for the last 500 years – a marriage license. It just took that long for these sacred pieces of paper to be declared civil rights and erected as graven images. That shouldn’t be a shock. Churches have worshiped “holy matrimony” and “family values” for years, while turning a blind eye to the biblical meaning of marriage. What happened to the people who didn’t fit this nuclear family ideal? What happened to people who didn’t marry? Justice Kennedy couldn’t have said it better. They were excluded.

It’s interesting that he used the civil rights language of “excluded” in his majority opinion. To be excluded requires that a person be denied something they feel they have a right too. When any social construct reaches the level of mass acceptance that same sex marriage has, it doesn’t matter what the church says. It doesn’t matter what it thinks the rules are. It only matters what the masses think. And right now they think marriage just exists as a kind of financial contract, to divide up property in cases of divorce and to minimize tax liabilities. On a spiritual level, it has no meaning whatsoever. So it would be inhuman to exclude someone from all its glories, not to mention adulthood itself. So the Obergefell ruling was never about Christian marriages or any of that one flesh union kind of thing, because the church took sex out of the marriage equation decades ago. It also took self-control out of the single equation and replaced it with child marriages and acceptance of sexual immorality. According to the Southern Baptist’s Al Mohler:

“Evangelicals tend to marry slightly earlier than other Americans, but not by much. Many of them plan to marry in their mid-20s. Yet waiting for sex until then feels far too long to most of them. And I am suggesting that when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex. It’s battling our Creator’s reproductive designs.

The truth is, churches consider sexual restraint an impossibility. Their choirs break out in glorious exaltation if their members can make it from the parking lot to the pews without breaking out in mass orgies. But celibacy? That’s just an unreasonable expectation. Without faith in those who have the gift of celibacy, they can never have any faith in the gift of marriage. What do young people in church think about marriage? What is it that they are waiting on? It can’t be sex because that’s an unreasonable expectation. It’s a marriage license, of course. For just a small fee, they are granted full adulthood status and the men are even allowed to preach. So the marriage license itself has become the tradition in which marriage is based on, not the sacred union described in the Bible. Weddings came to be about “making things right” instead of doing things right to begin with. When a woman today is identified as a wife and serves as a role model in church, does that mean she has been faithful to her husband all those years or does it mean she has a marriage license? It has to be the marriage license because sex is too dirty to talk about in church. When a woman is identified as a single, does that mean she has been faithful to God and remained chaste all those years or does it mean she does not have a marriage license? It has to be the marriage license. What witness does that send to the world? How many county clerks defended marriage like Kim Davis did? How many churches have supported single adults? When Justice Kennedy effectively broadened the plaintiffs in the same sex marriage case to include those who did not have a marriage license, he included all single people who had been condemned to this horrific fate. Justice Kennedy merely turned the tables and used the church’s own traditions against them. The church killed biblical marriage, not the Supreme Court.

Marriage should never have been associated with the state or legal system to begin with. I’m not even sure how anyone can claim there is separation of church and state in this country. Preachers and priests are still acting as agents of the state and signing marriage licenses. I guess the display of nativity scenes is a much more grievance offense. The fascination with legal documents, distribution of wealth, inheritance claims, collection of tithes, and child custody have always served as the foundational building blocks of traditional Protestant churches. It has always been the marriage way or no way. In his majority opinion, Kennedy even stated, “Marriage remains a building block of our national community.” He copied that from the Southern Baptist’s own ethics manual: “The family is the basic building block of society and a biblical understanding of the family is essential for building a healthy society.” So the church killed marriage, not the Supreme Court.

Is there anything Christian about a nuclear family? Is there anything holy about a marriage? According to the Bible, there’s not. Jesus rejected the tradition of biological kinship: “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking at those who sat around him he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:33-35, Luke 8:19-21, Matthew 12:46-50. So while Christ opened the doors for everyone to know him, even eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, the church closed their doors on everybody who was not a member of a nuclear family. They may have advertized “church family” on billboards, but reality was much different inside their church walls. Some of the faithful are even expecting Christ to visit courthouses first when he returns, so that he can check the marriage and divorce records. What a shock it will be when they receive even greater condemnation than the scribes and Pharisees and come face to face with a celibate Christ who doesn’t care who their families are. However, those who have been faithful celibates will have their spiritual children by their side. So, we may end up with a longer term marriage and more kids than all the Supreme Court justices combined. And Kennedy will look like a very lonely man. Who will be condemned then?

Click to access Witte_Freedom_Christian.pdf

How Should Same-Sex Marriage Change the Church’s Witness?

6 thoughts on “The Unholy Marriage License

  1. Civil “marriage” is a civil contract — nothing more. Since you don’t need to have it done in a house of worship, or even believe in God to have it done for that matter, I suppose it’s not actually a violation of the First Amendment’s separation clause, although it makes about as much sense as “civil baptism” would. Had they had the foresight in the beginning, the framers of civil marriage might well have called the civil function a “civil union” instead of “marriage”, and left it to the participants to solemnize the actualy holy marriage in the church of their choice the same day or whatever. I’m sure they never imagined what we have seen happen today, so the idea of drawing a clear distinction probably never even crossed their minds.

    The worst two things about the homosexual civil marriage ruling were: it further confounded the real reason for marriage, and it set a precedent for creating a class of people who want something and therefore being entitled to it under the 14th Amendment.

    Marriage is about children. It’s about tying together the affairs of a man and woman in order to set up a stable legal and domestic environment in which children can be properly raised and cared for. You’ll hear the liberals’ go-to answer for the original intent of marriage as a property scheme between families, but that’s cherry-picking the actions of aristocracies throughought the centuries and ignoring the obvious original participation between common folk with no property to speak of, as well as the mechanisms of marriage that can only logically be accounted for by an intent for the welfare of children. Well whatever they say about the original intent, the liberals themselves don’t follow that intent anyway, and frankly, neither do social conservatives. Marriage has since become an expression of love — a sort of legal and civil declaration of a relationship, for reasons no one can seem to figure out anymore. It just “feels” right, I guess.

    But what about homosexuals? Shouldn’t they be able to engage in such as civil affair? Well, they always could, but they had to do it in the same manner as straight people — to someone of the opposite sex; likewise, straight people could not marry someone of the same sex either. Now of course the liberals will point out the obvious issue that homosexuals don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and they base their argument on the idea that they are excluded by their own preferences not being accomodated. Next you have an entire class of people claiming that their rights are being violated, and five Supreme Court justices who recognize them as such. Just think: if you want something that is not available to anyone, and enough other people want it and yell loudly enough, your 14th Amendment rights are now automatically violated. It’s easy for any thinking person to see how that is going to be taken to new places.

    Yes, I do think that the Supreme Court ruling will further undermine the institution of marriage — in all of its civil glory — but to tell you the truth, the real fatal wound happened long before, when no-fault divorce came online. That really pulled the legal teeth of marriage — well, some of them. Now a marriage can be arbitrarily dissolved, by only one of the parties, but only partially because some of the obligations cease and others continue, and somehow the side who is still owed obligations is the side that usually opts to dissolve it. Not a wise contract to enter into, if you ask me. Whatever they say, this is the core reason that divorce skyrocketed in the ’80s, and is the reason that marriage is on the decline today. It’s probably high time that civil “marriage”, in its current form, be abolished. If people want to have a public declairation of their love, let them shout it from a rooftop or something.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Al Mohler sounds like one weird guy. Is he a Baptist or a Mormon?

    If his marriage ever ends I guess he’ll need a new Mrs. Mohler pretty soon. Otherwise he’ll start prowling singles’ bars or his head may explode due to the pressure of his new “unnatural” lifestyle.


    • Mohler falls in line with other Protestant marriage/family worshipers and has declared that all men over 23 who are not married are living in sin. He is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.


      • Thank you for letting me know. As a 42 year old female celibate he might regard me as pathetic rather than sinful. At any rate, I thought about applying to their seminary. I won’t now.

        As a single woman, I’m more of a Mary than a Martha. The Protestants think only the Martha matrons have anything to offer. That is tragic.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s