Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Gomorrah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gomorrah. Show all posts

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Dobson Is Wrong. It Will Not Be Only Christians Who Will Be Despised But Anyone Who Disagrees With Those Who Favor Saddam And Gomorrah.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/01/james_dobson.jpg
james_dobson
James Dobson hosted a panel of Christian leaders on his “Family Talk” radio show Wednesday and warned that Christians are about to face a new status in America as a “hated minority” if the U.S. Supreme Court decides, as many expect, to mandate same-sex “marriage.”
“The heart of what’s happening is an attempt to impose a new morality on all of America,” said Maggie Gallagher, a traditional-marriage advocate for 25 years.
The author of “The Case for Marriage,” Gallagher is co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage and a senior fellow with the American Principles Project.
Homosexual advocates have no interest in a “live and let live tolerance,” she said. “After redefining marriage, the next thing on their agenda is to redefine Christianity.”
Under the new regimen, there will be no difference between man and woman, husband and wife, she said.
The attitude is that if you “see something different, there’s something morally wrong with you.”
Christianity, she said, “will enter a new phase, as a hated minority group.”
She and several others joined Dobson to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court case in which justices, including Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, who already publicly have endorsed same-sex marriage, will hear arguments April 28.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled states have a right to define marriage.
Also visiting with Dobson, who recently clashed with the Obama administration over its abortion mandates, were Jim Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Church in San Diego, and Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.
Dobson noted that marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman since God created the institution thousands of years ago, predating any government.
And he detailed how in 31 state elections, 31 times voters adopted the traditional definition.
The courts, however, Dobson said, “have steadily been ruling that traditional marriage is unconstitutional and discriminatory and those decisions have found their way now into the Supreme Court.”
“Almost all the court watchers are predicting the highest court in the land is about to redefine marriage.”
If that happens, he said, it “will change everything in the culture,” including churches, schools, businesses, the military and family.
“Who knows where it will end?”
Brown said the judiciary doesn’t have a right to rule on the issue.
“All of us can see there’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says anything about the redefinition of marriage,” he said.
But, he said, “We’re at a point in history where ideology trumps all, the notion that judges should be bound at all by what the Constitution or what precedent says.”
He noted that in 1971, the Supreme Court dismissed a case regarding redefining marriage, saying there was no federal question there.
He said Christians are going to have to stand up for their beliefs.
Garlow continued, “If I were the evil one, I would set out to destroy marriage.”
And he warned that the attacks by homosexuals now on businesses will expand.
“What we’re seeing happen to businesses today will happen to churches tomorrow,” he said. “[They may] lose their buildings, or keep their buildings and agree they’re going to perform same-sex marriages.”
He cited existing cases stemming from attacks on Christians who run the Ocean Grove camp in New Jersey, a wedding chapel in Idaho and Houston pastors who opposed a transgender-rights ordinance.
WND has compiled a “Big List of Christian Coercion” with dozens of cases in which Christians have been fined, threatened or penalized for recognizing the biblical definition of marriage.
“It’s evidence of what’s’ going to come to the church,” he said.
Dobson added that ministries “better decide now what you will do when forced into that corner.”
In his October 2014 newsletter, he wrote about the Old Testament account of Abraham’s nephew Lot, “who chose to take his family into the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.”
“The men living there had become desperately depraved, burning with lust for each other. Jehovah told Abraham that their sin was so grievous that the Lord decided to rain utter destruction upon them. Abraham pleaded with the Lord on behalf of the people, but the patriarch could not find even ten righteous men in either of the cities to justify mercy,” he wrote.
“Why have I chosen to recount this biblical story from so long ago? Because I am convinced that America and other Western nations are sliding in the same direction,” he warned. “We have not yet reached the depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah, but that appears to be where we are headed.”
Dobson added: “Judge Robert Bork, the brilliant jurist who was shamefully denied a seat on the Supreme Court, wrote a book about this danger 18 years ago. It was titled ‘Slouching Towards Gomorrah.’ I think he had it right.
“Many influential men and women of the judiciary are leading us toward perdition,” he said.
Only Graham didn’t hold quite as positive an opinion about America as Dobson. While Dobson said America is on a moral slide, Graham said it’s already hit bottom.
“Even though America is just as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah ever were, and as deserving of the judgment of God, God would spare us if we were earnestly praying, with hearts that been cleansed and washed by the blood of Christ,” he wrote.
Dobson pinned part of the blame for a crumbling America on federal judges – especially those who of late have found ways to undermine traditional marriage.
“Modernists, libertarians and atheists today recognize no condemnation of sexual perversion in the Bible. However, this historical account illustrates how God views it. The outrageous behavior of the wicked men of Sodom and Gomorrah sealed their doom. Fire and brimstone fell from the sky on both cities and utterly destroyed them,” Dobson explained.
“The story of Abraham and Lot also illustrates how entire societies can become so corrupted by evil that divine judgment eventually destroys them, or they simply fade away. It happened to the people of Greece, Rome, Pompeii and other cities and cultures where wickedness became the order of the day. One thing is certain. God is the holy Sovereign Lord of all heaven and earth, and He will not be mocked.”
WND reported previously Dobson described Obama as “the anti-religious freedom president.”
In his newsletter at the time, Dobson said, regarding Obama’s abortion mandates, “Among other things, [Obama] was targeting religious freedom and set about accomplishing that from the beginning. That was the activity to which I objected strenuously during my comments in Washington. I offer no apologies for expressing those views now. The effort to force Christians to violate their consciences must be opposed with all vigor, regardless of the consequences – primarily because it is unconstitutional. Christians are being chastised, dismissed, harangued and sued for daring to practice their deeply held convictions in the public square. Family Talk is among those who have been pressed against a wall.”
WND also reported that when Dobson spoke to the National Day of Prayer, hundreds stood and cheered his condemnation of the government’s ongoing attempts through Obamacare to require Christians to participate in something that profoundly violates their faith – abortion.
Dobson, through his Family Talk, had fought the Obamacare requirement that employers must pay for abortion-causing agents for their employees. The U.S. Supreme has struck down that requirement now.
Dobson at that time bluntly backed up his opinion.
“[Obama] has made it so that every American will have to pay toward the support of abortion,” he said, citing hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds that already go to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.
“How can anyone challenge my characterization of Mr. Obama as ‘the abortion president? … He even voted three times in the Illinois state senate not to protect babies who were born alive after surviving botched abortions,” he said.
Regarding the current fight over the definition of marriage, WND has reported several state judges already are suing for being told they must perform same-sex marriage services.
WND has done a series of reports on friend-of-the-court briefs submitted in advance of the ruling. One argues changes could have far-reaching effects.
“If the traditional definition of marriage is not a rational basis for legislative action, it is hard to imagine what is. Put another way, if rational-basis review invalidates traditional marriage, it seems likely that few other laws would be safe from the federal courts.”
Such a determination “would enable federal courts, through mere disagreement with the wisdom or utility of state policy, to overturn scores of state laws that afford government benefits or impose government costs on some (but not all) citizens. That result would undermine federalism, liberty, and our nation’s democratic processes.”
WND reported longtime conservative leader Pat Buchanan urged Christians to fight the “LGBT fanatics” who are demanding they betray their faith, even if it means civil disobedience.
In an interview with WND, Buchanan, the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” and other bestsellers, spoke on the controversy over the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Buchanan forcefully condemned defeatism among social conservatives and rejected retreat or even compromise. Instead, the one-time presidential contender and Reagan White House aide urged Christians to put the laws of God above the laws of man.
“This battle can be won, but it cannot be won if we do not stand our ground and fight against this moral onslaught from the left,” he said. “The hill to stand on and fight on is the God-given natural right and the constitutional principle that people of faith may choose not to associate with those whose actions are abhorrent and whose lifestyle is insulting and offensive to that faith.”
Buchanan dismissed arguments that “gay”-rights activists are simply asking for political freedom or the same rights as any other citizen.
“The LGBT militants are not asking to be left alone,” he said. “They are demanding that we accept the morality of homosexuality and same-sex marriages and manifest that acceptance, under pain of law and sanctions, in our daily lives.”
Buchanan added: “As the Romans demanded of the Christians, the LGBT fanatics want us to burn incense to their gods. The answer is no. If it comes to civil disobedience, so be it.”
WND also reported a team of prominent Christian leaders worked on a statement to inform the public – including Supreme Court justices – that they will engage in civil disobedience rather than follow a ruling that establishes homosexual marriage in the United States.
Among those leading the charge are Dobson, Rick Scarborough of Vision America Action, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and James Robison of Life Today.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/christians-facing-new-status-as-hated-minority/#PwhIfc1QTxRdAytg.99

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

If Supreme Court Rules For Same Sex Marriage, Will It Bring On G-d's Wrath And/Or Will It Open The Door To Any Relationship Being Called A Marriage? Are We The Latest Sodom And Gomorrah?


gay marriage
In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment.
And that’s probably not going to turn out well.
The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin.
The Supreme Court is to hear arguments later this month in a case coming from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges said state residents are allowed to define marriage in their state. The appeal to the Supreme Court contends barring same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.
Other briefs already have pointed out that marriage existed before any government, law or constitution, so the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to allow people to simply change the definition.
The new brief goes much further.
“Should the court require the states and the people to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the nation,” the brief warns. “Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is ‘defiled,’ the people have been cast out of their homes.”
The brief cites Leviticus 18:22 and 24-30, a biblical passages that seldom finds its way into popular discourse.
Verse 22 states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
And the subsequent section warns against such defilement.
“If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. … Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them,” the Old Testament passage states.
The court filing, citing the book of 2nd Peter, continues: “Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: ‘For if God … turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly’” (King James Version).
The brief says the “continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
The brief argues: “Whatever justification any judge may believe compels a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, it is not found in the Constitution, nor is it based in any constitutional principles. For any judge to require a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples is an usurpation of authority that he does not have under the laws of man or God, and is thus illegal.”
“God’s Word doesn’t need a majority vote. God’s Word is true regardless of the winds of moral change, and we must stand up for biblical truth in the midst of a depraved society.”
WND previously reported some of the top names in Christian ministry – including the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Chuck Colson Center, Southern Baptists, Albert Mohler and Charles Stanley – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect marriage as God defined it.
Their brief also was filed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the 6th Circuit ruled residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can define marriage for themselves.
That brief was filed by Liberty Institute on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.
“In reaching its decision, this court should reaffirm that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with state-recognized same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic,” the brief states.
Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said religious liberty and free speech “are our first American freedoms.”
“We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to affirm the Sixth Circuit and reaffirm the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak and act according to their beliefs,” he said.
When the Alabama Supreme Court prevented a federal judge from imposing same-sex marriage there earlier this year, it argued the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to decide the issue when it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case.
In its order, the Alabama court wrote: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.’”
The Alabama court noted that in Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.
“Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”
The Alabama court thus asked: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?
“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”
The new brief makes several other points, including that the “constitutional foundation” for the “‘right’ to marry any person of one’s choice” is simply fabricated.
“The same-sex advocates have posited that their right to marry is an evolutionary one, having gradually emerged from the dark ages of the common law into the full bloom of a social science consensus of marriage equality,” the brief explained.
But to travel that path would be to “ignore what [the court] clearly acknowledged in Marbury v. Madison – that the power of judicial review is limited by the words of the Constitution, and by its original purpose – to secure the right of the people to limit future governments by principles designed to be permanent, not to empower this court to change the Constitution to fit the changing times.”
On the issue of homosexuality, the American people “have seen a flurry of judicial opinions with ‘no foundation in American constitutional law’ overturning laws which were ‘designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality’ desired by the people.”
“These opinions together constitute what [was] described as ‘an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will.’”
The problem is social science isn’t static, the document said.
“Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association consensus was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now the consensus is that homosexuality is a positive virtue. Who knows what tomorrow may bring.”
The brief said today people are being told that marriage cannot constitutionally be based on “a divinely revealed moral foundation, but only according to the secular reasons of men.”
Beware, the brief says.
“The nation was not so founded. The Declaration of Independence, the nation’s charter, grounded our nation on the biblical ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ embracing the principle that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,’ putting its case for liberty before ‘the Supreme Judge of the world,’ and acting in ‘firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.’”
Such a change would require the “entire revision” of every family law in the country, closure of adoption agencies and government persecution of those who preach against homosexuality, the brief warns.
And there would be no logical barrier to three men or three women marrying: “Why not an uncle and a niece as in New York?”
“The current accepted vernacular is said to be “lgbttqqiiaa+,” standing for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, intergender, asexual, ally and beyond,” the brief notes. “Indeed, some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”
Nearly all orders for states to recognize same-sex marriage have come from federal judges. The judges have simply overridden the will of the state’s residents who voted, often overwhelmingly, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
That was the scenario in California, where the fight over marriage ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled only on a technicality – the standing of those supporting the state constitution – and not the merits of the case.
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/03/0803-elena-kagan-supreme-court_full_600.jpg
Kagan
Kagan
Of the three dozen states that now have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage, only a handful enacted it through their own legislative or administrative procedures.
The Alabama court noted: “Only 12 states have accepted same-sex marriage as a result of choices made by the people or their elected representatives. The 25 other states that now have same-sex marriage do so because it has been imposed on them by a federal court.”
Baxter said the court’s decision to overturn a “deeprooted” standard for marriage opened a Pandora’s box.
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/05/ruth_ginsburg_11.jpg
Ginsburg
Ginsburg
Two justices of the U. S. Supreme Court already have made a public stand for same-sex marriage, having performed ceremonies.
The actions by Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have prompted citizens groups to call for them to recuse themselves from the coming decision, but they have declined to do so.
Kagan performed a Sept. 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk, Mitchell Reich, and his partner in Maryland. Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in August 2013.
“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases already before the Supreme Court,” the American Family Association said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/supremes-warned-gods-judgment-now-looming/#phV5f8diQxDVXH1H.99