Can Christianity and Gay Marriage Coexist in America?


Can Christianity and Gay Marriage Coexist in America? This is the question a blogger poses in his recent blog post. Let me pose a different, but similar, question to make the issue clearer:

“Can victim’s rights and legal thievery coexist in a society ruled by law?”

I’ll link these two up in just a moment.

In an ideal world, the answer to my question would be obvious: No, because people who have their property taken against their will are victims, and the people doing the taking are thieves. Thievery is against the law, so thieves will be prosecuted. This will lead to fewer thieves operating at any given time.

Law determines what is right, wrong, and just. Law brings evil-doers to justice, punishes criminals, and in general ensures that society maintains order.

But most of all, when people transgress it, the law is supposed to protect the victim and uphold the principle of victim’s rights.

Passing a law is a declaration of war against all who wish to transgress that law. It gives the civil government permission to use coercion and force to prosecute those who don’t get in line.

This is a concept you must sear into your mind: the rule of law is active warfare against the enemy of the law. To establish law means to wage war against the group who opposes that law.

Is this not evident in the act of war itself? What is war, but the moment when two ideologies come to a head and one is incited into full-scale aggression against the other in the hopes that it will squash out the opposing viewpoint and see its own live to fight another day?

Question: Who hates a law that punishes thieves by forcing them to not only repay that which they stole but to pay anywhere between 100% and 400% extra on top of that to their victim? [Ex. 22:1]

Answer: thieves hate such a law.

Question: Who loves such a law?

Answer: the victim who had their property stolen from them by the thief.

In this case, the law is waging war against thieves. As any law is intended to do, it eventually reduces the amount of criminal activity present in society by squashing out the thieves. It restores peace and promotes prosperity because people become less frightened to do business with their neighbors because they are no longer concerned about hiring lawyers to protect their property. They come to trust the word and integrity of their neighbors. They come to trust that the law will protect them in the case of wrong-doing committed against them.

But if the thieves manage to slip into power? Are they going to pass laws that condemn their profession? Not unless they’ve been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, repented, and renounced their old way of life.

Another question: who is the victim of a law that, in violation of Leviticus 20:13, condones homosexual marriage?

Men pretend to only see one victim: homosexuals. That’s because they don’t view homosexuality as wrong.

But it is. It’s a sin. Above all else, condoning homosexual marriage makes God the victim because it undermines the society that protects his people and facilitates the dominion covenant: be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it [Gen. 1:28].

Christianity and gay marriage cannot, in principle, coexist in a lawful society. Both parties, despite their worst fears, will find this to be true in due time. God always wins.


The author begins his article, first of all, by admitting something absurd: he hopes his gay and lesbian friends will be perfectly free to marry the person they love, have kids, and grow old together.

This is absurd for three reasons:

1) God (not man) invented marriage, so he gets to define what it is. He does that in Genesis 1:26-28, and Jesus reiterates it in the Gospels. It’s between a man and a woman.

2) Evolutionists and atheists typically say that marriage is some antiquated institution that arose from some special needs of our primitive ancestors that are becoming less necessary each day. Whatever they envision its future to be, it is not the Christian ideal: one man, one wife, multitudes of children (especially since they’re so afraid of population growth). So why should they want to participate in the present form of the institution, one which, in their eyes, is dead already? The reason: to destroy it (as this lesbian activist actually admitted).

3) Gay men and lesbians can’t have children together. The “gay rights” agenda is about “equal rights,” ostensibly. Gay marriage shows with fine distinction just how impossible the goal of “equality” is. They would be consistent to want to destroy it; by wanting to become a part of it, they are being inconsistent by upholding an institution that distinctly illuminates differences.

Except they really do want to destroy it, and the best way to do that is to slip inside and tear it apart from within.

The author says that his conservative friends don’t share his hope for a future “where they and my gay friends both get to exercise their freedoms at the same time — they don’t believe it’s possible for such a future to exist.”

His friends are on the right track.

Such a future can’t exist. That’s because one group or the other will be discriminated against. Marriage is religious. One group wants to pass laws (should want to, anyway) that prohibit gay marriage and criminalize sodomy. The other group wants to pass laws that make those things legal.

How can both groups exercise their freedoms at the same time? This man is speaking jibberish.

He wrote that “The end will look probably more favorable than you think.” Yes, as long as we Christians keep our mouths shut and do as the God-haters say.

OK, maybe things will be more favorable than we think. That is, until “gay rights become more entrenched.” At that point he admits that there will be some “tradeoffs” for Christians and Christian groups. It’ll be time to bow a little lower to the god of the State and better serve its needs rather than the needs of the God who ordained the State.


He wants to assure us that “It’s impossible to imagine a scenario whereby the court would give the go-ahead to laws requiring churches to perform same-sex marriages.”

Here, he’s speaking of jurisdiction. First, he’s being inconsistent with himself. If the courts will reverse themselves on the issue of gay marriage, what makes him think they’ll hold their ground on an issue he thinks they haven’t yet done violence to (using a show of force to bend a church to its will)?

Second, it is actually quite possible — and easy — to imagine a scenario in which the State interferes with Church matters.

He discloses that the State is already interfering in other private matters: who can do business with whom. He mentions a recent case in which a bakery was sued for not baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. He didn’t mention this story about the Christian photographer in New Mexico who was fined $7,000 by the courts for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding.

He, himself, suggests that we should allow the free-market to work, and that laws that discriminate against Christians being able to choose who to serve based upon their beliefs wouldn’t be “wise.”

But the State is already putting its fingers into these issues. Once it expands its jurisdiction (and power), it rarely gives it back.


The heart of the issue he raises is this: In accordance with which rules (laws) will the civil government let people decide who to work for and on what terms?

The next question is: who will write the rules, and to what law-giving authority will they appeal? Our Constitution makes it clear: “Of the people, for the people, by the people.” The voice of “the people” is the ultimate authority our lawmakers appeal to when writing laws.

What if “the people” are schizophrenic? What if one day they want this, another day they want that? In principle, it is their desires that dictate what is legal and what is illegal. In practice, the law of the land doesn’t change in real-time.

But forget this.

In reality, there are only two types of people: covenant keepers and covenant breakers. Covenant keepers are Christians who fear the Lord and delight in his commandments [Ps. 112, 119] and law and meditate on them day and night. [Ps. 1:2] Even Paul reaffirmed this in his Epistle to the Romans. [Rom. 7:22]

Paul also said that “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” [Rom. 8:7] All covenant-breakers’ minds are set on the flesh [Colossians 2], so they will not submit to God’s law. Therefore they will try to pass laws contrary to God’s.

If God upholds victim’s rights, covenant breakers will uphold the criminal’s rights.

If God’s law protects unborn babies from murder, man’s law will remove this protection and subject them to murder. This is consistent: punish the victim, vindicate the murderer (the mother and the doctors who assisted her).

He speaks of balancing the rights “of everybody involved.” This is deceptive. This has been the language adopted by the Progressives ever since the late 1800s. Christians let their guard down, the liberals get their toe in the door using crafty language (think “Genesis, Chapter 3”), and then they slowly capture the robes of power: court justices, academic professors, and pastors.


God ordained the civil government and the Church. Neither is above the other, and each has grants of power and authority independent to it that are not shared. In other words, they each have separate jurisdictions. For example, only the civil government can execute criminals, but only the Church can excommunicate them.

The civil government can’t legitimately excommunicate anyone from the body of the Church, and the Church can’t legitimately execute anyone.

Besides, the Church offers something to man which nothing else can: salvation. Salvation and redemption cannot come through the civil government, but through Jesus Christ alone.

Men who substitute Man for God try and do just that.

Within a rebellious culture that pretends there is no transcendent God who created and owns everything, man becomes the substitute god. The ultimate embodiment of the power and authority of man is made manifest in the One True State (or, as described in the Old Testament, the Moloch state).

The State becomes the final, ultimate authority and claims jurisdiction over all areas of life:

  • over personal choices;
  • over economic choices like who can refuse business to whom;
  • it encroaches on the family and the Church by determining matters of charity such as who must be forced to support those who suffer;
  • it defines exactly what the parameters are of one who “suffers”;
  • and, finally, how and whom people can worship without being persecuted.

Such a massive, corrupt State would have no problem reaching into a Church with its gnarled fingers in order to order it as it sees fit. Under such a culture, the State is god, and therefore it has jurisdictional authority over the Church, Family, and every other institution that may try encroaching on its authority.

In other words, man predestines, not God.

This is antithetical to the Christian view of government.


God promised after the great Flood that he would no longer cut off all flesh from the face of the earth. [Gen. 9:11] He reminded us of this in the Third Commandment: “I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” [Ex. 20:5-6]

He will always cut off the iniquitous in the third and fourth generation so that things never again become so bad that he must Flood the earth.

On Wall Street, they have a saying for this: cut your losses short and let your profits run.

A society that corporately rebels against God’s law by passing laws in direct contradiction to his is a society in rebellion. A society that makes it legal to kill millions of innocent babies each year in utter defiance of God’s will is a society that will soon face judgment if it does not repent.

Men have been trying for thousands of years to thwart God’s plan. They always fail. Despite their best attempts, it is God, not man, who predestines.

A Church that supports homosexual marriage is under judgment. It has become a synagogue of Satan. [Rev. 2:9, 3:9] Its robes have been infiltrated, and it perverts the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You must leave such a Church and transfer your membership.

As for the long arm of civil government: judgment is coming. Its depravity and tyranny will finally be halted by the Great Default. It’ll get worse before it gets better, but the future is bright indeed.


4 responses to “Can Christianity and Gay Marriage Coexist in America?

  1. Very insightful article. I have noticed one typo however. In the eighth paragraph you state, “This is a concept you must seer into your mind:” I believe the word should be “sear” not “seer.” Thanks for all you do for our community.

  2. I had a friend forward me the link to your essay, “The Biblical Case Against Abortion.” I’ve sent him an e-mail asking how he stumbled upon your blog, or if he was personally acquainted with you and I have not gotten a response back yet. Maybe you know how we southerners, especially South Georgians, have a reputation for being slow, deservedly or not. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s