Homosexual "Marriage" Licenses and Obeying the Law

Several of us have called attention to this truth before, but a caller to a talk show actually admitted it on Friday, September 4, 2015. She claimed that when folks refer to "gay marriage," they have given up the battle. For that reason we have always argued that we should refer to the now legal practice as homosexual "marriage," since it does not meet the definition given to it at the beginning of man's existence. Regardless of the way people may define marriage, God designed it to be between one man and one woman—for life.

By now, everyone has heard of the Kentucky clerk (besieged by Kentucky jerks) who has refused to put her name on "marriage" licenses for homosexual men or women because the concept violates God's law and she refuses to play a part in the travesty. She is due a multitude of thanks from every citizen for refusing to play the game that five members of the Supreme Court decided to play with God's holy institution. They had no precedent for their recent decision, and homosexual "marriage" is certainly not a constitutional "right." The four sane justices who opposed the decision brought all of these things to light, but it did not matter. So, as in the case of Roe Vs. Wade, the Court legislated from the bench. They did not interpret law—they made law. When farce is legalized, it still can't be taken seriously.

Enforcing the Law

Steven Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, said, "The duty of public officials is to enforce the law, not place themselves above it." Really? Does that mean that the ACLU will sue President Obama for not enforcing the laws against illegal immigration? Did he not just say that public officials must enforce the law? Who is more public than the President?

And will Steven Shapiro join the lawsuit filed by the family of Kate Steinle, in which they are suing the city officials of San Francisco for being a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens, which led to the death of their 32-year-old daughter? And why has not the federal government cut off funds for such cities? They have put no pressure on them at all to "enforce the law."

After Mr. Shapiro fights those battles, perhaps he will file suit against Hillary Clinton for the classified e-mails that she received or sent on her personal computer instead of using a secure government server. It is so heartening to see him worried about law enforcement. But if he is unwilling to declare himself on these other matters, then just take a marker and write, HYPOCRITE, across his picture. It is amazing how often people are willing to call for "law and order" when the law is in favor of their cause. When abortion, for example, was illegal, people like Shapiro defended those who had violated the law. Once Roe Vs. Wade was decided, however, they sanctimoniously started advocating that people must respect the law.

Obeying the Law

So, does that mean that Christians advocate lawlessness? No. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christians must obey the law.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves (Rom. 13:1-2).

Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good (1 Peter 2:13-14).

Paul and Peter make it clear that the Christian is to obey the law and all the ordinances that the government subjects them to. We do not have the right to decide to disobey just because we think it is better not to. In other words, we cannot choose to disobey based on our own authority. For example, some mayors or city councilmen may think that it shows compassion to immigrants to allow them to dwell safely within their jurisdiction. Advantages may or may not exist as a result of disobeying that law. However, one huge disadvantage was Kate Steinle's murder by a man who had been deported five times. Apparently, with so many returns to this country, border security is operating under the famous "Swiss cheese" philosophy.

For San Francisco officials to disobey the law is to establish a policy not based on law—but rather against the law. They choose to disobey it because they don't like it, which is not a valid reason. It is entirely subjective. In their addled minds, they think it is better to disobey, which amounts to nothing more than mere human opinion. So, they just collectively decide they will not enforce federal law. This presumptuous attitude ought to be punished. All laws should be obeyed until they are changed through the legal process.

Except….

One exception exists to obeying the law. The same apostle who later wrote that Christians must submit also recognized that there is a higher law to which we all must subscribe—God's law. He said it when the religious leaders in Jerusalem admonished the apostles to quit preaching Christ. In fact, they had been told earlier not to teach in His name, but they had filled Jerusalem with their doctrine. Peter never came close to apologizing; he and the other apostles answered, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

Nor is this only a New Testament principle; it surfaced under the old covenant with Daniel's three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. King Nebuchadnezzar had built a stature of himself and commanded everyone to worship it. The three Hebrew lads would not bow down. Even when given a second opportunity to do so, they refused. For violating the king's law, they were unceremoniously (and just barely) thrown into a fiery furnace, which was heated seven times hotter than normal. They were rescued by a Savior who appeared in the furnace with them, and God was greatly glorified because of them.

Later on, while Daniel remained in captivity, some clever enemies of his got together and coaxed the king into passing a law that no one could pray to anyone but him for thirty days. Daniel violated that law because it was his habit to pray three times a day. He was arrested and thrown into a den of lions because even the king could not rescind the law he had authorized. Daniel survived because he had a Savior who shut the lions' mouths. They did not go hungry for long, however; they feasted on the king's advisors who encouraged him to sign the inappropriate law in the first place (Dan. 6). It was the lion's "official" snack.

Why did Daniel and his three friends fail to observe their respective laws? To worship either Nebuchadnezzar or his image transgressed God's commandments given at Mount Sinai. They were not to worship an idol specifically, and they were not to bow down to anyone but the true and living God. In Daniel's case, he could not forego praying to Jehovah just because men passed a law to the contrary. God has the first priority—always.

These four "lawbreakers" behaved the way they did because laws were passed that contradicted the will of God. With alternatives before them, they chose to obey God rather than men. However, they did not do so because they thought they were smarter than, better than, or above the law. Their actions were based on their commitment to God and the fact that He is the Highest Authority. Their determination was not subjective; it was not based on sentiment. They did not refuse to cooperate because they "felt" they made a more compassionate choice. It was based on right and wrong—as defined by God.

The Case At Hand

Presumably, officials, such as Kim Davis, were elected before the Supreme Court enacted their law. Yet now she is being required by another judge to perform her official duties by issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, which violates her conscience. She has refused to do so. She is not cut from the Jimmy Carter cloth where personal beliefs do not interfere with religious beliefs. Her rationale is: "My beliefs cannot be separated from me." Think how easy it would be for her to compromise and say, "Personally, I am against homosexual marriage, but I have to do my job and sign the certificates."

Her refusal to do so angers many—especially homosexuals—who desire to be "married." They are all for her having her rights—so long as they do not interfere with theirs. She told everyone present: "I'm willing to face my consequences, and you will all face your consequences when it comes time for the judgment." She is absolutely correct. The politicians, the reporters, and the entertainers will all face Jesus at His judgment seat. No judge nor court catering to popular opinion will be there to cheer perversion along. Before Christ, sin is sin, and righteousness is righteousness. All those who have put good for evil and evil for good (Isa. 5:20) will finally acknowledge the truth.

Those guilty of perversion (Rom. 1:26-28) will, of course, be condemned—but so will those who aided and abetted them. Many devote themselves to defending homosexuality in general and homosexual "marriage" in particular. They also hate and despise those who oppose such a revolting concept. Of them Proverbs 17:15 could have been written: "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord." To change slightly the words from the song, "Don't Push Me" (by Hedgehoppers Anonymous), and put them in a different context, it could well be said to the enablers: "'Cause where they're goin' to, they won't be thankin' you. Whatever you do, don't push me."

While Mrs. Davis is standing firm in this matter, others are caving around her. The judge who ordered her to jail said of her, "Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense. I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs…but I took an oath." Does the judge not think Daniel had to swear allegiance to the king whose order he defied? Daniel, however, knew that God was higher in authority than the king. Today, following God is a higher priority than manmade law. The judge added, "She took an oath. Oaths mean things." Yes, and so does a commitment to Christ. The judge also said, "It's not the court's job to make changes. I don't write law." Why not? The Supreme Court does. He apparently would not fit in there.

Five clerks in the office, rather than stand with God and Mrs. Davis, have seen the handwriting on the wall (another Daniel allusion). They don't want to be fined, fired, or jailed; so they said they would issue the licenses. One woman, a preacher's daughter (hopefully not one of ours), said, "I don't really want to, but I will comply with the law." She added that "this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life. I don't hate anybody…. None of us do." Yes, but she doesn't love the Lord enough to stand on principle, either. She should be embarrassed for having come down on the side of sin.

Gratefully, at least one person in the entire nation has taken a stand—regardless of the personal cost to her—against homosexual "marriage." Perhaps her example will inspire others. She has acted according to Biblical principles; the world will not appreciate her, but Christians should. The day may not be far off when many of us will need to declare our ultimate loyalties.