A lady has left a comment on this post (https://freedomthirst.com/2010/01/01/the-foundation-of-law-and-civil-unions/) and I think that comment and my follow up remarks are so important that I am posting them as a new article entirely.
The comment in response to my article read like this:
This is a hard one for me. I do not condone gay marriage or civil unions. As Christians, we know what Godâ€™s word teaches. However, we also know as Christians that we reap what we sow and there are consequences for actions.
In my case, I married a non-Christian and had three children. We are divorsed now (8 years) and he has visitation rights. He lives with his girlfriend and they smoke pot on a daily basis.
When my kids go to his house, I do a lot of praying. Like Sarah in Genesis, God takes care of my kids when they are there and at home I bring them up in the Lord.
I know in the case presented here, Jenkins is not a biological parent, but she has parental ties as they were living together as â€œhusbandâ€ and wife. I personally would not want there to be visitation (just like I donâ€™t with my ex), but if the laws are going to make there be visitation, then I would just pray hard for the children when they visit and not poison them against the person (because God died for them also â€“ and could use this to save them in the future).
I definitely believe (both as a Christian and by the law) that the Miller should have physical custody of the children, not Jenkins.
Here is my response:
Thank you for participating in the Thirst for Freedom!
I read your comment and Iâ€™d like to share some more thoughts for consideration.
I submit that there is no similarity at all between your situation and the Jenkins/Miller relationship. Jenkins and Miller were never married.
Living with someone â€œlikeâ€ husband and wife does not get a person any right to access the child of the other in any way.
Even if they had been married in the eyes of the laws of Vermont, they would not have been in the eyes of God. Godâ€™s laws are higher than the laws of Vermont or Virginia.
This is the point of my post. We have to decide whether or not we are going to tolerate this kind of ungodly, evil, wicked law in our land. There are times to tear down idols.
I appreciate your desire to submit to the laws of the land, but in this case the laws of the land directly violate the laws of God. It would be immoral for Miller to submit to this order. She has a God given responsibility to that child to protect her from this nonsense coming from Jenkins. (Again, Jenkins was never in any way a legitimate â€œhusbandâ€ or â€œfatherâ€ to this little girl. It is impossible for her to have been because she is a woman.)
Your situation is more complex because your child has a biological father that is supposed to be honored. I donâ€™t even pretend to know the wisdom of how to deal with that. In what case would a woman (or a man) have the responsibility to deny a spouse or former spouse access to their child?
By the way, the fact that Jesus died for Jenkins (or anyone) does not in any way imply that they should be trusted or given parental rights. Ever. It means they can have access to eternal life and restoration of relationship with God, but it doesnâ€™t earn them the right to be trusted, nor does it create a parental right.
This case has convinced me to a new level that we cannot accept same-sex marriage. Even if the civil government says we have to, as Christians we cannot. Consider this: http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/.
Some have speculated that this mother has fled or hidden. I read one post that even suggested that her lawyers may have helped. I donâ€™t know if either is true; but in the same way that some Christians helped slaves run away, and some Christians helped Jews escape Hitler, in this case anyone who helps Miller avoid turning over that child is doing the right thing.