Browsed by
Tag: Gay Marriage

Unjust Laws and Unjust Judges

Unjust Laws and Unjust Judges

A lady has left a comment on this post ( 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 God’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 “husband” and wife. I personally would not want there to be visitation (just like I don’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 – 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:

Hi ******!

Thank you for participating in the Thirst for Freedom!


I read your comment and I’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 “like” 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. God’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 “husband” or “father” 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 don’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 doesn’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:

Some have speculated that this mother has fled or hidden. I read one post that even suggested that her lawyers may have helped. I don’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.

Institutions of Freedom

Institutions of Freedom

I just read an outstanding article by Alan Keyes at

Contemporary politicians lack the knowledge and ability to conceive of, much less understand and defend, the social institutions characteristic of liberty. They talk about the marriage issue as if it is just a matter of sexual or religious preferences. They typically treat the concern for liberty as if it is merely a rhetorical device, with no relevance to practical politics and decision making. It seems never to have occurred to them that the real issue for statesmanship has to do with the relationship between marriage and liberty. [Read More]

Picture and Quote taken from

I haven’t been a follower of Alan Keyes so I don’t know much about him, but I loved this article. It is actually a part of a series of very thought provoking articles that he has written at

It is so rare that I find something that actually challenges me to think!

(article continues below)

I would challenge you to look for some of the following ideas in his article:

  1. There are a number of institutions in society, and it takes all of them to maintain freedom for a people.
  2. Marriage is an essential institution for the preservation of liberty, it is not just a matter of “sexual or religious preference.”
  3. The seventeenth amendment to the Constitution effectively removed the representation that state governments had in the U.S. federal government!
  4. The establishment of the Federal Reserve (which regulate our currency, the U.S. dollar), and the sixteenth amendment (legalizing income tax) put the control of our national income in the hands of a “centralized elite.”
  5. The “New Deal” (Franklin Roosevelt and gang, during and after the Great Depression) helped change America from the “land of the free” to “land of workers with a government-guaranteed income.”

There is much here that I am not an expert on, but I would like to discuss several principles of freedom that I have observed.

Following up on point 1 above: It is essential for a free people to have a number of institutions that are free from government control in order to keep them safe from tyranny. We seem to currently be living under the assumption, for example, that the government is responsible to educate our children. However, this comes with some inherent risk. If people are vying for power in a government, and the government controls education, and education so strongly influences the future ideas that the educated will have, then there is great incentive for the struggle for power to also try to control education. The government tries to control education towards its own ends.

However, if individuals (the most basic “institution” of freedom) organize into families (the foundational institution of society), and those familes “control” education, then those families have the greatest influence on the common thinking of the future!

So here is the question. Do you want the government controlling education, and thus having the greatest influence on future thought, and thus securing its own ideologies in the future? (The government influences the people) -or-

Do you want individuals and families controlling education, and thus having the greatest influence on future thought, and thus securing the families own well-being in the future? (The people influence the government!)

Principle#1: It is absolutely essential that individuals and families have authority and supervision over the education of their children in order to preserve individual and corporate freedom for posterity.

Principle#2: If the institution of family is messed with or defined or controlled by the government, one of the most essential checks on government power is at risk!

Well. There is a start. Alan’s article was rich with content! I must go to bed now, but join me in my quest to understand principles of Freedom!

Goodnight for now!