Defense of Marriage Act in North Carolina

     North Carolina voters will have an opportunity to vote on the Defense of Marriage Act during the 2012 election. The Defense of Marriage Act is a statute passed by Congress which seeks to amend the constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman.  I used to believe marriage was an issue for the states.  I am now persuaded we need to amend the federal constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman.  The reason I support a federal amendment is to prevent too much disarray between the states.  New York enacted gay marriage just this past year.  New York is the 3rd largest states in the country.  I am afraid judges in my state (North Carolina) may recognize marriages from New York under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.    

   The question as to whether the Church is the sole regulator of marriage or any of the laws and commands of the Bible has been raised for the 2012 election by Ron Paul on occasion.   The Bible's role in influencing government regulations is a topic worth exploring.  Two biblical commands are clearly endorsed by probably every government on earth: i.e. murder and theft. The Ten Commandments state "Though Shalt Not Murder,"; "Though Shalt Not Steal" Would God have intended these laws to be the province of the church of civil government?

When asked if people should pay taxes, Jesus said "render those things unto Caeser the things belonging to Caesar, and to God the things that belong to God." (Luke 20:25) By saying this, Jesus implies that God has instituted certain matters to civil government to regulate the affairs of man. The Apostle Paul further explains God's intentions for civil government in Romans 13. He states:

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil." (NAS)

  Blackstone and the Framers of our Declaration of Independence believed matters God has designated to government are set forth as the Laws of Nature and Natures God. Blackstone wrote in his "Commentaries of the Laws of England" that to understand the laws of nature and nature's God, we must look to Divine Law, which is laid out for us in Old Testament Scripture. For the first 100 years of our history, Blackstone's Commentaries of the Laws of England where the primary source of legal education for American Lawyers. John Marshall, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln were all schooled in Blackstone's commentaries.

  The Old Testament law is God's only example of a government sovereign regulating matters within the province of Caesar. In ancient Israel, the Old Testament law provides examples where he government regulates marriage. For example, in Exodus 22:18, a man is required to pay the bride price if he seduces a virgin (we get our child support laws from this); Leviticus 18 & 22 prohibits sex or marriage between family members (state laws that make incest a crime come from these scriptures); Deuteronomy 24:1-4 provides a biblical model for fault based divorce. Genesis 19:5 explains the destruction of Sodom for homosexual practices.  Leviticus 20:13 punishes homosexual conduct (Sodomy laws were influenced by these scripures).


  Jesus said Moses gave you a "Certificate of Divorce"  (Matthew 5:31) that certificate is a state document. The state regulates marriage as a matter of public safety, and to prevent people from defrauding other individuals (sex outside marriage is "fraud" under 1 Thessalonians 4:6;Jesus said fraud violates the 10 commandments, Mark 10:19). Women may keep themselves chaste, knowing that if a man loves them, he will marry them before asking them to bear his children. If a women devotes herself to raising children born of marriage, she has the protection of State law to demand alimony in the event of adultery, abandonment of physical abuse.

  The best way to understand how one can apply Old Testament Law as a basis for state
regulations, common law, statutes or crimes is to consider the objective
of the laws in scripture.  If a law regulates man's relationship
with fellow man (e.g. though shalt not steal), then it is a law God has instituted
for government.  It is a law God has rendered to Caesar.  If a law regulates
man's relationship to God, it is a law rendered to the Church (e.g. though shalt
have no Gods before me).  The Apostle Paul explains "love does no wrong to a neighbor;
therefore love is the fulfillment of the law"  (Romans 13:10).  Law is designed
to protect people from the evil misdeeds of others. 

  Christians believe Jesus has replaced the laws in the old testament as to sin and redemption with his own sacrifice that may be received by grace through faith.  The Old Testament laws governing the atonement of sin are no longer applicable for state law.  The objective of redeeming man from sin has now become the province of the Church, and not the State.  As stated in Ephesians,"through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together in the promise of Christ Jesus"  (Ephesians 3:6)

  Marriage is a covenant made between a man and a woman.  The law's exist
to protect a covenant between a man and women,  It is more than a contract. 
State law governs contracts, but marriage is a legal status of higher
importance to people than money.  It protects the heart and the children born
of the covenant.  Its not just about finances as the homosexual lobby would like
to frame the argument. 

  We would be foolish to not see the importance of state laws that govern marriage
in the biblical order.  Doing so would be to ignore the lessons of Sodom
and Gomorrah.

Liberty for Libya and the War on Terror

The long awaited death of Osama Bin Laden raises questions on U.S. interests in Afghanistan and the direction of the U.S. War of Terror.  Today, the Washington Post quotes Senator Durbin, John Kerry and Lindsey Graham questioning the length and duration of our involvement in Afghanistan.  The Obama administration fears losing strategic gains we've made in fighting back the Taliban while establishing a democratically elected government.  However, the Afghan government cannot, without our help, maintain peace and stability in the country.  In the vacuum created from the U.S. pullout in 1989--following the collapse of Soviet occupation, the Taliban rose to power and the country became a safe-haven for al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.  The U.S. clearly has an interest in keeping peace and stabiltiy in Afghanistan, but at what cost?  The U.S. can't miss a golden opportunity to support struggling pro-democracy movements in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunesia, Bahrain, and elsewhere.  We can't forfeit a chance to dramatically influence the region by tarrying too long in Afghanistan.  Our military resources are running thin, and we shouldn't exhaust them on a vain mission. We shouldn't squander the investment we've made in Afghanistan with a hasty exit either. However, now is the time to adopt a broader policy for the war on terror.  Give them an alternative to sharia law.  Give them freedom.  The United States was able to secure international support in establishing a no-fly zone in Libya as a result of careful diplomacy based on solid evidence of international crimes commited by Gaddafi.  He should be our next target. He used excessive force against peaceful demonstrators seeking free elections.  Time to build on the new mission we've chosen for ourselves to transform the leadership in Libya in our favor.  We should learn more about the opposition and provide additional support for the rebels in Libya.  While doing so, we keep in mind that Osama Bin Laden was once termed a "freedom fighter" against the Soviets.  So we exercise caution as we've done.  We should also insist on repayment for our sacrifice.  The Law of Booty is a well-recognized concept in international law where the victors in armed conflict gain title and possession of territory and possessions conquered.  The U.S. is holding $30 Billion of Libyan assets.  We should claim compensation against these assets so we don't drain well dry at a time of economic uncertainty.  A major source of hesitation for the U.S. involvement in Libya was the cost, following our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Doesn't it make sense to be certain our military and security interests don't work against our economic interests?  What is our interest now in Afghanistan?  Is it more or less important than providing stability and freedom to our friends in Libya (who happen to have oil)?   If we must choose our wars, let's choose wars that serve strategic interests.