Civil Disobedience

As the progressives have secularized our society through their control of the government, it is time for us conservatives to develop our own institutions and drop out of participating in the state-sanctioned institutions that assault our Christian values. 

Marriage is a religious institution that has existed long before the formation of any government, dating back to Adam and Eve walking with God in the Garden of Eden. With God’s formation of Eve from Adam’s rib, the first marriage sanctified and blessed by God came into existence. Marriage has always been a religious institution forming the cornerstone of the traditional family structure and providing the stability necessary to raise well-adjusted children into productive adults for the benefit of society. And, marriage has always predated the formation of government.

During the Middle Ages, banns of marriage, or proclamations, began to be required for the purpose of announcing an impending marriage to allow for any objections to be voiced, such as one of the parties to the marriage already being married. Marriage licenses were created to facilitate the proclamation of impending marriages by allowing the usual waiting period of three Sundays to be waived with payment of a fee and a sworn declaration that there was no canonical impediment to the marriage. These marriage licenses were issued by the church, and this ecclesiastical law was eventually built into statutory law with Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753.

Government involvement in the religious institution of marriage began innocently enough with the recording of marriages performed by the church. As governments became more sophisticated, the recording of marriages was used to track the children produced by marriages for purposes of establishing heredity and inheritance, and eventually included the issuance of marriage licenses. By the time the American government was formed through adoption of the Constitution, marriage had a long history of being a religious institution and it was unquestioned that marriage consisted exclusively of the union of a man and a woman. To suggest otherwise would have invited shame and ridicule be heaped upon one as it was considered the most preposterous of notions.

This arrangement of merely issuing marriage licenses and recording marriages by the state changed in the twentieth century with advances in medicine and adoption of the income tax. As knowledge of genetics increased, the state began requiring blood tests prior to issuing a marriage license upon condition that the test indicated no medical barrier to marriage, a reasonable step to prevent the birth of children suffering from genetic disorders.

It is the income tax which has had the greatest effect on the institution of marriage in America. It is well known that people respond to financial incentives, and this lesson is not lost on the government when it comes to the tax code. All manner of financial incentives have been built into the tax code over the years in the form of various tax credits and penalties to encourage all manner of behavior. Incentives were built into the tax code to encourage marriage in the form of doubling the standard deduction and personal exemption despite the marriage penalty affecting higher income filers.

It is to be understood that very few people ever based their decision to marry exclusively on the tax code and its effect on their income. The incentives were placed there in recognition of the reality that raising a family is an expensive and noble endeavor which the government encouraged. However, the present debate on the redefinition of marriage by the government to include homosexual unions is based primarily on the fairness of extending federal benefits to one class of Americans at the exclusion of another class. It is not the benefits themselves that are affecting marriage to a great extent, but the application of those benefits equally to all parties.

The situation boils down to the federal government redefining the institution of marriage, which existed prior to the formation of any government as the exclusive province of God, in defiance of all religious and biological evidence strictly for the administration of federal benefits equally across all marital arrangements. The state has now completely secularized the institution of marriage and removed any religious significance all for the sake of administering federal benefits equally. Think about the gravity of this idea for a while. That which God has joined asunder and admonished no man to break, the federal government has redefined into something completely unrecognizable to Biblical scripture.

Liberal progressives have slowly infiltrated our society until they now control our government, our schools, and our judiciary gradually advancing their secular humanist agenda of removing God from our society under the guise of fairness. Christians are treated with overt contempt and ridicule by our culture in an attempt to drive us underground and out of existence. Progressives have used the government to seize control of institutions which were formerly the exclusive province of the church to redefine them into their secular image and penalize religious objections.

Marriage has been redefined to include the abomination of homosexuality and preparations are underway to force church acceptance by government mandate if church officials refuse to perform or honor these unions. Religious institutions are also under assault from government-controlled healthcare to comply with laws requiring coverage of contraception and abortion that stand in direct opposition to their religious beliefs. All of this is occurring despite the First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The Obama administration has violated each of these numerous times without suffering any consequences for their illegal actions.

It is for these reasons that I propose engaging in the act of civil disobedience by refusing to apply to the state for marriage licenses or recording marriages with the state. Since the government has redefined marriage to be secular for its purposes in violation of it being the exclusive province of God, I call for the establishment of an exclusively religious institution to be known as religious union which forsakes the state and recognizes only the power of God in sanctifying and blessing the exclusive union of a man and woman for the purposes of raising a family and living in wedlock.

We concerned citizens resisting the progressive assault on our country and our culture should simply walk away from the unreasonable state redefinition of marriage to establish an institution of religious union under the exclusive province of the church with no government authority whatsoever. Each religion would define its own form of religious union consistent with its practices and observances with the only condition being that it would resist government involvement.

The federal government recognizes several religious groups in America such as the Amish and the Quakers and does not interfere with their religious practices, even to the extent of excusing them from certain requirements such as military service and public school attendance. If the progressive secular humanists wish to use the unlimited resources of the government to redefine marriage to suit their purposes, then they should do so without our participation or tacit approval. We who object to their assault on marriage should simply walk away from government sanctioned marriage to establish religious union exclusively sanctioned by various denominations around the central theme of an exclusive union between a man and a woman.

We conservatives watch in horror as progressives redefine our culture to exclude us when we have the power to simply walk away and refuse to participate in the government sanctioned institutions that currently exist. I say let the progressives have them while we go off and do our own thing our own way. Just refuse to participate in their programs. We should take a lesson from Jesus and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, while rendering unto God that which is His.

We can begin this protest of civil disobedience with our refusal to participate in government sanctioned marriage, expanding it into other areas in the future. We could establish private healthcare systems to avoid government requirements for abortion and contraceptive coverage. The point is that we conservatives don’t have to always accept the government’s redefinition of our institutions since we are free to define our own. Sure, we won’t receive the government benefit attached to a particular redefined institution, but it is more important to set one’s sights on the things of God instead of the things of this world.

It would certainly be interesting to see the reaction of progressives to our refusal to participate in their government controlled institutions through formation of our own institutions which specifically excluded their government control. I seriously doubt they would refrain from passing laws to force our participation in the government system. At the very least, they would be exposed as the totalitarians we know them to be. Meanwhile, we would have the satisfaction of revolting against the system without actually having to take up arms and begin fighting.

The difficulty in initiating a revolution against a democracy lies in the fact that we conduct elections which hold the possibility of transferring power peacefully. It matters not that our electoral system is corrupted and progressives have infiltrated every branch of government. An armed uprising would still be put down by force with the media portraying the participants as extremists to discourage sympathy for the cause. Civil disobedience is one of the few avenues to demonstrate serious discontent that penetrates the consciousness of the powers that be while generating a sympathetic hearing of grievances from the American mainstream.

The hot button issue of the moment is the redefinition of marriage by the government in opposition to the reality of it being a religious institution that predates government. Establishment of an alternative mechanism like religious union sanctioned by the church in defiance of the government is a natural avenue of serious civil disobedience that could form the foundation of a peaceful revolution. Those of us opposed to the government redefinition would be able to opt out while those agitating for fairness in government benefits could opt for the government version of marriage. A win-win situation would be created that should satisfy all sides, but ultimately won’t since the progressive goal is totalitarian control of Americans. Upon this realization, the peaceful revolution would then have the option of becoming a real revolution aided by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

This entry was posted in Politics, Society and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Civil Disobedience

  1. Renfurd says:

    The idea that there is going to be a r evolution involving joe six packs roaming mini malls with handguns is absurd.

    Personal guns are for fun and individual protection. There will be no armed rebellions. Very silly to suggest that as a possibility. You might just incite some poor kook.


  2. Tom Roberson says:

    Actually, I was making that very point. Armed revolution is an extremely remote possibility in a democracy such as America. Anyone attempting such would instantly be labeled a kook and ignored by the masses. My suggestion was that civil disobedience through a mechanism such as opting out of state sanctioned marriage for religious union would give Americans a way to protest the destruction of our culture without having to resort to armed revolution. Civil disobedience is nonviolent protest. I think you are confused about the concept of civil disobedience.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.