Kelly Gneiting: Holy and Unholy Matrimony

From Kelly Gneiting at the Independent American Party website:

First and foremost, I want to express my realization that there is a divergence of opinion on this topic within liberty-loving men and women of today. I mean to offend no one. Simply, I am interested in NOT what’s popular, but what’s right. My guiding compass is the opinions of our Founders.

Since our Founders accomplished, by petition to God and undaunted courage, the only free society on Earth, their voices should be heard the loudest.

“Government should stay out of our relationships, and keep away from our bedrooms!”

I’ve heard these or similar statements for years now from freedom-loving people, mostly libertarians. IAP leaders have even been called homophobic by Libertarian Party leadership.

After writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was appointed to a special committee with Benjamin Franklin and John Adams to prepare an official seal for the United States. Both Jefferson and Franklin suggested that one side of the seal portray Moses leading ancient Israel, since the Israelites had the historical distinction of being the most ancient people to practice the principles of representative government.

Since Jefferson had discovered the Anglo-Saxons had practiced almost identical principles, he suggested representing the Anglo-Saxon society on the other side of the seal, with no opposition from Franklin or Adams. John Adams wrote:

“Mr. Jefferson proposed the Children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and pillar of fire by night…” (Richard S. Patterson & Richardson Dougall, the Eagle and the Shield: A History of the Great Seal of the United States, Washington: U.S. Dept. of State, 1976, p. 16)

On August 13, 1776, Jefferson himself wrote:

“Are we not better for what we have hitherto abolished of the feudal system…? Is it not better now that we return at once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man…?” (Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 20 vols. by 1982, 1:492)

The Ten Commandments were the basis for our representative government. Because there is no mention of adultery being forbidden by our U.S. Constitution, many feel that the libertarian viewpoint is justified, and that adultery, fornication, bestiality, homosexuality, and drug use should be tolerated since they are “victimless crimes,” while laws which forbid these are inexcusable attempts to override governing of self.

This was NOT the belief of our Founders. James Madison, for one, said:

We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” (America’s God And Country Encyclopedia Of Quotations.” William J. Federer. Fame Publishing, Inc. 820 South MacArthur Blvd., Coppell, Texas 75019-4214. 1994)

Then in a message to the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, John Adams stated:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The formula of our Founders is expressed in the 10th amendment, stated simply:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What this means is that although the federal government was to stay away from recognizing marriage, states were NOT. In fact, states were obligated to recognize marriage in order to punish sex crimes, such as in Idaho’s Statutes, with verbiage that was (or is) a part of EVERY OTHER state constitution:

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 66
SEX CRIMES

18-6601. Adultery. A married man who has sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife, an unmarried man who has sexual intercourse with a married woman, a married woman who has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband, and an unmarried woman who has sexual intercourse with a married man, shall be guilty of adultery, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than three months, or by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period not exceeding three years, or in the county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding $1000. (see http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH66SECT18-6601.htm)

Simply, our American roots originate from the top of Mt. Sinai. It was there that Moses received the principles of a representative government, by God Himself.

In 1799 Reverend Abiel Abbot said it best:

“Our American Israel is a term frequently used; and common consent allows it apt and proper.” —A sermon on Thanksgiving Day, 1799, by Reverend Abiel Abbot (“God’s New Israel,” Conrad Cherry, 1971, preface page)

In Cleon Skousen’s popular book on Freedom 101, The 5000 Year Leap, he frequently referred to the term debauchery to describe our Founder’s views that with liberty comes responsibility. Skousen had this historic point to make, referencing homosexuality:

There were only four “crimes” or offenses against the whole people. These were treason, by betraying their own people; cowardice, by refusing to fight or failing to fight courageously; desertion; and homosexuality. These were considered capital offenses. All other offenses required reparation to the person who had been wronged. (page 14)

Marriage is a sacred institution. It has been described as “holy matrimony.” The definition of holy is, dedicated and consecrated to God… dedicated to the service of God. Performed as a religious ceremony between one man and one woman, the oaths taken in marriage vows are also recognized by correct civil law, with adultery being punishable as a crime.

The philosophy of libertarianism is NOT the philosophy God delivered to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The Ten Commandments are what God delivered— laws meant to govern civil societies. There is no profession of Christ as Savior in the Ten Commandments. There are no temple ordinances, no doctrine of baptism, and no insisting of paying tithes in the Ten Commandments. What there is, however, are rules by which a Republic should be governed. Thomas Jefferson and his associates knew this!

God’s hand in our nation’s history is a historical fact. He was referred to and called upon numerous times in applying the formula which set our first American generation free. As Americans, we have as our National Motto, “In God we trust,” and public servant’s oath to office ends with, “…so help me God.”

This is the formula we would be wise to return to; a philosophy in which traditional marriage IS recognized by government and adultery and sexual perversion is rightly punished by law.
– See more at: http://www.independentamericanparty.org/2014/10/the-holy-matrimony-dilemma-iaps-views-on-marriage-by-kelly-gneiting/#sthash.IUZnu74c.dpuf

24 thoughts on “Kelly Gneiting: Holy and Unholy Matrimony

  1. Jed Ziggler Post author

    Gneiting starts out by saying that he doesn’t wish to offend, and then does a damn good job at offending anyone who values logic.

    Yes, the founding fathers were against homosexuality. They were also against giving slaves their freedom, and giving women & non-whites the right to vote. To paraphrase Glenn Beck when he was on Stossel recently, when assessing the founding fathers you assess not their individual actions & individual faults, but by the sum total of their deeds.

    The founding fathers did base much of the foundation of this country on their religious convictions, but there is a reason why they did not mention Jesus in the Constitution, nor establish a state religion; any government that values liberty must remain secular. Thus why the Treaty of Tripoli defiantly stated that the United States is NOT a Christian nation. The founders knew that the greatest gift their God could give the new nation was liberty.

    As I’ve said, they were not perfect in this, they allowed slavery, bigoted suffrage laws, and criminalization of homosexuality. However, they erred more on the side of liberty than tyranny, and we as a nation should forever endeavor to follow their example, especially when it means correcting the mistakes the founders themselves made.

    The question of marriage equality, furthermore, is not just one of personal liberty, but one of religious liberty. Gneiting and his ilk love to hide behind their religion that condemns homosexuality, wholly ignoring religions who are for it. The Episcopal Church, a Christian denomination, supports same-sex marriage. Do we not stand for their religious liberty? What hypocrites!

    In truth, the current upheaval of anti-gay marriage laws promotes liberty and ends a government tyranny of bigotry, but the best way to promote liberty is to get government out of marriage entirely.

    If America doesn’t stand for liberty, then its founders’ promise is a lie.

  2. Deran

    I think Jed Ziggler is right on the money when he points out that the original creators of the various compacts which define the United States held historically reactionary (as compared to historically progressive) opinions about severeal issues that we have begun to sort out in the present.

    To me the history of the last 200+ years in the US has been the history of the deepening and expanding of the social compacts created by the original US signers and voters. And even today the court system is follwing both evolving cultural norms of members of the compact that defines the United States. Or so it seems to me.

    I think this fellow, the paleo-Right parties and the broader movement of cultural reaction are based on a losing bet — that there could possibly be an actual “return” to the narrow, historically specific, definition of who is included in the US constitution’s rights and responsibilities as of the late-18th century.

  3. Joshua Katz

    First and foremost, I want to express my realization that there is a divergence of opinion on this topic within liberty-loving men and women of today. I

    False.

  4. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    There is, and can never be, no such thing as a government that is ” secular.” All governments are run by human beings and EVERY human being, without exception and including atheists and agnostics, has a religious belief. Hence the Republic was established with no national church but the freedom that all could worship as they wished; a freedom which could, and can, ONLY be founded upon Christian principles – those which have driven our nation from the beginning – until now. Our nation has always been a Christian nation due to the principles which motivated its citizens and by which they lived. The Founders understood that when those principles are attacked and overthrown, as with the attack of which the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement is only one front, the nation will end because of the moral collapse of the citizens.

    Liberty requires responsibility. The ” liberty ” which the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement wants is that of Marquis de Sade – to be as sick and degenerate as they wish without any restrictions of any type, by conscience, society, culture, or law. Legalization of sodomite marriage sets the stage for the legalization of incest and, as an ultimate goal of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement which I have described at CandleCrusade.org – child molestation. It is now only a matter of time. The same arguments used in support of pervert marriage will be those used in the attack upon children. ANY argument to protect children will be declared ” reactionary ” and against ” evolving cultural norms;” i.e.; the spread and advance of degeneracy and perversion.

    Pervert marriage promotes the ” liberty ” of DeSade. Marriage between a man and a woman has provided protection to children and especially to girls. The advance of pervert marriage, in their sick attempt to ultimately molest all of the young boys which they possibly can, will destroy our culture, society, and nation. Its supporters could care less. They will consider the collapse of the family as ” freedom.”

    There is no such thing as ” bigotry ” against sickness, pathology, emotional retardation, and degeneracy. Healthy ( normal ) people oppose pervert marriage because they recognize the evil which its legalization will advance. It is an attack against humanity which ultimately boils down to the war between God and His Enemy. Everyone must choose their Master – Life or Death.

    I am thankful for the courage of Mr. Gneiting.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    P.S. – Satanism and humanism are just 2 examples of ” religions ” that support the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement. No REAL Christian church supports or accepts homosexuality in any way except for aiding the repentance, and thus healing, of those afflicted by the pathology. Hence the Episcopal Church is most definitely NOT a Christian Church. In its current manifestation it is far closer to Satanism and Humanism than Christianity. Its allegiance is not to The Creator but rather to His Enemy.

  5. Richard Winger

    Same-sex behavior is now known to be very common among many kinds of animals, birds, fish and insects. Are all those critters “sick”?

    Even one-person solitary masturbation is “homosexual behavior”; is that sick?

    Oral sex between two persons of opposite sexes is very common; is that behavior sick?

    What about people are are born inter-sex? What are they supposed to do?

  6. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    A) What are the numbers of people born ” intersex * ( whatever that means )?” One in 10 million? People can be born with different physical deformities or changes. That does not mean that we change or warp public policy for them. We simply, at the individual level, have compassion for them and aid/help them in any way possible. I was born with a genetic bone condition. There is no movement to change public policy for me nor would I, or others who have the same condition, want one.

    B) People, human beings, are NOT animals. We can act like one and we can be, via the Religion of Evolution, be trained Socially Engineered to believe that we are one. But we are NOT animals. And this is one of the core principles behind the acceptance and advance of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement – that we are animals. Hence if we ARE animals then why not allow children to have sex at any age? Aren’t we denying them their ” civil rights ” if we stop them? Isn’t it ONLY ” religious bigotry ” that opposes their ” sexual freedom?”

    C) Homosexuality is a soul pathology which humans can have because they are NOT animals. It is a form of emotional retardation; I.e.; an inability to develop normal relationships; which springs from emotional trauma; generally from the family unit and generally from resentment against the parents, primarily the father.

    Each person will experience emotional trauma within their life ( or existence ) but the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement is aimed to cripple our culture, society, and nation as, at its base, it is a manifestation of the spiritual war of humanity – God against His Enemy. The objective of The Enemy of God is to shatter, and hence enslave, as many souls as possible with the affliction of homosexuality being only one weapon, albeit a very powerful one, in Its war against humanity.

    Those afflicted with the soul pathology of homosexuality can do whatever they want in private. There is no need to form a political movement to indoctrinate children EXCEPT if there is another objective which the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement will not admit but which I write of at CandleCrusade.org

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

  7. Joshua Katz

    Wanting to marry and not be excluded from legal advantages of same = ‘a political movement to indoctrinate children.’ Humans aren’t animals, so animals being homosexual doesn’t make the behavior less ‘sick’ and humans are only capable of homosexuality because they aren’t animals…

    What a massive collection of logical absurdities. But wait, there’s more! The only way to not have laws enforcing a specific religion is…Christian values! Secular folks just can’t control themselves from passing laws about how to worship!

  8. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    ” Thou shalt not kill ” is the basis of our laws against murder. You are following ” Christian ” laws every day. They are the foundation upon which our nation is built. There is no such thing as ” secular folks.” ALL people have a religious belief upon which they base their actions.

    ” The legal advantages of same ” is the ( or one of ) exact argument which will be used in favor of the legalization of incest and, after that, child molestation.

    Yes, Mr. Katz. The legalization of pervert marriage is not an end to itself but is, as I have described at CandleCrusade.org, part of the long range attack plan by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement to attack the children of the nation.

  9. Richard Winger

    I still wish Don would comment on whether solitary masturbation is homosexual behavior or not. And I wish he would comment on oral sex between people of opposite sexes.

  10. Jed Ziggler Post author

    “‘ Thou shalt not kill ‘ is the basis of our laws against murder.”

    I don’t need a book to tell me not to murder people. If you do, seek help.

    I know in my heart that it is morally wrong to murder people, and that it would be morally wrong for me to engage in a relationship with a woman, for it would be a loveless one, and that it is right and good for me to be with another man.

    I’m not going to waste any more of my time debating a nutbar who thinks humans aren’t animals.

  11. Joe

    I ate a cheeseburger today. Stone me. I have an icon that an Orthodox catholic friend gave me. It’s this one — http://store.ancientfaith.com/christ-pantocrator-round-icon/ Graven image; stone me. I have married gay male friends. I LOVE them! I’d trust my children with them. Stone me. I am on strike from the Boy Scouts of America until “an openly gay adult volunteer” can present their national Distinguished Service Award to me (I may have some other good friend do that, but not until they accept gay and lesbian adult volunteers). Stone me. I married a widow and I am not her first husband’s brother — stone me. I’ve visited a nude beach and found running into the ocean completely naked to be a religious experience (just like the first Christians were baptised in rivers — totally nude), so stone me. But first could you please take a flying leap off a cliff somewhere. No worries, God’s Angels will catch you, proving your righteousness; or drink poison, or handle snakes or do whatever other whacky crap you think the Bible tells you to do. Or come over for a hug from me and my LGBT group of friends. Clearly you need one.

  12. Cody Quirk

    While I agree that marriage should be defined by the states (as it was in the colonial times), Kelly’s article perfectly represents why constitutionalists have failed, and will continue to fail in making a serious impact on American politics with their narrow appeal and limited understanding of the personal character & conduct of the Founding Fathers, along with government’s constitutional restrictions.

  13. paulie

    I don’t think it would work well to have people all of a sudden no longer counted as married when they travel or move to a different state.

  14. Cody Quirk

    Well it happens all the time with common-law marriages, since the laws differ from state to state on them.

  15. Cody Quirk

    Then change the laws in your state and keep the damn feds out of the marriage business.

  16. paulie

    Should the feds allow some states to make “interracial” marriage illegal again, as some did all the way until the federal courts ruled on it in 1967? I don’t think so.

  17. Jill Pyeatt

    The country should be SOOO past this by now.

    Aren’t there some religions that consider people married if intercourse has happened? Which means some of us have been married–ahem–a few times? This whole thing is just dumb to me.
    It should matter much more how people treat each other and any children in the household. I really think many “Christians” will be surprised on their judgement day that Jesus had some different priorities than they do.

    Of course, I’m only speaking for myself. I really believe, though, that we should be SOOO past this by now.

  18. Jared

    Kelly gave a great approach to controversial views. The truth that is spoken though bold was something that we all needed to hear. Thanks Kelly for the share!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *