Separation of Church and State and Marriage in the US

The US Government was built on a idea of a separation of powers. The concept of Separation of Church and State as used by many atheists is a double edged sword given the history of Church and State, and many of them are secular humanist working to create an Atheistic State that denies the Book of Daniel and works to replace Christian values in public with Luciferian values.

Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Harry Reid, and so on have to answer to God. The Greater Church when wielded correctly is a check on State power. When the State uses its power to usurp Church authority and establish a Luciferian ideology and Religion, then the Greater Church must fight back. The Meek before God shall inherit the Earth. Not the meek before man and wickedness. David was not meek before Goliath. The Lord is a Man of War. (Exodus 15:3)

I think a part of this is how one interprets how a marriage is made and what organization does what. I really can’t buy into the concept that a civil marriage is much more than a registry then actually forming marriage.

For the most part, there are 3 parts to marriage. Civil, religious, and personal. First of all, a marriage is a commitment that is freely made between the parties involved (there are mute qualifies of course). Secondly, there are the duties and requirements from whichever church they decide to abide by. And lastly, the government records the marriage, they do not create the marriage.

The government has no say in what my marriage is. Instead, my marriage certificate is simply the act of notifying them of my marriage from my pov. What defines my marriage is independent of the current or future civil definitions of marriage.

Wow, that actually is pretty close to how I see it :thumbsup: I basically distinguish between the marriage itself, the community’s recognition of the marriage, and the Church’s recognition of the marriage.

Or, we can see it through relation: the relationship between the man and women in itself (personal), the relationship of the man and woman to their community (civil), and the relationship of the man and woman to God (religious or sacramental). The relationship itself cannot exist in a vaccum though, because man is a social and religious animal, and so cannot have a marriage that isn’t recognized by the community and sanctified by God, or at least recognized by the couple’s religion views. And so we can approach marriage as a whole…

… with the personal, civil, and religious as different aspects of the whole: the marriage as viewed by the persons themselves (personal), the marriage as viewed by the community (civil), or the marriage as viewed by God and His Church (religious or sacramental).

Remember, a community or society is essentially an order and union of families, and so by recognizing marriages, as you point out, not only benefits the community itself*, but also protects and attempts to better guarantee the rights of the marriage and that it’s duties to society and God as well as the duties between the members themselves are performed correctly.

Christi pax,


  • for obvious reasons: like the union continuing to survive and keeping it’s traditions and knowledge and blood alive: in a sense we can see the community as an attempt to imitate eternity. This makes sense: creation is meant and desires to partake in the Divine Nature and mimic the Divine Order.

a person does not need religious reasons to believe the concept of same-sex marriage is a terrible idea for a secular authority to adopt.

for example, equating the personal male-female relationship with the male-male relationship is erroneous and contradictory on its face. the two are substantively and irrevocable different. equating them is to put in to the law a nonsensical and erroneous concept. it can only serve to de-ligitimize even sound laws.

another example, the personal male-male relationship provides nothing of such intrinsic value to society that secular authority should establish it as an institution through recognition and regulation of it. on the other hand, the male-female relationship has the unique distinction of being the only human relationship that can perpetuate the human race and society. for that reason alone, recognizing it and sanctioning it are perfectly reasonable acts by a secular authority.

another example, irrationally equating the personal male-male relationship to the male-female relationship demeans the institution of marriage.

another example, irrationally equating the personal male-male relationship to the male-female relationship creates the perception that children do not have a right to be raised by both a mother and a father.

a final example, establishing the personal male-male relationship as a civil institution creates unnecessary and unreasonable financial burdens on society.

while it is true, our Creator made us male and female and that gives a religious aspect to the sanctioning and regulating of the male-female relationship. that does not negate the above secular reasons for opposing any establishment of a civil institution for personal male-male relationships.

While children are not generated by same sex unions, there it’s still a benefit in the reduced spread of STDs via incentives for fidelity. STDs is a major issue in those group, and society in general by extension.

what is this incentive for fidelity of which speak in favor of civilly sanctioned same-sex unions?

in general, such fidelity hardly would need the government’s sanction if it is going to occur.

Divorce often results in assets being split up plus the risks of alimony. Therefore, any action that can lead to divorce like infidelity is discouraged by such civil unions. The same logic applies to traditional civil marriage.

The government tracks marriages for the purpose of property issues and taxation. The church only looks at the spiritual side of the marriage, I can’t believe that is news to anybody…

a couple comments and question. To be honest you are sounding like those radicalized. As well you keep referring to the government as " Luciferian"

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Lucifer did not institute any government, God did, and it says all governments, not just this one. Attributing God has done as evil biblically is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 23). It’s only unforgivable if one doesn’t repent.

Question: What is this Greater Church you are referring to? Does it include Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Islamics and Christians? This country was founded on the idea of everybody is welcome and everybody has a say. You may practice any religion you like.

Biblically what is this Greater Church?

Is the church constitutionally one of the checks and balances of power? Correct me if I’m wrong but there are 3 not 4.

The book of Danial? Since when has the government been in the business of recognizing ANY book from the sacred scripture?

Given all that, who is your primary allegiance to? God or the government? If your your spouse decides to divorce you (and this is acceptable in many protestant sects) and the government grants it. Does that somehow nullify your obligation to God with regards to how He and you should view that marriage?

Here is a newsflash, we survived in the roman empire, long before the U.S. of A ever existed. And they had much worse laws. How do you think we handled that then? Under what laws did we place ourselves, regardless of what the Roman laws?

This whole radical thing makes me seriously wary. How is it you plan to fight back?

Matt 22:18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?
19 Show me the money for the tax.” And they brought him a coin.
20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”
21 They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Peace and God Bless

The liberality of the church approves an orthodoxy of opinion.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit