Legislating Morality
A continuing debate in America revolves around the concept of legislating morality. With moral and social concerns taking a back seat to economic and international concerns, those who desire to eliminate moral issues from the public square are pushing their views with renewed intensity. Unfortunately, they are currently winning the battle. Can we and should we “legislate morality” and if so, how should it be done? Let’s consider some underlying information that should guide the debate.
1. The Basic Concepts presented in The Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence, adopted by unanimous consent of the United States Congress on July 4, 1776 is the most significant of our nation’s founding documents. It laid the groundwork for our U.S. Constitution. Among other statements, it declares that all men (people) are created equal. Thus it acknowledges equality for all, rooted in God’s work of creation. The Declaration further asserts that men are endowed by their creator with certain unalieanable rights. They are unalieanable because they are God given, not man given. Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are listed as being among the people’s God given rights. Then the Declaration affirms that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, noting that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
These basic concepts are extremely important. Morality and immorality are related to the issue of rights. For instance, in the continuing debate over abortion, the issue boils down to the rights of the woman versus the rights of the child and whether government should play a role in that debate by passing legislation regarding those rights. Government should not ignore the issue as some suggest, because rights are at stake and government has the responsibility to secure those rights.
2. Governing Principles of the U.S. Constitution.
On September 17, 1787 the U.S. Constitution was signed by 39 delegates to the Constitutional Convention and on December 15, 1791, the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were added through the ratification process. The Constitution was written in an attempt to express in law the concepts set forth in the Declaration of Independence. While some issues were initially handled very poorly, an amendment process was included in the Constitution, which has, since the first 10 amendments, provided another 17 amendments to the Constitution. This document, as amended, is the law of the Land.
The Constitution begins with the well known statement from the Preamble, “We the People”. This statement makes it clear that the government has been established by the people and therefore government is ultimately responsible to the people.
Article I, Section 1 declares that, All legislative powers herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. By this article the people give to an elected congress the authority to pass laws for the country, though the powers of Congress and Limitations of Congress are clearly stated in Article I, Sections 8 & 9. But the critical point is that according to the Constitution, every law must be passed by both the Senate and the House. Neither the Executive or Judicial branches of government have been given legislative powers.
3. The Role of the Judiciary.
Judicial Review is considered to be a part of constitutional law, though the Constitution no where explicitly provides for it. It has undermined the Constitution as much as any practice of government. Judicial review is an assumed power of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws and treaties, and to rule on whether regulations established under law are consistent with the Constitution.
Judicial Review was practiced in some measure among the states before the Constitution was passed and the practice was discussed during the Constitutional Convention. This power of the courts was generally agreed upon, but the arguments from each side are significant. In Federalist Paper #78, Alexander Hamilton stated, “The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order among other things to keep the latter (the legislature) within the limits assigned to their authority.” Hamilton went on to say that that there was no supposition of superiority of the judicial to the legislative power, but only that the power of the people is superior to both.
Thomas Jefferson had no time for Judicial Review. In a letter to William Charles Jarvis in 1820 he wrote, “You seem… to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” He went on to point out that federal judges are more dangerous than the legislature, because they are appointed for life and cannot be held accountable to the people.
Our day has seen the rise of the judicial despotism spoken of by Jefferson. Not only do the courts declare laws unconstitutional, but they have gone on to establish law, overriding state legislatures as well as the U.S. Congress. The courts have not proven themselves to be advocates of the people in protecting them from an over reaching legislature. Instead, this relatively small body of people who are afforded lifetime appointment and have no accountability to anyone, have in many cases foisted their own political and ideological views on the nation, claiming the power to make final decisions on the meaning and message of the Constitution.
4. The Significance of “We the People”.
The question of legislating morality hinges on the answer to the following question. Do “We the People” as a nation have the authority to establish any standards of morality? For instance, regardless of the rationale, can the people declare that in their society stealing will be considered a crime and therefore appropriately punished? The obvious answer is yes. The people have a right and responsibility to regulate their own nation. Anarchy cannot be tolerated. The question then turns to how such law can be justified and properly established. All people want some measure of legislated morality, but as has been asked by many, whose morality do we legislate?
As noted above, our Constitution begins with, “We the People”. If we are going to enact any moral standard, even as simple as outlawing stealing, the legislation should reflect the conscience of the people and represent the will of the people. Let’s remember however, that even “We the People” cannot do everything we want to do nor pass every law we want to pass. Thankfully, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the people of our nation have acknowledged there is a Creator who has given to each individual certain rights that cannot be taken away, even by the people as a whole. Among those rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
All law establishing a moral code should be governed by two concepts. A law should express the will and conscience of “We the People”, but no law should abridge the rights of “We the People” – which rights have been given by God and delineated in our Constitution.
5. Protecting the rights of “We the People”.
The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted by the people to secure the God given rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states as an initial effort to secure those rights. Other amendments have been added to clarify the national understanding of those rights and to more firmly secure them.
But let us consider statutory law. When a bill is proposed, who has the responsibility and power to be sure the law protects the rights of the people and is in harmony with the constitution? As noted earlier, the courts have assumed that power under the heading of Judicial Review, but the courts have demonstrated themselves to be as politically and ideologically motivated as the Legislature. When the courts make a decision there is limited opportunity for appeal and no way to hold judges (or justices) accountable for their actions. Yet, who is foolish enough to think they are above human passion, political perspective or the pleasures of power when they render judgment?
The best hope for protecting of the rights of the people will be afforded by those in government who are most accountable to the people. The marvelous design of the U.S. Constitution put those who propose and pass laws accountable to their constituents regularly. Congressmen along with one third of the Senate face re-election every other year. If the people feel betrayed by their legislators they can fire them at the ballot box. If the people feel betrayed by the courts, and that has been the case, they can do virtually nothing.
We readily acknowledge that many delegates to the Constitutional Convention supported the basic concept of Judicial Review, which allowed federal judges to declare a law unconstitutional. We fear that few foresaw the dangers of which Jefferson cautioned. He warned of the despotism of an oligarchy and we have lived to experience it. The courts not only render judgment on the constitutionality of a law. Their decisions often rewrite legislation so they now establish law from the bench. This is a direct violation of Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution which says, as quoted previously, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. The courts, which Hamilton saw as protectors of the people, have become their masters.
A vigilant citizenry will hold Congress accountable for the constitutionality of the laws they pass. If they fail in their duty to uphold the constitution, or twist it for personal or political gain, they will be dismissed at the ballot box. Only in a closely scrutinized congress can we hope for protection of our rights. If that protection is left to the courts, we have little hope.
6. Expressing the will and conscience of “We the People”.
We live in a Constitutional Republic. That means our Constitution is the basic law of the Land, and all statutory law must be in harmony with what the Constitution says and means. The rights of the people must be secured. Our Constitution is our first line of defense against unjust law. Secondly, living in a constitutional republic means that we have a representative form of government. We are not a pure democracy. “We the People” rule through our representatives. We endeavor to elect people to serve, who believe what we believe and value what we value. We expect them to represent us and we demand them to be the voice of our will and conscience when they enact legislation. If they do not properly represent us, as noted previously, they will be and should be voted out of office. Of course, if we do not put people in office who hold our beliefs and values, and who will eagerly serve to express our will and conscience, shame on us.
Let’s go back to the issue of stealing. Stealing is against the law and is punishable in a variety of ways. Why are their laws against stealing? Some might argue that stealing violates the rights of the victims. Some might argue it is morally wrong. Some might consider it sin before God. When all is said and done, the law stands as an expression of the will of the people and a reflection of the national conscience. As a nation we believe stealing is wrong, we want laws to reflect that opinion and we do not believe that laws against stealing are a violation of the God given rights of people. People in Congress know the nation believes stealing is wrong and want laws to punish the thief. We do not expect any legislator to offer a bill that would allow stealing.
As simple as it seems, all laws should be measured and evaluated by these simple concepts. Does the nation believe a certain practice to be right or wrong? Does the nation want a law dealing with the issue? Would a law dealing with the issue violate the God given rights of the people?
Every issue can be evaluated by answering the three questions. Whether it is to legalize the use of drugs, permit abortion, legalize bigamy, be able to carry concealed weapons, or wear helmets when riding a motorcycle?
Does the nation believe the practice to be right or wrong? The nation will tell us by the people they put into office. Does the nation want a law dealing with the issue? The nation will communicate with the people they have put into office. Would the law violate the God given rights of the people? The legislature should wrestle with that issue before sending it to the President for signing. If the legislature misreads the will and conscience of the people, or misreads the constitution, let them change their ways or be voted out of office.
7. Affecting the will and conscience of “We the People”.
According to the polls, most people think Congress is doing a very poor job, but how did our leaders get into office. “We the People” went to the polls and elected them. I heard one detractor of President Barack Obama say that the scariest thing about his election was that while his term will expire, the people who elected him are still here. Are our leaders truly representing our will and conscience? If we have put the wrong people in office, shame on us. But what if they do represent the will and conscience of the nation? That is perhaps a greater shame. Without a doubt the will and conscience of America have changed. Our roots were buried deeply into the Judeo/Christian ethic and we held to strong moral values. God was honored, life was sacred, public virtue was extolled, and our laws reflected the national conscience.
The nation has been under attack at her roots. Humanism, with its branches of Atheism, Liberalism and Secularism have employed religion, education, politics, entertainment and the media to undermine our moral and spiritual foundations, and our changing laws reflect the new national conscience.
Now we move toward legislating immorality. For instance, it was the courts which first overstepped their bounds and from the bench legalized gay marriage. Their actions were a violation of the Constitution. More recently, the New York legislature enacted law to permit gay marriage. From a moral and spiritual standpoint I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman, but let us test the New York law with our three questions. Do the people of New York believe that gay marriage is right? Do the people of New York want a law to legalize it? Does such a law violate the rights of the people? The final answers to those questions may only be answered by the next New York elections, but the law as enacted may in fact represent and express the will and conscience of the people of New York. The people will tell us in the next election.
What happened? I assure you there was a time, not so long ago, when New York legislators would have never passed a law permitting gay marriage. Some how the people of New York had their will and conscience changed. Who got to them: educators, entertainers, religious leaders? Some one over time reached them.
Many still believe gay marriage is wrong, but they failed to affect the will and conscience of their peers and the “wrong” people were put into office.
8. Enter “or Exit” Christianity
There are some who believe the Church was given a cultural mandate by Jesus Christ. You would have trouble finding scripture to indicate that the Church was sent out to change the world. At the same time, the presence and involvement of God’s people have had tremendous impact on nations, not the least of which is the United States. Our founders were wise enough to see the danger of a State Church and would have none of it, but they were also wise enough to uphold and advocate Christian values in law and practice. Christians were instructed to be salt and light in order to have impact on a dark and rotting world. Unfortunately the churches and their members are weakening in their stand for what is right and losing their impact on the will and conscience of the people. If Christians do not have strong lifelong marriages, how many others will be faithful to their mate? If Christians fail to raise children who respect the law and other people, who will see the value of appropriate training and discipline. If Christians lower their moral standards, who will advocate public virtue? If churches become mere centers of entertainment, who will be moved to trust and honor God?
If we fail to impact the will and conscience of “We the People”, we can expect the populace to put people into office who lack strong values. They in turn will legislate morality, for it cannot be avoided, but it may well be the “morality” of the immoral.
In Matthew 5:13, the Bible records these words of Jesus Christ, Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”
Unless Christians rise up in renewed devotion to God and His Word, and thereby begin to have impact on America again, we will see complete destruction of family life through, gay, bigamous and polygamous marriages. We will see illegal drugs made legal. We will see assisted suicide permitted. We will see all restrictions on abortion removed. We will see children become the property of the government. We will see public acknowledgement of God outlawed.
Laws will continue to be passed by every congress. Those laws will deal with morality and they will ultimately express the will and the conscience of the people. If Christians continue to exit the battle for morality through declining standards or lack of witness, the nation will collapse from within.
Advocates of Atheism are becoming more vocal and gathering more attention in the United States than ever before. They must be exposed.Thankfully the scriptures reveal the inner struggle of the professing atheist in more than one place.
Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” The atheist will try to declare Theism as irrational and will offer as many arguments as he can muster to justify his own views. The Bible lets us all know that the rejection of God’s existence is not a “mind” problem. It is a “heart” problem. The truth is simple. Every atheist, regardless of his arguments, knows there is a true and living God. I submit his rationalizing is as much an effort to relieve his own mind about the truth of God’s existence, as it is to try to convince others.
Romans 1:20 speaks with equal and more forceful clarity than Psalm 14 when it states, “For the invisible things of him (God) are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Verse18 -19 tell that men suppress the truth of God in their own hearts. Later in the passage, verse 28 reveals that these same people do not like to retain God in their knowledge. They know He exists, but they just do not like it.
This information should be a help to theist and atheist alike. The reader can be sure that every atheist once believed in God. In reality, each atheist still believes in God, but claims unbelief outwardly. Rather than argue that point, we offer the following as a pathway to recover open and honest belief in God. The person who professes Atheism once rejected his belief in God. I commonly ask the professing atheist when he stopped believing. Some will try to convince me they never believed. Of course, I know that is not true and they know it is not true. Every atheist has something in his/her past that caused the rejection of God. For some, it was evaluation of the world and the conclusion that God does not do things the way the atheist would do things. Some think God is unfair. Sin and suffering are unfair. The reality of a place called Hell is unfair. On and on it goes. The atheist has imagined what he thinks God should be like and when God failed to measure up, he rejected God. Then there are some who have been failed or hurt by someone who supposedly represented God. Sometimes it has been a parent or perhaps a religious leader. The anger and bitterness held against the person is transferred to be held against God. Sometimes it is guilt that has come from plunging into immorality. Knowing that these sinful ways would be worthy of judgment by a holy God, the person chooses to reject God instead of rejecting sin.
Atheism is the heart rejection of God. The atheist is called a fool in the Bible, because he is rejecting what he knows to be true. To the atheist we encourage an honest evaluation of what happened to cause you to reject God. Return to Him. He is still there.
Perhaps the greatest long term danger to our country is secularization. There is an aggressive attempt being made from many quarters to remove God from our society. Typically we think of this effort as being made by the liberals/progressives. They have succeeded in taking prayer and Bible reading from our schools. They succeeded in legalizing abortion. They have filed law suits to eliminate our national motto, “In God We Trust”. They have tried to remove “Under God” from our pledge to the flag. They have challenged the public acknowledgement of our long honored holidays (holy days), such as Christmas. Secularization must be stopped.
There is a new enemy within however. He is insidious and dangerous. He wants unlimited rights and calls himself a loyal American, but he has no regard for God, the giver of rights as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. His twisted views proclaim that anyone should have the right to do anything, “as long as they don’t hurt anyone else”. Some will run to the side of this enemy of America, by failing to critically think about what America is and what values underly her worth and stability. If our founders believed that anyone should have the right to do anything, as long as they did not hurt someone else, they would have clearly stated their position. Instead they carefully listed a very few foundational rights and declared them to be God given. Then they limited government’s role to the primary task of securing those rights. The intent was to keep men free from an overbearing government and free to worship and serve the God who gave them their rights. This new enemy of America – this new advocate of secularization is the secular libertarian. He often poses as a conservative who wants to “reclaim” America. He puts on a deceptive cloak, advocating limited government, less spending and lower taxes. Yes, they are matters of great concern to the conservative and especially the Christian Conservative. However the secular libertarian advocates a legalized anarchism. He has no time for the Judeo/Christian ethic which has always provided a foundational moral code for our people as well as a sound basis for law.
Let America and her people beware of this man, who knows no morality, but that of his own choosing. He thinks the common good is found outside of ANY moral code suited to the nation. He would have no limits on abortion, he would legalize drugs of all kinds, he would allow for marriage between any pair or even group of people.
The Christian Conservative rejects the views of all secularists, whether they claim the added title of liberal, socialist or libertarian. This nation was built on a deep and abiding faith in God. That faith must be rekindled and reinforced.
What is culture? Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary says,”Culture is the totality of socially transmitted behavioral patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought typical of a population or community at a given time” Culture then, is made up of practices and beliefs in business, entertainment, customs, education, government, family and more. What underlying influences form and affect culture? The word culture comes from the term cult. In turn, cult comes from the Latin “cultus” meaning religion or worship. Our culture is formed and affected by our worship. Let that sink in, because it will unveil to you why America has and continues to change dramatically. To reclaim our culture will demand renewing our worship of the true and living God. Will Roe v. Wade ever be overturned unless we give renewed reverence to the God who gives life? Will marriage remain legally defined as a union between one man and one woman, if we ignore the God who designed and defined the relationship? When we write off beliefs and practices, because we “live in a different time” or because we “live in a changing culture”, are we really “progressing” or admitting our slide away from the Creator into heathendom?
The issue of rights has always been a major concern in America and it should be. Today, politicians and issue advocates like to refer to certain demands as fundamental rights. Homosexual marriage is on the front burner right now. A question to be answered is: how are rights determined? The foundational statement on rights in our country is found in the Declaration of Independence. In that document we read that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We would note that property would have probably been on that list, but the abolitionists among the founders did not want slave owners to find support for owning slaves, who they considered to be property. Other rights were clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as amendments to the Constitution. A careful reading of the Bill of Rights will show they were written to clarify the implications of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including the right to private property. The question becomes this: If certain “other” rights are unalienable and God given, how can we figure out what they are? The founders were confident enough to say their statements on these matters were “truths” and were “self evident”. Those are pretty bold assertions.
Let’s first acknowledge again that our founders believed the fundamental rights which under gird the nation are God given. They declared them as being self evident. They did not come out of a book, but in fact, came from the collective conscience of the people, who believed they were instilled in their hearts as natural law.
Now, seemingly more than ever, people want to expand the list of fundamental and unalienable rights. If that is to be done, additions to the list should also be viewed as self evident. They should also come from the collective conscience of the people. How can the collective conscience of the people be expressed? We suggest it can be done through ballot initiatives, national referendums or most commonly, through the legislative process. Rights should never come from the Judiciary, because judges/justices are least answerable to the people and farthest from the collective conscience of the people. As we know, at times a single judge has established rights, with no regard for the will and desire of the people. The legislative process is far more appropriate, but to succeed, it demands a citizenry that is extremely active in the election process. Legislators must be held accountable for their actions and removed from office when they fail to properly represent the people’s interests and values. In any event, once the collective conscience and will of the people has been established, other rights may be acknowledged. Eventually such rights should be established in law, through the process of constitutional amendment.
Critical to the whole issue however, is the collective conscience. Today it is weak and faltering. It must be challenged and convicted under faithful, public proclamation of high moral standards and reverence for God, who is the giver of rights. The collective conscience of the people was once reflected in public awareness and acceptance of the Judeo/Christian Ethic, and it must be revived. Rights outside of reverence for God, become a legal pathway to licentiousness, cultural decay and moral collapse of the nation. Where are the preachers of righteousness?
Many Conservatives are identifying themselves as Libertarians, but the parallels between the two only extend to a certain degree.
The 2010 Libertarian Party Platform begins: “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.” Section 1.3 of the platform on personal relationships says, “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage…Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.” Libertarians are willing for the legalization of homosexual marriages, bigamy, polygamy and group marriages. Not me! Section 1.4 of the platform on abortion says, “…we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Well, that view will keep the murder of the unborn at a high rate. I reject it.
Ron Paul is one of the most esteemed Libertarians in the public eye and many of his views are quite acceptable, but he is not a true Conservative. His statement on the Ground Zero Mosque is a case in point. He totally defends the building of the mosque under the guise of property rights and condemns the demand for a Congressional investigation to find out who is funding the mosque. He said it is “…a bold rejection of property rights, and 1st amendments rights and the Rule of Law…This is all about hate and Islamaphobia”
The issue of the mosque is a challenging one, because none of us want our precious Constitutional rights called into question or compromised.
Herein is the Conservative – Libertarian Conflict. The Conservative focuses on conserving and preserving the nation and sees our rights as secured within the context of who we are as a nation. That context is found within the full message of the Declaration of Independence. The Libertarian has little regard for who we were founded to be. He just wants liberty as described in the 2010 Party Platform.
The Conservative acknowledges his country as a social body/organism holding certain beliefs and values and he wants to keep them. He will acknowledge that all are entitled to full liberty within the body, but not the “liberty” to destroy the very system that acknowledges and secures the liberties.
The Libertarian says the homosexual should have liberty to establish a “gay marriage” and by that liberty destroy what has always been defined as marriage in our country. The true Conservative says no. The Libertarian says a pregnant woman has the liberty to destroy the life of her unborn child. The true Conservative says no. It seems that the Libertarian will so open the door of property rights and 1st Amendment rights, that some who only express hatred for who we are, and who would seek to destroy us, would be granted the liberty to establish a base for operations on our door step. Let them open their books for all to see and let them affirm their love and loyalty to America. The true Conservative says they have a right to worship as they please, but not to endeavor to change, challenge or destroy who we are.
The underlying problem is that we have lost sight of who we are and until we reclaim our culture and renew our commitment to our Founding Father’s beliefs and values, we will continue to crumble in confusion. The Libertarian does not care to conserve our traditional beliefs and values. Some who call themselves Conservatives do not understand what a Conservative is. The true Conservative loves libertyand individual rights, but is not willing for rights to be twisted into a means of destroying our beloved America.
There are many problems that have loomed large in America over the last few years. They have existed for a long time, but now have come to the forefront of day to day life. Economics, war, immigration, crime, healthcare and more, are casting our country into turmoil. These problems can be traced back to a rejection of the fundamental values that formed and fashioned the American way of life. One issue is an understanding of the very purpose of government in the United States. Other nations may see government in another way, but in our country, government was instituted to secure our God given rights and was to exercise its power as derived from the consent of the governed. In essence then, government gets its power from the people, specifically to secure the people’s rights and the people get their rights from God. Take God out of the picture and the whole system collapses. Conservatives will grasp that the acknowledgment of God as creator and giver of our rights is essential to maintaining the structure of the nation. President Obama has said we are on our way to becoming a secular nation. He sees it, he wants its, he encourages it. Amazingly we watch as the Progressives use the freedom of religion clauses of the 1st amendment to undermine traditional, public recognition of the very God who gave them the rights they exercise. Does this basic concept of God and government relate to the surface problems that dominate today’s headlines? Another article for another day.
Conservatives are rallying around Christianity, but the Christ of Christianity is the foundation of Christianity. Various cults and “Christian” sects identify Him in different ways. Some declare him to be one of three gods, one calls him the brother of Lucifer, another proclaims him to be Michael the Archangel, another – the child god, subservient to his mother’s wishes. Scripture declares there is one God manifest in three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the persons co equal and co eternal. The Christ is the Son. This is traditional and scriptural Christianity. The spiritual conflicts of the day are not just Christianity versus Islam, but also the true Christ versus anything less than the true. Conservatism without the true Christ will not always be a friend to Christianity. Constitutional conservatives of all kinds must labor together to preserve the nation, but the spiritual uniqueness of biblical Christianity must never be blurred in the mind of the Christian. One cannot truly worship the Christ unless he understands who Christ is.
So called “gay marriage” is a critical cultural issue. Marriage has been biblically and traditionally defined as a union between one man and one woman. No one is denied the right to marry within the confines of what marriage is. The current push for “gay marriage” is not an end in itself. Soon will be the call for bigamy, polygamy, group marriage, adult/child marriage and then human/animal marriage. Think not? Just wait. The simple fact is that “homosexual” defines what someone does, not what someone is. The effort to discover a “gay gene” has failed because there is no gay gene. While many experiences and pressures may drive someone to homosexual practice, in the end it is a choice that is made. It is a deviant practice from the norm and should find no public acceptance. It is an affront to racial minorities whose continuing struggle for equality has been hijacked by those who would equate their cause with those whose life style has been chosen. Many who have practiced homosexuality have sought and found deliverance from their sexual addiction. Those who practice homosexuality should not be hated, but they deserve no special rights and certainly not the right to pervert the sacred rite of marriage. The courts should stop trying to make law in this issue. Should the advocates of “gay marriage” win their battle, family life will be undermined, domestic law will become a chaotic mess and children will suffer in these unnatural settings. Unnatural indeed, for the gay couple cannot reproduce themselves, which stands as a continual testmony to the aberration the “marriage” represents. This is not a political issue and should not be politicized. It is about who we are as a people and who we will be in the future. Our national views of family are rooted in thousands of years of domestic tradition and built upon the foundation of the Judeo/Christian ethic. The attack upon our cultural heritage is not merely regarding sexual preference. It is part of an attack designed to eliminate God from America. The aganda of humanistic progressivism must be stopped morally, socially, educationally, culturally and spiritually.
Today the Senate approved the appointment of Elena Kagan as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. She will prove to be one of the most dangerous people in this country, as a threat to our beloved America. The “Conservatives” have cried out about some of her past positions and attitudes regarding abortion, the military and more. BUT, the danger this woman poses is her view that the Declaration of Independence should have no bearing on her judicial opinions. She sees herself obligated to the U.S. Constitution as written and amended, but to nothing else. To fail to understand the entwining relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is to separate a ship from its moorings. The stability and security of the Constituiton comes from grasping the fact that our rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property are of God, not government, just as is stated in the Declaration of Independence. That government’s role is to secure those rights, but not modify or diminish them, just as stated in the Declaration of Independence. A conservative will seek to preserve what is being attacked and reclaim what we are losing. Kagan’s decisons of the past are troubling to be sure, but her philosophical approach to the bench, if left uncurtailed will destroy the nation. She rejects the nation as it was founded and too many will fail to understand the tragedy that lies before us.
Conservative Christian Commentary 