Posted on 07/15/2004 6:12:27 PM PDT by Simi Valley Tom
By Dr. Tom Snyder
As you may know, the United States Senate has narrowly rejected a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional biblical definition of marriage. In reading and hearing about the debate in Congress and elsewhere, it has become clear that many self-proclaimed conservatives and Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to politics, history, morality, and religion.
The eminent political historian, Russell Kirk, the founder of the modern conservative movement in the United States and in the Republican Party, often wrote that the first principle of conservative thought is the principle that political and economic issues are, at bottom, moral and religious issues. The second principle of conservative philosophy is the principle that God (the God of the Bible, by the way) has established a Transcendent Moral Order which all people everywhere must obey. That transcendent moral order may find slightly different expression in other ethnic and national cultures, but it is clear that the American Culture rests on a transcendent moral order that finds its fullest expression in the Bible, including the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian New Testament. As such, neither Christians nor Jews have anything to fear from the use of the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament documents, because the moral principles in both are exactly the same.
Putting these principles in the light of the current debate over the institution of marriage and the defense of marriage amendment, it is clear that both marriage and the United States Constitution, on which all of our laws are based, are founded on the Transcendent Moral Order written in the Bible and expressed by our traditional Judeo-Christian heritage.
Thus, we not only live in a republic, we also live in an enlightened theocracy that avoids sectarian squabbles over theology and ritual, squabbles which are best left to Christian churches and Jewish religious leaders.
Therefore, it logically follows, that all conservatives and all Republicans should strongly support the constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
Sen. John McCain and other unenlightened Republicans contend that laws about marriage should be a state matter. This argument is thoroughly disingenuous and false. It is a parlor trick employed by political and moral cowards who have betrayed the principles of the Republican Party, betrayed the principles of the conservative movement, and betrayed the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence on which their country was founded.
Contrary to Sen. John McCain’s ignorant public statement on his website, laws about marriage are no longer just a state issue. The tyrannical power of the state and federal courts, including the power of the imperious despots in the United States Supreme Court, have made it a national issue that requires immediate federal action!
Will Sen. McCain and his fellow traitors impeach any of these judicial tyrants? Will they stand up for the people in the states, for whom the constitution guarantees a republican, legislative form of government?
If not, then the only solutions left to those who want to protect their children, grandchildren, and families from homosexual and pedophile perverts appear to be 1) a constitutional amendment, and 2) outright civil war.
I pray that it does not come to the second solution, but the question remains:
When will Sen. McCain and the other RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) have the guts to take a stand in favor of the traditional family and the traditional biblical values on which America was founded?
The United States must be ruled by the moral laws of God, not the laws of sinful man. The principles of the conservative movement, the Republican Party, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution require that this be so. To say otherwise is to deny conservative philosophy, as well as to deny the basic principles of the Republican Party, the Declaration, and the Constitution.
John McCain merely took the tradional "states rights" position, while pointing out that the already extant Marriage Act has been in place for years and not one court has ruled against it --- thus why amend the Consitution?
My perspective -- I would be happy to see such an amendment passed, but even if passed by the Senate, the House, signed by the President and confirmed by 38 states --- it would not prevent "civil unions" which is what the gays want anyway. It's all about the money. The Christian church lost this a long time ago when they permitted the States to issue marriage licenses.
First, I am glad that the possibility of a constitutional amendment concerning marriage is before us. At the founding, there was no concern for marriage or family in the federal consitution, and most state constitutions explicitly provided for an established religion which gave precise definition to marriage and family. Over time, some limits to the abilty of the states to interfere in marriage and family developed, as for example when the state of Oregon attempted to prohibit private schooling and the U.S. Supreme Court discovered that states could not do this.
Second, I am also happy to see that we got 49 votes on the first try, and believe that through a combination of political effort to change the composition of the Senate, and reconsideration of what exactly should be in the marriage amendment, that we will soon gain the two-thirds majority we will need in that body. If we gain the assent of the Senate, I do believe the necessary majority in the House will be easy to obtain. The next big hurdle will be the ratification of the three-fourths majority of our states. A constitutional amendment does indeed require a large and widespread majority, and this is a good thing.
Third, I don't think we want to interfere with the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Association, nor the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of Equal Rights. As long as we do not interfere with these guarantees, nobody can argue that we are anti-gay or anti-civil unions. We remain commited to allowing people to associate as they chose, and to continually reviewing all laws to provide for equal rights.
Fourth, I don't think we want to interfere with the Supreme Court's decision in the Texas Sodomy case, which declares that the state has no interest in private homosexual acts. That is, we are commited to protecting a sphere of private behavior among consenting adults. Again, another proof that we are not anti-gay.
Fifth, our concern regarding marriage and children is, as was expressed in the minority opinion of the Massachusetts supreme court, the bearing and raising of children. Marriage serves the purpose of identifying the parents of our children and, more precisely, the fathers of them. Even more precisely, marriage serves the purpose of indicating whom the mother has recognized - by reserving herself - to be the father of her children.
Our concern is for the children, whether they, the children, are male or female, and even whether they are genetically predisposed to be straight or gay. All children, all of them, need their two natural parents. Only in very exceptional cases should we remove children from their natural parents.
As to why children need their natural parents, one reason is the love of people for their natural children. The cases of abuse and neglect of stepchildren and adoptive children and of children over which non-natural parents act as guardians are legion. To deny this evidence is to reveal that you are such an ideologue that you put your idealogy ahead of the happiness of children. This is really bad form of extremism.
A second reason is that children can see in their natural parents how people made out of the same genetic stuff as they, deal with their genetic predispositions, either for the good or for the bad. This is especially important with regard to how a person deals with his or her genetic predisposition regarding sexual orientation. Most people are genetically predisposed to be strongly heterosexual, the same way that most people are genetically predisposed to be strongly right-handed. Obviously it would have to be this way (regarding sexual orientation), or else our existence as a species would be in jeopardy.
However, there are other people whose genetic predispostions range from weakly heterosexual to weakly homosexual. These people, when they are children, need to see how their parents and their other close blood relatives deal with their own sexualities. Plucking people out of their birth families and sticking them here or there with other families recklessly disregards our need to discover our potentialities, and to make good choices about whom we choose to become.
Obviously, there are times that we do need to place children into homes with no blood connection. This should be the exception, rather than the rule. And, not that the matter has come to be controversial, we need to establish the rule in law. This means developing a federal Constitutional amendment recognizing the role of marriage and the family in society.
The answer is to impeach the judges. It's already in the Constitution.
Thus, we not only live in a republic, we also live in an enlightened theocracy that avoids sectarian squabbles over theology and ritual, squabbles which are best left to Christian churches and Jewish religious leaders.I don't think that Kirk would have characterized our nation as a Theocracy, even one that "avoids sectarian squabbles" due to the lack of an established church.
Kirk was often pointing out that Natural Law, Transcendent Order and Religious Virtue were to be reflected in the human law and only through legislatures.
He had no use for Judges and Executives not following sworn duty.
Our nation was set up with a General Sovereignty for the states and Limited Sovereignty for the Federal government. The issues of licensed clergy and justices of the peace (I think that's the only office Kirk ever held) were issues for the states.
The "full faith and credit" issue is where the marriage perversion throws itself into the Federal and Constitutional cauldron.
What we are seeing now is political jockeying, not finely crafted legislation. The election looms and post election, this issue can be addressed based upon the path the electorate take. The problem is that terms like "marriage" are being perverted; language has been high-jacked by the "armed doctrine" as Kirk would say.
Again, some good thoughts, but I think that using the term "Theocracy", even to make a limited point, is a grave error. It is our culture and our government that are being perverted in this instance; the perversion of our religious denominations is only partial and transitory. As Elliot says, "The world is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time; so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization, and to save the world from suicide."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.