The Founders intended that America be a Christian Nation, and they intended that we legislate social behavior using the standards of Biblical principle. As a Christian nation, which holds that the Bible and the Spirit of Jesus reflect and embody the pinnacle of God’s Truth, it is appropriate to legislate based upon the precepts of Christ. While society tolerates the individual practice of religions other than Christianity, it is not appropriate to allow those of other moral systems to be given the reigns of control to shape the laws which govern the behaviors of the whole.
Every law reflects a moral foundation, a belief about what is right and wrong and how the world should work. Every law is an attempt to limit human behavior and apply boundaries. Given our Christian heritage, and the fact that the nation is currently populated by people of many religions, it is imperative that the Christian voice be overtly considered and preferred in the public debate.
Government usually generates legislation because of an experienced violation of person or property. The pain of violation is a reflection of the violation of a higher moral law. The legislature’s job is to engage in vigorous debate about the standards of proper behavior and enact law as a guide to excellent Godly personal and social behavior. It is the job of a righteous legislature to use Biblical moral standards as a guide to the creation of a secular code of conduct.
Link to Christian Legislation
To answer your question: I'd be happy with the laws that the Founding Fathers enforced (in other words, Libertarian Party members need not apply).
Let's see what the mindset of the Founding Fathers was when it came to "practicing homosexuals":
"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:
'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).'" (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769, Vol. IV, pp. 215-216).
You'll note that their laws didn't take kindly to "buggery". In fact, up until the sodomites intimidated their way into having the American Psychiatric Association remove homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders, there were sodomy laws in EVERY state.
Please forgive my delay in responding. I have been in the hay fields and underneath some vehicles of late. 18 acres left and we are done for the year, save the hauling.
I share your assessment of the founding of the United States. Somewhere downstairs I have a book from the late 70’s or early 80’s called the Second American Revolution; it was at the time of the awakening of evangelicals that was finding voice in CBN, the Moral Majority, and may have peaked about the time Newt G. orchestrated the Contract with America.
The issue has always been what kind of “bedfellows” can you include in your coalition. I detest homosexuality; it is a first order perversion, a sin punishable by death. Ranks right up there with witchcraft, Satanism, child sexual abuse, etc.
When we seek these days to affect a secular government through popular election we have to make decisions about what or who we can include or tolerate as political allies.
Satan has always sought to join the Church. The Church has always struggled with how involved to become with society and government. I can’t fault the Quakers, for instance, doctrinally. Turning the other cheek is purely scriptural, but not a recipe for success as a nation in this age.
At some point the Cross and the Flag part ways, don’t they?
I appreciate your studied response(s)! You are certainly a serious student of Church and American history.