A Government of the judiciary?

Abraham Lincoln spoke of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  We’ve come a long way, baby!  The people of the State of California voted that marriage is between a man and a woman, not between two individuals of the same gender.  But one judge now has the power to overrule the will of the people and declare that vote “unconstitutional”.

The bone of contention brought forward by lobbyists for the narcissistic gay agenda is that this law violates the equal protection clause (section 1 of the 14th amendment) which says in part, “…nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  The application of this clause assumes that gays are being denied equal protection of the law because they cannot marry someone of their same gender, discounting the legal fact that they are still free to marry someone of the opposite sex.  So the whole issue revolves around the definition of marriage.  Homosexuals want to have the definition of marriage expanded to include them.  They feel discriminated against.

So, what is marriage?  Is it simply a couple who chooses to live together?  Regardless of how you define it, marriages today don’t seem to be lasting.  Half of all marriages now end in divorce.  Statistics for gay couples are even worse.  Why are they pushing for inclusion into this dying institution?  Two reasons come to mind:  Moral and Legal.  On the one hand, they want to be socially  acceptable to the mainstream and on the other hand, they want certain legal benefits such as medical insurance, tax breaks, inheritance, etc.

To the average person on the street, morals and laws have always seemed to go together.  But that has been changing for some time.  Situational ethics and moral relativity have crept into our society to the point that many people agree that what is “true” for you may or may not be “true” for me.  There is a reason for this.  When our Constitution was written, its content was the product of a legal philosophy called Natural Law.  Historically, it derived from Common Law and was based in the universal acceptance of the moral authority of the God of the Bible.  This was reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which claimed, “… all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; … That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …”

Natural Law upholds the presumption that the laws of our government should reflect God’s moral authority.  This view of jurisprudence has been under attack for the past century by those who espouse Positive Law, a philosophy of human authority that substitutes an evolving interpretation of legal principles for the absolute, unchanging moral authority of God.  To the issue of giving equal “protection” to homosexuals, in order that they may marry, I would point out that the law cannot protect a right that they never had.  Positive Law says they now have that right.  The very foundation of our laws is tossed out by reinterpreting what the Constitution means.

So, the question of whether or not California’s definition of marriage is “constitutional” boils down to this:  Does the Constitution mean what the framers meant it to mean, or what each new generation wants it to mean?  If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God; if you believe that the absolute moral authority revealed in the Bible is the foundation of American jurisprudence in particular and of Western Civilization in general, then you must agree that the U.S. Constitution means what it’s writer’s intended it to mean.  If not, then while you are free to disagree, I urge you to examine the roots of the institution of marriage, to see exactly what the baby is like that you are throwing out with the bath water.

Under the law, marriage creates a family bond, establishing inheritance rights for a spouse ahead of the rest of the family.  This stems from the Biblical principle that a man and woman become “one” when they marry (Genesis 2:24).  This unity is described as one both in flesh and in spirit (Malachi 2:15).  Marriage is God-ordained.  The New Testament goes further by comparing marriage to the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22-33) and as such, is sacred and should be characterized by faithfulness.  The institution of marriage today certainly doesn’t live up to that standard.

Not only do failed marriages represent society’s rejection of God’s standard, but the push to mainstream gay marriage is an outright rejection of God and his authority.  Further, our ultimate freedom, which is God-given, is now put at risk.  Freedom is not the same as license.  When we stop using our freedom to be faithful, and in turn give ourselves the license to be narcissistic, we come under judgement.  And then our freedom is in jeopardy.  The State of California voted.  They did not reject God’s standard.  But what the people want won’t matter if one judge decides to toss out their vote.  What do you think “constitutional” means?  A Government of the judiciary?


About retiredday

I am Michael D. Day, a regular, everyday guy -- retired. I stand for God-given freedom, which means I think for myself. I believe in being civil, because the Bible teaches that we should love our enemies. But I also believe in saying it how I see it, and explaining just why I see it that way, sort of like 2 Timothy 4:2.
This entry was posted in Gay marriage, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s