The recent ruling by the Supreme Court that overturns the
Defense of Marriage Act requires me to comment. As one educated in law and
deeply committed to Christianity, I feel blessed that I can see through the
distraction from virtue that these worldly views create.
The bottom line here is that our government is promoting
liberalism in all forms. Why? It gets votes. If you want to get elected and
stay in power, just pander to a liberal. Liberals at large do not care about
the national debt…they don’t expect to ever have to personally account for it.
They do not care about foreign policy…they don’t expect the actions of foreign
nations to directly affect them. They do not care about the virtues of
self-restraint, working hard for what they receive, or maintaining liberty the
way it has been in every society that preceded us – by strong defenses.
Instead, they care about gay rights. They care about abortion rights. They care
about illegal immigration rights. They care about environmentalism. They want
health care that is paid by someone else. They want an income that is paid by
someone else without working for it. In summary, they care about the benefits and
the pleasures they can enjoy today, and leaving the day of accountability to
the future, as if it will never come. As long as politicians give people the
immediate selfish gratification they want, those politicians will keep getting
elected. I simply call them vote whores. That’s what they are.
Marriage was instituted by God, not by the laws of men. It
was first mentioned in the Bible. It was not a legal ceremony with paperwork,
fees and a blood test. It was a commitment to one’s new spouse and to God. And
as such – being a genuine commitment to God, it carried much more weight,
integrity and reverence in the minds of those who participated. Only in our
modern era has the legal system usurped authority over the God-ordained act of
marriage. And this is only because modern laws have commingled marital rights
with legal rights. Examples are the right to own property, the right to share
insurance benefits, the right to income tax relief, such as ‘married filing
jointly’. Once the government gave incentives or advantages to married couples,
they opened the door to requiring ‘equal protection’ to unmarried partners as
well as to homosexual relationships. Because of this crossing of legal lines, the
courts have no choice but to act. Either they refuse to recognize marriage as a
legal act and remove all marriage-based public incentives (tax breaks, etc), or
they allow all the same privilege under the equal protection clauses of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This really isn’t about the courts becoming
corrupt because they made these decisions. They had to. The current moral/political
climate requires that they equally protect all. Failing to act would be
imposing moral beliefs (religion) into law. The problem is that religion (marriage)
and government (taxes, property, etc) crossed paths and shared benefits along
the way. That is where this conflict really started.
What we have today are two opposite definitions of marriage.
There is the ‘legal’ or worldly definition: the government-sanctioned union
between two consenting adults. Then there is God’s definition: the union of a
man and a woman. Only one can be correct, though. If the government wants to
call a homosexual ‘marriage’ a legal marriage, then let them. But if government
truly wants all people to be equal, then don’t persecute heterosexual people.
This includes small business owners and religious institutions. If a small
business owner chooses not to do business with a homosexual person because
doing so violates his personal religious morals, there are two choices: 1)
Allow this, and the homosexual population can find plenty of other providers
for services; or 2) Force the business owner to conduct business with the
homosexual person, completely violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights of the business owner. Unfortunately, our government has chosen the
latter… they willfully violate the Constitution and force business owners to
serve in ways that violate their religious convictions.
As an example, a wedding photographer who personally is a conservative
Christian worshipper refuses to photograph the wedding of a gay couple. Realistically,
the gay couple could find any number of other photographers who would want
their business. No one’s rights are violated in this case. But today, that
photographer could be criminally prosecuted for refusing to photograph a gay
marriage. That violates his constitutional rights. Does the government care
about his (or our) constitutional rights? Not if protecting the rights of heterosexuals
costs them votes. Not if doing the right thing hurts their re-election chances.
Regarding the definition of marriage, the government can legislate any definition they want to. God instituted marriage, not men. God defined what a marriage is. Men cannot change that definition. They certainly can pretend to, and they are. But marriage is, and always will be, between a man and a woman. The government is simply using improper terminology to define a civil union in order to bestow government benefits and pander for votes.
Calling a gay union a marriage is no different than the
government passing a law that says that any object moving in the sky is ‘flying’.
If you throw a rock, it is ‘flying’. If you fall off a tall building, you are ‘flying’.
Does that mean you ‘crashed’ when you hit the ground as if it was an accident?
Do we need the National Transportation Safety Board to investigate the cause of
your ‘flying accident’ and assign blame somewhere else? Falling out of the sky is
not flying, any more than a gay union is a marriage, no matter what the
government legislates. What about the definition of Heaven? Our government
could pass a law saying that Heaven is officially defined as anything that
brings pleasure to anyone. Clearly contrary to the definition that the Creator
of Heaven gave. Again, the government can call anything what they want. It does
not change the facts. Marriage was defined by God to be between a man and a woman.
Government can pretend to change that, but they are only pretending. Such a
definition only matters to the godless.
None of this is intended to be ‘hate speech’ against gays.
Not at all. I have gays in my extended family and I love them. The gay
co-workers in my career have been some of the very best, most dependable employees,
and the first I’d think of if I needed to hire someone. Their sexual choices do
not define everything else about them. I support the rights of gays to have all
the same legal privileges that heterosexuals have. That includes property
rights, tax breaks, educational opportunities, and the like. No more and no
less. Equal. Recently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has
openly supported gay rights as they pertain to society. The right to jointly
own property, the right to be free in one’s beliefs, the right to cohabitate,
etc. There is no social discrimination from the LDS Church, despite the efforts
of persecutors to imply differently and incite hate toward the church. Social
equality is what they say… but our government will not stop there. They are
forcing homosexuality and gay marriage into society while inhibiting and
outright threatening the rights of heterosexuals. They are promoting liberalism
under the intentionally deceitful banner of equality.
One thing I believe is that persecution against Christians
everywhere will increase. Those who hold true to their beliefs will feel the
heat. Many will buckle under the persecution and will ‘get out of the kitchen’,
showing God that their faith is only so strong. But I also believe that God
will allow those of us who believe in Him, who genuinely cling to Him, to be
protected when things get really difficult. But we cannot procrastinate our
faithfulness and wait until it is convenient to jump on God’s bandwagon. The
time is now.
No comments:
Post a Comment