Homosexual Marriage Decision by SCOTUS

In the last few days, the Supreme Court of the United States has made some history-altering decisions. Incredible as it may seem, the decisions certainly are of the same importance as the Roe vs. Wade or Dred Scott vs. Sandford cases, decisions legalizing abortion and determining that Negroes, whether slaved or free were not American citizens, respectively. The reason is that the decision that homosexual marriage is legal, as well as the aforementioned ones of days past go against the very spirit of the constitution in very concrete ways.

Most importantly, the Supreme Court has acted as if they give rights, or endow them to the citizens of the United States. This is directly against the founding father’s intent for this nation as in the Declaration of Independence they penned,” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is clear that the rights of which those in our government talk do not proceed from their doings, but from a higher source. Additionally, in the Constitution, there is no mention of the responsibility or power to declare marriage lawful or not. It does not rest with our elected officials. The only principles for marriage proceed from God, and the government must follow those in all the ways government must touch the matter. Amendment 9 states that, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This further puts the nail in the coffin, as since marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, it lies with the people. There are many layers of safeguards to keep our government from doing what it has just done.

In this article, the author says that to compare the recent decision to other bad ones of the past like Dred Scott, shows a loss of perspective, thinking like many that the redefinition of marriage is not a foundational challenge of both the constitution and the moral structure of this country. Both are false. A response to Rick Santorum’s reference to similar court cases mirrors the idea, holding that religious liberties are not threatened by such a change. The underlying misunderstanding is that government can be neutral. However, no one and nothing can be truly neutral. To allow something is to endorse it, and as a nation we have endorsed immorality. If the moral compass of government goes, so shall the prosperity of the nation. On a constitutional level, since our country was descriptively built as a Christian nation on Christian principles as given authority by God, to chip away at that aspect of government is to chip away at what holds us together.

On Abortion

I am writing to urge you to support House Bill 36 which is the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It will soon be coming up for a vote in the Senate, as it has recently passed in the House. It protects unborn babies from being killed after twenty weeks has passed in their development except in circumstances such as rape or incest. This is a step in the right direction, as is a bill in Texas which requires all abortion clinic doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital 30 miles or closer to the clinic, as this article states. This is just such an example of a bill to support.

               Sometimes issues can be easily detached from the reality of what they are, such as, I believe, is the case with abortion. The idea that it is every woman’s right to do what she wants to with her body has some truth in it, within certain bounds. One such restriction is that she (or any individual, male or female) cannot hurt others or infringe on their God-given rights while pursuing their own happiness. I believe that there are more restrictions than this, governed by conscience and the Bible, but this alone presents a problem for abortion. To hold that killing a baby is permissible, that baby cannot be an individual with any rights, and thereby not human.

               It is true that the unborn fetus is a mass of cells, but is not every living thing, including myself and every other living thing, just that? What separates humans from every other living thing is the fact that we are more than the sum of our biological parts. Furthermore, to say that the beginning of our humanity, our differentiation from simple chemicals only begins after birth makes logical nonsense. If a baby is a human an hour after birth, does it follow that it was inhuman a minute before? It simply does not. Following it back to conception using the same reasoning, I believe that at its first moment, the baby is an individual, and one which has rights, one of which is to live.     

               Recently, in Georgia, a woman was recently arrested and initially charged with malice murder and possession of a dangerous drug, which was the cause of her abortion as she prematurely gave birth to a baby boy who died soon after delivery. Read more here. Most importantly, regardless of the precise legal ins and outs, it would be a huge and costly mistake to rejoice in this woman’s incarceration while paying no attention to loving her and helping her. The heart of the issue of Abortion is not the law. It is the spirit of the law which rests in lies of sin which seek to hurt both Christians and non-Christians alike. No law will do any good if we do not realize that the only difference between us and abortion supporters is that God changed us. Pray and work that God may change them!

Should we have religion in public schools?

As often held today, science has taken the place of religion in the contemporary man’s thinking. To be perfectly honest, I largely agree that it has. However, I disagree that the idea of faith, believing without seeing, is one which is best left behind in the ages of barbarianism and mysticism. Not only do I think it not beneficial to try and banish it, in fact I believe it utterly impossible.

            Most anti-theists hold to science as the sole governor of our natural world and with it seek to answer the questions as to man’s origin, and purpose or lack thereof. Often they turn to the Theory of Evolution as the specific lens through which they view the evidence and see our world. They hold some ideas as certain, though unproven and indeed not provable, since there is no way to scientifically measure what cannot be observed. The same is true for all scientific theories and indeed all logical pursuits. Just as in a dictionary some words must be taken as inherently understood to begin to define the other words, so in the scientific method some beginning assumptions must be made to start to formulate other conclusions, making no science and no thinking truly objective.

            There can be no such thing as a vacuum of belief. It is intellectually damaging and dangerous for students to be taught that such a vacuum is possible, as evolution is now masquerading as exactly that. Even if only on the grounds that it is wantonly deceiving its students and thwarting intellectual honesty it should be removed from our schools as faulty and replaced with Christianity as our founders clearly intended.

            It is clear from the recent article in the Wall Street Journal that our country’s education was at its origin Christian. The authors speak of Belgium which uses state money to fund religious schools successfully as a good thing and one which we have sadly gotten away from. In Oklahoma right now, “A proposed bill…seeks to allow schools to offer ‘an elective course in the objective study of religion or the Bible’ without fear of legal liability.” Taken from the article off of huffingtonpost.com, this suggests a step in the right direction, and something more states should add to their agenda.

Iran Sanctions and Executive Overreach

I am writing to urge you to take action to support both nuclear sanctions for Iran and a restoration of the proper checks and balances of the executive branch. There are more than a few very important reasons to do so, and I would like to share the most important one of them with you.

                First of all, Article II Section 2 of our Constitution states that, “[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Article II deals with the powers granted to the executive branch of the United States and one of the President’s roles is that of the Chief Diplomat. As part of the checks and balances of the constitution however, even when the President is acting in this capacity he must gain the approval of no less than two thirds of Congress before finalizing any treaty or foreign agreement.

                This constitutional requirement is not negotiable. Even though President Obama has told Congress that the negotiations with Iran are fragile, and thus cannot be interfered with, he has no power to act with any binding authority in this or any matter without them. As seen in this FoxNews article, President Obama’s order to Congress that they “Just hold [their] fire” is out of order.

                Furthermore, our President has vowed to veto any sanctions passed by Congress as seen here. This I have no problem with. It is his job to conduct negotiations, but he must have Congress’ consent first. He has not gotten it, and intends not to get it before putting into action his plans. Congress members have said they will wait if President Obama will put his own plan before Congress before implementation. He has refused, and so is at odds with the Constitution’s checks and balances.

                Alexander Hamilton said that, “The great desiderata are a free representation and mutual checks. When these are obtained, all our apprehensions of the extent of powers are unjust and imaginary.” If we allow the President to operate in any one area, however small (and it can be shown that he has acted multiple times on no very little scale), then we open ourselves to the converse of what Mr. Hamilton states. All our apprehensions of the size, power, reach and abuse of federal government are justly held and the dangers are very real. If we do not want to end up like the Roman people who exchanged their freedom and became slaves for the sake of their security, suspending their rights and giving them to an unworthy recipient, like Dionysius or Julius Caesar, you must act immediately. Call you legislators and let them know your opinion on the matter.