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!