Redefining Equality

This is the fourth post in a series on marriage.

Here are some of the latest developments in the fight over marriage:

• A judge put a halt on same-sex “marriages” in Utah, but the U.S. Attorney General has said that the federal government will recognize marriages that have already occurred during the brief time that they were allowed in the state.
• Indiana legislators are pushing a state constitutional amendment to formally define marriage as between one man and one woman.
• A Federal court has ruled Oklahoma’s state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman as unconstitutional. But at least the judge had the sense to put a hold on gay “marriages” until the state has a chance to appeal.

The primary weapon the pro-gay alliance has been using to push their distorted version of “marriage” is the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection clause,” which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

At first blush, it may look like “inequality” to allow only heterosexuals to marry. However, the word “equality” is pretty overloaded, and its meaning outside of mathematics is highly subjective.

Consider, for instance, the Declaration of Independence, which begins with the famous phrase, “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….” When Thomas Jefferson penned these words, the application of the word “equal” was quite different from ours. Slavery, for instance, was heavily practiced in the New World. If white people really thought that God created them "equal" with black Africans, then how could they live with a practice that left them with no rights and barely a shred of humanity?

Fast-forward a century. Slavery was finally illegal in the entire U.S., and the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution. The main purpose of the “equal protection clause” (found in Section 1) was to guarantee that all former slaves had “the same rights” as all free men. But in practice, it tolerated racial segregation in the South, and the use of the generic term "persons" did nothing for women’s right to vote.

So what about so-called “marriage equality”? Some will say that we already have that: everyone is free to marry whomever they like, as long as they are the opposite gender. But that's not the only typical exclusion. Most states impose restrictions based on age, familial relationship, current marital status, and even genetic incompatibility. The “gay rights movement” wants to expand the definition of marriage by removing only the gender requirement, but that will not result in true “marriage equality?”

Since gays cannot have their own children, for example, “incest” doesn’t really apply to them. Will states want to allow a gay man to “marry” his son, but not his daughter? Is that “more equality” or “less equality?” And what about the other restrictions? Is it not hypocritical for the gays to demand "equality," while leaving all the others in place? Unless all of those restrictions are lifted, rendering marriage virtually meaningless, certain people still will not be able to marry whomever they want.

The simple fact is that traditional marriage laws are already “equal,” because the same restrictions apply to everyone equally. The fact that a very small percentage of the population doesn’t like them the way they are is a totally separate issue. The use of the "equal protection clause" is merely legal wrangling to achieve an unrelated (and immoral) goal. I just hope there will be enough Supreme Court justices with enough sense to see it.

Runaway Government, Part I

Photo courtesy Architect of the Capitol

As I type this, the U.S. is preparing to enter Day 8 of the government shutdown that has furloughed hundreds of thousands of government workers, shutttered offices and parks, and delayed or stopped benefits to millions.  Some folks are even being (temporarily) evicted from their vacation homes that are on Federal land.  What's worse, we're less than two weeks away from defaulting on debts, unless Congress passes a bill to extend the debt ceiling so we can pay those bills using money we don't have!  How did we ever get into this mess?  Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?

The reason we're running such an astronomical debt is that our government is spending way more than it is raking in. And then it pays its "credit card" debts with another "credit card." If the U.S. was a person, such fiscal practices would not be sustainable! Yet, we outspend our income an average of $30 billion a month! A previous generation of legislators had the sense to require a debt limit, presumably to reign in national borrowing, but that's just a paper ceiling, since all Congress does now is increase it whenever we need to borrow more. That's like me calling our bank every few months to ask for a credit line increase, even though I'm unable to keep up with payments.

This is a complex issue, with a very rich history.  While I do know some of the events that brought about the political practice of threatening to shut down government, as a tool for wrestling over bills and measures, this is not what I want to talk about.

What really irks me is how involved every level of our government has gotten into our lives.  One of the reasons this shutdown is making such big news is that so many people and services are affected.  When the Founding Fathers put the Constitution together, their intent was that the Federal goverment mainly provide for a national defense and represent our interests abroad.  Most of the day-to-day operation was left to the individual states, which were intended to be far more independent than they are now.  Congress met only a few weeks out of the year, leaving the states to handle their own affairs.

But over time, the Federal government took on more and more responsibility and collected more and more funds from the states, in exchange for additional services.  I have a theory on why this happened and what we can about it, so stay tuned for Part II....

By the way, the picture above has a very interesting connection to the current situation.  In preparation for this post, I decided to Google pictures of the Capitol Building in Washington DC.  When I saw this photo of the dome under construction, it surprised me, because I did not think photography was available that long ago.  But then I read the story behind it.  Turns out the original dome was made of wood.  In 1855, it was decided it was too much of a fire hazard, so it was torn down, and a new iron dome was commissioned.  When the Civil War broke out in 1860, the U.S. government warned the builders that they would not be able to pay them until after the war.  Surprisingly, the builders decided to continue construction anyway.  President Lincoln saw this as an encouraging sign that the nation would endure, due to the hard-working spirit of its citizens.  Ironically, Federal employees are now forbidden from working without pay.  Go figure!

Book Review: The 5000 Year Leap

Posted by Farrah

Last December, while gathered with relatives to celebrate Christmas, my uncle generously gifted each family with a copy of The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen. Inside the front cover was a note scrawled in my uncle's hand, “May you find the principles contained in this book enlightening and refreshing and may you find them great teaching legacies.” I remember him commenting that this and the Bible are the only books an American needs. The Bible will take care of our souls, and this book will take care of our country.

I delved in soon after the holiday season but did not finish until recently, nearly a year later. Why so long? Virtually every square inch of print is informative. You see, it was designed for the classroom. In fact, at the bottom on the front it says, "Principles of Freedom 101." I rarely got through more than a few pages per day, and at times didn’t pick it up for a month. Yet, I am glad I stuck it out!

All in all, the book is excellent. It provides wonderful insight into the thoughts of our founding fathers and the various circumstances that molded their opinions. They felt enormous responsibility in forming a new nation and sacrificed tremendous time and money in the undertaking. They looked on public office as a calling rather than an outlet for fame or fortune.

Many heavy questions needed answering. What form of government is best? What does freedom mean, and how do we preserve it? They drew knowledge from the sources available to them in the areas of history and philosophy, and they had the examples of other nations. After observing firsthand the mistakes being made elsewhere, they did not want to repeat those. In their minds, America SHOULD and WOULD be a blessing to peoples everywhere.

I found this quote by one reader quite profound:

I am especially delighted that this volume emphasizes that the Constitution is not out of date. It is no more out of date than the desire for peace, freedom, and prosperity is out of date. The Founders were not custom-building the Constitution for any particular age or economy. They were structuring a framework of government to fit the requirements of human nature. These do not change. What protected the freedom of George Washington will protect freedom for you and me.

Is it not so? Though technology advances and borders are altered, the heart of humanity deviates but little. We are ever pursuing, building and destroying in much the same manner as our ancestors with the same dreams and desires. In fashioning a Constitution (a set of laws to bind down our rulers), the Founders were seeking to address the problems of flawed humanity for the sake of peace and prosperity. Our constitution will not be outdated, so long as man is unchanged in essentials.

The book is separated into two parts, the first being extremely short and brimming full of important, interesting background information. The second is broken down into 28 chapters reflecting 28 fundamentals that our Founders believed are necessary for society to thrive. The author writes,

There was hardly a single idea which the American Founding Fathers put into their formula that someone hadn’t thought of before. However, the singularity of it all was the fact that in 1787, when the Constitution was being written, none of those ideas was being substantially practiced anywhere in the world. It was in America that the Founding Fathers assembled the 28 great ideas that produced the dynamic success formula which proved such a sensational blessing to modern man.

There is definitely a great abundance of quotes, both by the Founders and by others who were influential.

The book also does a fine job of dispelling some myths. No one who reads the words of Thomas Jefferson could believe the rubbish that is often stated about his beliefs, especially by those who oppose religion. They are fond of pulling out isolated quotes and using them to justify all sorts of things that he would be completely against. Benjamin Franklin, too, has been tarnished over time, as have probably all the founders in one way or another. I find that in every area of knowledge there is an effort to distort and corrupt. It is present in science, history, literature, politics, and everything in which man has a hand.

There is one point on which I differ with the founders (and author). A chapter on foreign relations has the quote: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” The author concludes with his own comment,

The United States has been involved in three major wars, including the holocaust of World War II. Looking back, one cannot help wondering how much happier, more peaceful, and more prosperous the world would be if the United States had been following a policy of “separatism” as the world’s great peacemaker instead of “internationalism” as the world’s great policeman.

It looks good on paper, but the founders were not forming a country during World War II. There were no nuclear bombs that could destroy vast areas of land and kill thousands within a few seconds. In addition, our country was but a baby struggling to take its first steps. We had more pressing matters here at home than to worry about the rest of the planet. But once we became strong, I believe we had more responsibilities. With great power comes great responsibility, does it not?

The author asks how much better off the world would be had we not intervened. If we had ignored the Holocaust and closed our eyes to the attack on Pearl Harbor, would the world indeed be better today? Would it be happier, more prosperous and peaceful? I don’t think so. I am not one for standing idle, while millions of people are being slaughtered by dictators who want to take over the world. Though I believe the Constitution is timeless due to the unchanging nature of the purpose it serves, I disagree that the separatist philosophy can be applied to our present day.

For the most part, I agree with the rest of The 5000 Year Leap. It is a fantastic volume on political philosophy, definitely worth buying. I’d like to see every student in the United States read it as part of U.S. Government classes. Actually, it would be nice if everyone serving in public office would read it too and take its lessons to heart!

America: Nation of Christians or Christian Nation?

Before I get too much into our country's modern moral quagmires, I want to lay some sort of foundation, a background, if you will, to explain where I'm coming from. I'm fully aware that even within the Christian community, debates rage on, from our founding fathers' beliefs, to whether or not we even have any business getting into politics at all.

Even though I've decided to use the American flag as the recurring theme in my blog, and I will often bewail the sad moral degradation in this, my adopted country, I do not hold to any claims that the U.S. is or should be a nation of Christians or a Christian nation. Nor do I believe that it is destined to be the political embodiment of God's Kingdom.

With respect to the former, whether one serves the One True God is an intimate issue between that person and God. While I believe that nothing but good things can come from a society whose members are born of the Spirit and live according to Christ's two commandments, it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus that anyone (or any government) should shove a belief system down anyone's throat. (More on that, in posts to come!!!)

Regarding the latter (God's Kingdom), if when Jesus returns, He decides to establish an earthly kingdom, it will most likely be an entirely new entity. The U.S. was founded by men; God's Kingdom was founded by God. BIG difference there. :)

So how do I view the U.S.? I see it as a country that was founded on Biblical principles, by men and women who, for the most part, believed in and lived according to those principles, and that without them, we will see the moral decline of the past hundred years continue. But, as I mentioned in that tract, if we Christians stand up for that we know to be right, and lead others to the Savior, this country may yet turn around. I hope and pray that this blog will reach out, past my usual circle of like-minded readers, and serve as a beacon of light, toward that goal.