Sunday, March 23, 2014

Conviction Friction

Striking down Michigan’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman noted, “Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage. Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.”

It is stunning that these federal judges continue to parrot the “equal protection under the law” nonsense when it comes to homosexuality. For nearly 200 years, and without any Constitutional conflictions or any serious debate, homosexual behavior in America was seen as immoral and therefore illegal.

Each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. It is also noteworthy that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (the Fourteenth Amendment—containing the “Equal Protection” clause—being ratified in 1868) did nothing to prevent all 50 U.S. states, including each state that entered the union after 1868, from enacting laws against homosexual behavior. Even as recently as 1961, sodomy was a felony in every state in the U.S.

In other words, many federal judges today are discovering “rights” favoring homosexuals (especially concerning marriage) that went heretofore unnoticed in the U.S. for over two centuries. And yes, just like tens-of-millions of Americans across the U.S., many Michigan residents’ views on marriage stem from strong religious “convictions.” In fact, similar “convictions” led to the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and thus, the very forming of the United States.

Every law that exists is rooted in some “conviction” concerning what is right and what is wrong. The supporters of same-sex marriage, and the courts favoring them, are also operating from certain “convictions.” All that needs to be decided is whose “convictions” are going to form the basis for U.S. law: those rooted in absolute truth or those rooted in the “wisdom” of mankind.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

5 comments:

  1. "For nearly 200 years, and without any Constitutional conflictions or any serious debate, homosexual behavior in America was seen as immoral and therefore illegal."

    Coincidentally, for 144 years, it was deemed immoral and was in fact illegal for women to vote. This was only corrected in 1920 by the 19th amendment. The old thinking was wrong, even though some interpretations of Biblical scripture supported the notion that women should not vote (should not speak).

    Further, would you agree that lying and dishonesty are immoral? The Bible says lying is a sin. If so, then your own logical construct suggests lying is illegal because it is immoral. Therefore I ask: How many of our politicians are in prison for lying? Is there no law against the immoral and criminal act of lying? How do you make exceptions for this but not for the immorality of homosexuality? Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point, but there is a clear distinction (that you yourself point out) when it comes to women gaining the right to vote and homosexuals the right to marry. Obviously late 19th and early 20th century lawmakers and courts saw nothing in the Constitution as it was written that gave women the "right" to vote (nor was there "right" to prevent women from voting--women did gain the right to vote at the state and local level in certain locations prior to the 19th Amendment). Thus, the Constitution was amended. Of course, this is the ingenious method that our Founders gave us when it comes to making constitutional changes. This is NOT what is happening with homosexuals and marriage. Just as with abortion, the courts have "interpreted" the Constitution "finding" "rights" that were never there before.

    And I don't think that anyone two-hundred years ago would have considered a woman voting immorally on par with homosexuality.

    Bill Clinton was (rightfully) impeached for lying. Yes, there can (and should) be serious consequences for a politician not telling the truth--whether the ballot box or the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Bill Clinton was (rightfully) impeached for lying."

    Ehh.. they all lie. You know it and I know it. What happened to Bill was a legal trap set by conservative cowards with a political agenda who -if they had any integrity- would be filing charges against Obama right now. The fact that republicans have not impeached Obama when justification for his impeachment exceeds their case against Clinton clarifies their original intent. It was never about justice.

    "And I don't think that anyone two-hundred years ago would have considered a woman voting immorally on par with homosexuality."

    Does this infer you believe in a hirearchy of sin? If the wages of sin is death, is one sin greater than another?

    Lastly:
    "Thus, the Constitution was amended. Of course, this is the ingenious method that our Founders gave us when it comes to making constitutional changes."

    So we agree it is a living document, -modifiable when necessary to address errors, shortcomings, or failures of foresight. So far, so good.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A "living" Constitution wouldn't need to be amended. Changing the Constitution by the very means laid down by the Founders is an "originalist" approach.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A rather selective answer. Sigh... I think that's an example of an originalist cop-out.

    ReplyDelete