Posts
In the Gettysburg address, then president Abraham Lincoln made the now famous remarks, “…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” This concept is now in danger.
Recently, our nation finds itself embroiled in several controversies regarding the action of Federal and State Supreme Courts. These courts render judgment that becomes law, without the significant input of the people’s will. For example, there has never been a national vote concerning abortion, yet it remains legal in our country. Likewise, the move is underway to redefine marriage in the United States of America.The argument for same-sex marriage bases its premise on shaky logic. Without definitive evidence refuting homosexuality as nothing more than a lifestyle choice, those who support gay marriage find themselves claiming discrimination as basis for their agenda. The obvious logical problem is that choice of lifestyle brings with it consequences of that choice.
Of course, those who support gay marriage often believe that being gay is a result of nature and not choice. Therefore, as far as I can tell, they believe the right to marry is theirs simply because they say their sexual orientation is natural and personal choice.
Either way, the courts of this land face a serious dilemma. With a recent New York Times/CBS poll finding that 58% of American still do not support same sex marriage, the imposition of this practice by court decree in states like Iowa, is problematic.
How far do we allow the court to travel down this slippery slope of making law? I would be remiss if I did not admit that there were times in our nation’s history when Court mandate law was necessary to battle definitive cases of discrimination. As a black man, I can appreciate rulings like the 1954 opinion by the United States Supreme Court that struck down discrimination on our nation’s public school system. However, making law from cases where the idea of discrimination is much more ambiguous could put our nation on the road that ends with the loss of true democracy.
Again, supporters of same sex marriage argue that cases that outlawed discrimination against blacks are akin to their fight for equality. I disagree wholeheartedly and feel some degree of insult that the gay rights lobby compares their effort to the Civil Rights Movement in America. Since I am definitively black by birth, any discrimination toward me based on this would be beyond my control to correct.The Courts of this country must recognize that their duty to protect liberty and justice should not be subject to rhetoric based on feeling and emotion, or even the prevailing winds of social activism. The court must rule on law based in the right moral choices. Whether or not we support it, the basis of all law is moral code to some degree. Laws against murder, thievery, perjury and personal property have their root in a moral code defined by our Creator. I support the right of people to do as they choose with their lives, but we demonstrate real intolerance when we ignore the right of the majority to disagree.
1 comments:
Pastor Dix, Your comments are a welcome and refreshing view. Specifically, I too do not agree that the homosexual quest for "equal rights" is the same as that undertaken by the Civil Rights movement. Blacks were historically denied employment, housing, loans, entrance to colleges and universities -- all on the basis of race. Blacks were historically paid less, charged more, segregated by force, and physically harassed. And I'm just getting started. In contrast, the homosexual community is one of the best educated segments of our population, is more likely to be in the highest income brackets, are not denied entrance to employment, education, real estate loans or housing, and there is certainly no history of physical harassment similar to that experienced by blacks leading to the Civil Rights movement. The comparison is simply not appropriate.
Post a Comment