In the annals of history great men and women have been called to fulfill a purpose which has influenced and directly benefited mankind. Such events as the framing of the Constitution of the United States, the victory of the North over the South in the Civil War, the writing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, Women’s Suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement have all been such noble events that have shaped the course of our nation. Great men and women no doubt had been prepared for their moment to leave an indelible imprint on the hearts of all. They have inspired us and granted us courage through their example. What a sorrow it would be if those individuals called to give themselves for their noble cause were not ready or prepared to complete or even start their work in the hour of need. Now is such the hour in which I feel a cause to write and hopefully influence those around me to awaken their minds to the situation that stands before them. For now we live in an hour where everyone attempts to champion causes in which they believe to be noble and hide behind the mask of equality and personal freedom. They would deny the majority of people their rights as long as their whim of so called personal freedom is satisfied. In so doing they defy the very document they so urgently yet so wrongly interpret; the Constitution.
In May of 1787, 55 delegates were sent to Philadelphia to revise the government then presently constituted under the Articles of Confederation. Four days into this Grand Convention, Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia, proposed a plan that revolutionized the government of the United States and set her on course sailing toward “justice...tranquility…and secure[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” After a long grueling summer and thanks to delegation and compromise, the Constitution of the United States was written. Then, with intense opposition from Anti-Federalists, the Constitution faced and passed through immense scrutiny, vilification, and disparagement during the ratification process, yet succeeded with a narrow victory. That victory was only assured after the creation of the first Ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
Throughout the creation and ratification of the Constitution the Framers with painstaking, monumental effort built a solid foundation on which the United States government could stand. The Framers understood that this document would fail and the government would crumble and its people come to ruin unless the government was ruled by the voice of the people. I do not mean having a pure democracy with its failings in a tyranny of the majority, but the voice of the people that is ruled by the principles of virtue. Virtue was and continues to be a code of ethical conduct in which a person leads a life of righteousness. However, in the 18th century it was also understood to mean that those who are chosen to be in government should conduct themselves in such a way as to place the needs of the people before their own personal desires. They were to be the servants of the people. There is no wonder then why our government does not function properly as it should today; for today I do not believe our current government officials have obtained the attribute of virtue as the Framers such as George Washington did. We are to learn then from these definitions that the Constitution can never succeed without leaders who live their lives by correct absolute moral principles and govern in such a way as to truly be a servant of the people. We may also learn that the Constitution comes to nothing when the people forgo the rule of law and become a law unto themselves, even in simple matters of misinterpreting the Constitution.
The most significant test fought to the very foundations of the Constitution presented itself in the form of the most tragic war in our history; the Civil war. The United States found itself lucky in the raising of a few men placed in the right place at the right time; namely Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. Lincoln understood the true cost of the Civil War if the North were to fail. In his Gettysburg Address he states,
“Four score, and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure….It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—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.”
The phrase “all men are created equal” does not mean that all people should be the same or have the same portion as the next man, but that all people should have equal protection under the law. How can a man and women be truly equal? They can not be. For example, even if a man wishes to become pregnant in order to understand the glory of creating another life and giving birth to that life is a biological impossibility despite his well intended desire to be pregnant. I am not saying that Blacks and Whites, men and women, should treat each other with contempt. All deserve an equality of respect and courtesy. I am suggesting that we all as individuals have subtle differences that make us unique and inherently unequal. For example, even if I tried with the best of my ability, I could never reach to the perfection and excellence of the game of basketball as did Michael Jordan. Does this make us unequal if I were to play Michael Jordan one on one in a basketball game? Yes! Does it make us unequal in respect and courtesy? No! The words of the Gettysburg Address along with those set forth in the Emancipation Proclamation achieved the end of slavery and allowed African American’s the right to vote through the mediums of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. From the Gettysburg Address and from the Northern victory in the Civil war men and women have understood to give devotion to the cause of freedom. However, from these words some men and women have come to understand that others would use these words to usurp power and take away the freedoms and rights of others.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments created after the end of the Civil War would influence leaders that would lead in the Women’s Suffrage movement and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. I applaud such example of devotion that like Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B. Anthony, which led to equality under the law of millions of women and African American’s in the United States. Before the time of the Civil war, a pendulum had been swung which allowed criminal tolerance of social injustice against women and the African American race. Since the time of the creation of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments the pendulum of equality has swung in the opposite direction granting freedoms to people previously not dreamed of before. However, despite the amazing victories of Civil Rights, we now are faced with the prospect of losing and infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others just to satisfy the clarion call of “equality.” We have come now to a dangerous time where we must repress the freedoms of the majority for fear of being offensive to a small minority all in the name of “equality.”
The principle of equality does not nor can it exist. People use the name of “equality” as a ruse used in order to hide from the law, to manipulate the masses, or to otherwise create opportunities for political maneuvering. Equality means to have sameness in opportunities, in property, in education, and in the chance for happiness. Equality does not exist in America today. One only needs to go to the ghetto neighborhoods or to their local public schools of their towns to see the inequality that exists. How can “equality” exist in our current society? It cannot!, for true “equality” does not exist in America or any part of the world thanks to governments and people who have embraced oppressive social classes, discriminative institutions, and politics led by party agenda’s. How can we then achieve the existence of “equality?” The answer is that we can not, for those who raise the banner and trumpet of “equality” forget that everyone today lives in the “Age of Entitlement.”
We all believe that the world owes us something and that the government should be the ones to provide those wants or desires. People would do well to remember, as parents of the Baby Boomer generation would have told them to “suck it up!” and “you only get what you work for!” How would it be if all people were to receive free handouts from the government based on the logic of equality? I have heard people complain how life is unfair because they do not have the same opportunity provided to others? The truth is that today in America people do have the same opportunities, but some people do not accept the responsibility of the opportunity given to them. Should the government legislate against universities, for example, for being selective about their student body? Should we give monetary compensation to the African American community for all of the 200+ years of enslavement to their forefathers? Should we give free handouts to the Hispanic community because they came over to American soil illegally in order to have their baby by American Health professionals? Should America give special handouts then to young white males because they are the only category in our nations history that have never received any sort of special privilege based on their age, gender, and skin color? Where do we draw the line on legislating on “equality;” a principle that cannot function in the world we now live? I therefore assert that people who champion for equality are really championing for the infringement of someone else’s personal freedoms.
Society has changed. Change is the natural course of life; however, the values and the enforcement of good moral behavior and respect have disappeared overtime. The trend is that more and more values will soon be lost in our posterity due to the degeneracy of moral teaching and enforcement. For example, there was a day when people would never openly confess to being a homosexual let alone being a practicing homosexual. There was a time in which being a homosexual was taboo and unaccepted. Liberally minded people would say “that means our society has progressed to being inclusive and accepting those who are different” or “that means we have evolved to become less discriminatory.” I applaud those who have accepted and held out a hand of unconditional love and fellowship to those who have chosen to practice their homosexual tendencies. However, there is no excuse for society to condone the wicked practice of homosexuality. I purposefully use the word “chosen” to demonstrate that the practice of homosexuality is indeed a choice. Society has degenerated to depravity and offensive weird sensuality caused by unbridled appetites, passions, and people who have coddled, rationalized, and justified the act of same gendered sex. In the words of Alexander Pope,
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace…. ‘Tis but by parts we follow good or ill; For Vice or Virtue, Self directs it still.”
Our society has embraced, rationalized, and justified those who commit these crimes against nature all in the attempt to not be offensive, to not damage these people psychologically, or to create the appearance of bigotry. In doing so, our society has done more harm than good. There has been no responsibility or accountability on the part of the practicing homosexual. We as a society have accepted and embraced the very vices our parents and ancestors tried to avoid in fear of the degradation of society as a whole. We have erred in allowing people to believe that the practice of homosexuality is acceptable and natural and even commendable in an era of ever changing whirlwinds of relative moral standards of the moment.
The homosexual community and the ranks of liberal forces would say that it is absurd to even think that the practice of homosexuality is a choice because no one “chooses” to be what they are genetically. You are right. You cannot choose what you are genetically. There are studies that show connections between genetics and homosexuality, but these studies only show the genetic “tendency” to be homosexual, which inherently determines you have a choice in the matter. Studies also show a percentage of genetically inclined homosexuals chose to live a different, heterosexual lifestyle. It begs the question, if homosexuality is genetically forced on people then why didn’t 100% of the case studies show all genetically inclined homosexuals to live a homosexual lifestyle? It leads us to the conclusion that choice can overcome the effects of homosexual tendencies caused by genetics and that genetics is being used as an excuse to justify their crimes against God and or nature.
Many people may claim some of my remarks go beyond the political correctness of not mixing church and state. I defy political correctness. I defy your definition of the mixture of church and state. The Framers of the Constitution believed in a Supreme Being, which they called God and included him in all their dealings throughout the the American Revolution and the creation of the Constitution during the Great Convention. The principle of mixing church and state to the Framers meant that not one religion should be sponsored by the Nation as the Framers saw the social consequences of policy of sponsoring one specific religion had done in France during the reign of King Louis XIV. The Framers never intended for liberals to take God out of everything political and to deny Him and not seek His aid and guidance in matters of state. By calling down against the practice of homosexuality and labeling it as a sin has surly tipped my hand as a believer in God and religion. You may think how I dare to call and label the practice of homosexuality as a sin or wrongful. The homosexual community have declared that homosexuality is “natural” and normal and that we should embrace the practice of homosexuality because it is the identity of the homosexual and it is not their fault or under their control of having such tendencies. I do believe that the practice of homosexuality is a temptation or a tendency that is more susceptible in some more than others, but individuals still have a choice whether to act on those tendencies or not. Yes I used the word sin, and no doubt there are those reading that instantly think of devout religionists that condemn everyone else to hell for their behavior and will start preaching about God and his laws and ultimate authority, which eventually leads to a discussion on God and Evolution. It does not matter on the argument between God and Evolution because both ways would condemn the practice of homosexuality. God has set laws against the unnatural use of the powers of procreation and Evolution would not shoot itself in the foot by naturally changing a species to wipe itself out through same gendered tendencies.
Recently we have seen the trend of federal court judges to overturn laws and propositions created by the voice of the people in order to politically maneuver themselves hiding behind the shroud of “equality.” These judges have even gone as far to use the Constitution to justify their assertions and hide their motives. Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in the US District Court that Proposition 8 violates the federal equal protection and due process rights as maintained in the 14th amendment. Among other things he states,
Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.”
Morality is the basis of all law and law trumps personal rights. Can our law grant personal rights to law breakers? For example, if a person were to steal a car, would our Judicial system tell the criminal, “well, the court system will forgive you based on the principles of equal rights because we want to make sure you do not become psychologically or socially inept even though your actions have infringed on the rights of law abiding citizens. No sane, logical, law abiding person would agree with granting personal freedoms to those who break the law. The majority of the population in California conclusively agreed that marriage is between man and a woman. Who then is this Judge to contradict and overturn the rule of the people? Judge Walker claims to use the Constitution as the basis of his argument, but I agree with SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson who said, “This is blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states’ rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction.” This is clear proof of hiding behind the trumpet of “equality” and the mask of a political agenda.
Judge Walker is a political manipulator who uses illogical and cowardly assertions to cover the fact that he usurped and abused his power and trampled the Constitution while in the act. Judge Walker continues his attack stating, “the evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples.” Judge Walker is clearly afraid of any form of confrontation made by Proposition 8 defenders through slenderizing anyone who opposes homosexual marriage. Judge Walker’s statement also raises the question how could Judge Walker explicitly know that heterosexual couples believe themselves to be morally superior to homosexual couples and that that is the reason for Proposition 8’s passage into law? Judge Walker’s assertion is nothing more than a misdirecting hasty generalization, a logical fallacy, to avert conservative attention away from the real issue; personal freedoms and government corruption through the misinterpretation of the Constitution itself. Judge Walker’s statement is almost not even worthy of the energy it takes to argue the point, but in order to placate Judge Walker’s argument I do spend energy giving a plausible explanation for the passing of Proposition 8. Heterosexuals are more concerned not of being morally superior, but are interested in maintaining traditional values based on the belief of absolute morality. This belief states one can either acknowledge “Truth” with a capital “T” or not. This belief states further that it doesn’t matter which way an individual believes because “Truth” is and always will be the “Truth” despite one’s acknowledgement, willingness, or unwillingness to follow it. Judge Walker clearly does not accept the principles of “Truth” or absolute morality because Judge Walker is operating on the ideals of relative morality. The principles of relative morality are irrelevant and insufficient to serve as a guideline for the basis of ruling on moral issues because the phrase relative morality is an oxy moron. Relative morality denies the existence of morals because then everyone operates as a law unto himself. The people of California had spoken in favor of Proposition 8 and Judge Walker infringed upon the rule of the majority through ignoring them for his own political purposes. Judge Walker has usurped his authority destroying the principles of government fought and died for by countless people by striking down the voice of the people.
The people of California do not want their rights infringed upon as well as the rest of the 45 states of the Union who have decided against homosexual marriage. If Proposition 8 were to remain overturned then the other 45 states would have to legally recognize the marriage of a homosexual couple as legally binding. One must conclude then that the logic of homosexuality not hurting anyone else is false. If Proposition 8 were to remain overturned society would degenerate with wicked depravity. For example, among the worst of crimes would be the tolerance of an educational system from the forced viewpoint of the homosexual community. The people of California and the rest of the nation do not want to be forced to incorporate the “naturalism” of the practice of homosexuality into their children’s educational curriculum. Through accepting homosexual’s having the right to practice their tendencies and legally enforcing it through a marriage license is a step in embracing, tolerating, and condoning the sins of their lifestyle. The issue is not that heterosexuals fear their children will become homosexuals, but that their children will be taught something contrary to their and their parent’s beliefs and wishes.
If Proposition 8 were to remain overturned then what happens now to my right of religion guaranteed to me by the first amendment to teach my children that the practice of homosexuality is wrong and that it is not natural? That right is stripped from me because they would learn in school, through the insistence of the homosexual community, that the practice of homosexuality is normal. Another heterosexual right that would be moot if society accepts and embraces homosexual teachings is that of the principles of morality and chastity. For example, how would heterosexual parents be able to teach their teens that the use of their procreative power out of wedlock is wrong and not acceptable in society? Parents would not be able to do so with consistency or authority because according to liberal and homosexual logic, if the bodies of pubescent teenagers tell them that their bodies are capable of using their procreative power then it is right for the teen to do so because it is only “natural.” The homosexual community continues their logic by adding in their curriculum to make sure that teens use a condom because there is a 99% chance of not contracting an STD and that is good enough. Through the logic of the homosexual and liberal community we should have the “freedom” to do whatever makes us feel good as long as we do not hurt others. The practice of homosexuality hurts others as it degrades the moral fiber of society through the disregard of the principle of right and wrong altogether.
I have found a single document to give incredible insight and profound sentiments on plausible solutions to social problems; a document known as The Family: A Proclamation to the World written by the leaders of the Mormon Church. Many in the homosexual and liberal community have cried and lifted their voices against the Mormon Church for standing up for their religious beliefs, calling them bigots among other foul names. Yet I have found that the Mormon Church and its leadership have conducted themselves above reproach throughout all of the oppressive, offensive slander and libel that has been thrown against it and them. How can we truly call ourselves Americans if we deny to others the same freedoms we treasure for ourselves; the freedom of religion and its expression? The Proclamation states first “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.” If you do not believe in God then you can interpret it to mean that marriage between man and woman is ordained by nature, if not so then the human race would eventually be wiped out as I have explained previously. The proclamation goes on to state, “Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children….Husbands and wives …will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.” This places responsibility and accountability right where it belongs, on the shoulders of every individual of society to do their part in the teaching of their children correct moral principles for the benefit of the individual and society as a whole. We as a society cannot expect the White House or other officials within the government to solve our problems for us. We as a society must shoulder that responsibility. The Proclamation also states, “Marriage between man and woman is essential….Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” How do children really learn the difference between right and wrong? Children learn through the example of their father and mother. They learn through relentless repetition of living with integrity and virtue. Children learn to value good moral attributes through teaching said principles from loving fathers and mothers. This type of teaching of children can not happen in the home and “family” of a homosexual couple and the teaching remains incomplete, inconsistent, and erroneous. Lastly, the leaders of the Mormon Church state,
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity…who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
The family is the basic unit of society and is defined as a man and woman legally and lawfully married. Without this unit society becomes morally inept or capable of making correct choices between right and wrong. Calamities have come in our day and age. Earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, Oil spills in the Gulf, Hurricane Katrina, September 11, 2001, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, war on terrorism, the current recession and depression of the US economy all point to different types of very real calamites. The sickness, disease, and corruption of our society is caused by moral decay and the acceptance, tolerance, and embracing sin and vice such as the acts of homosexuality, infidelity, fornication, government corruption which shows us that these plausible prophetic warnings are happening to the detriment of all. Society has become apathetic to social reform and to the responsibility and accountability each individual shares in strengthening families. Individuals, families, communities, and nations much each shoulder their share of responsibility and accountability for strengthening the family in order to “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”