An Overview of the Constitution and the positions regarding the amendment:

Confusion reigns about marriage and an amendment to the Constitution to stop same sex unions wrongly called marriage. The Bible and logical thinking doesn’t seem to be any determining factors when the issue is discussed. People offer all kinds of solutions and two at each end of the pole will be discussed here. One was Fred Thompson’s position that an amendment isn’t needed (wants to leave it to the states to decide but would support some type of amendment) and the other is that of Jan LaRue, Esq. position which mixes apples and oranges, equating items which aren’t equal.

Two other issues are in play as well. One is must the people always turn to the federal government or any government for that matter to solve problems, and two, will the people have the courage to follow the moral principles on which this nation was founded? Based on the conditions of the present day, the government is more and more looked to for decisions on moral issues, and that the idea of a biblical based moral society isn’t politically correct; therein lays the foundation for the conflict about homosexual marriage and the amendment to stop it.

Failing to adhere to the moral values that are the foundation of our system of government leads to conflicts such as we are discussing. And the failure to adhere to the values is causing the conflict with the full faith and credit section (Article IV) and clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Simply, the laws in any given state will be honored by other states and citizens in each state will be afforded privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. If one state allows same sex marriage, then all states must recognize it. The only caveat is the Defense of Marriage Act which allows states to disregard Article IV on issues of same sex marriage. (· No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.) In effect, due to the failure to be personally responsible for adhering to moral values of the Bible, the value had to be codified into law so states could be independent and handle the issue as they see fit to do. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) If any state decides to allow same sex marriage, they will have put themselves in the position of promoting unhealthy liaisons which denies the morality inherent in the nation’s moral fabric established years ago.

How often do people need to be reminded that the Constitution isn’t about personal morality, but rather limited government grounded in moral values of the Bible? The atheists and the other malcontents don’t like that fact of history, but not liking something isn’t grounds for throwing everything overboard for the sake of appeasing the unbelievers. Neither is the issue of same sex marriage grounds for using the Constitution to deal with or prevent personal behavior that isn’t criminal. The people, whether members of a church or not, must solve the problem and that comes from a firm stance on the Bible teaching concerning marriage and by electing morally responsible legislators.  

John Quincy Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Regardless of what the detractors claim in opposition to the moral principles on which the Constitution is framed, there is no freedom and liberty unless the standard for them has a timeless and unchanging character. The founders knew that what James recorded in Chapter 1:17 is true: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. The statement of Adams recognizes that reverence for God’s unchanging character and his unchanging morality is the key to the freedom and liberty the founders cherished. Thus the Constitution is built upon those principles amongst many others.

It is safe to say that the idea of same sex marriage never entered into the discussion when the Constitution was framed. In Sorting It Out, the truth expressed by John Quincy Adams still applies no matter how much people want to relax the rules of society.

09-14-2007 DEC

 (Source URL for Jan LaRue. Esq. reference http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2007/20070912161017.aspx)                                             Next Article     A Marriage amendment Part II