Why Jan LaRue, Esq.’s argument isn’t valid.

To begin the discussion, it is necessary to say that a stable society can’t exist if the standards and the laws built on those standards change over the years. Thus the Constitution has a provision for change that is both difficult and laborious to execute. That changing the Constitution is difficult riles the liberal “we don’t like standards” crowd so they try to install judges into the court systems so that they (the liberals) will have a sympathetic ear when the laws are challenged. Such behaviors cut to the very heart of the stability of our society and measures are suggested to stop the social changes perpetrated by those who want to disregard the moral fabric.

The basis for the argument of Jan LaRue Esq.’s argument revolves around the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. He says using those amendments as his arguments foundation, “A federal amendment is the only means to secure the sovereign right of states to define marriage that will withstand usurpation by federal and state judges and acts of Congress and state legislatures.” Here he shines a light on the problem confronting the nation which is constantly looking to the central government to solve a social problem.

As was written in Part I, LaRue is comparing apples and oranges using the aforementioned amendments in attempting to justify a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution (whose purpose is to limit the power of and the setting up of a central government). States have the right to pass marriage amendments under the provisions of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. That is where a godly people can influence morality by electing morally based legislators and judges.

The author of the article used for the source of this article says that a marriage amendment would be no different than the passage of the 13, 14, and 15 amendments which address slavery, enjoyment of rights in the respective states, and the denial of voting rights due to race, color, or previous conditions of servitude. But it is much different for three simple reasons. One, the Bible doesn’t address the subject of the three amendments or call them sinful; and two, the amendments concerned the denial of rights enjoyed by white citizens, and which constituted unconstitutional acts by the government; and lastly, the marriage amendment will be designed to address and prevent sinful relationships which the Constitution has never addressed and should not address. As pointed out previously, the issue is for the states to solve with legislation through their representatives.

Slavery was practiced throughout the world by law, custom, and tradition. With coming of the gospel into the world, slavery fell into disrepute in many nations and a civil war was fought in the United States over the issue and eventually slavery ended. At the heart of the practice of slavery was the freedom and liberty which were denied to the slaves. But, from the early times God declared that homosexual behavior was and is sinful. The people of this nation understood that for years, but with the God is dead mantra and the restrictions on God in the schools, in the public, and now in our government processes through lawsuits by the ACLU, the people want the government to solve the social problem with an amendment that is nothing more than an abdication of their power to the government.

When a moral people raise their voices and begin to assert the power the Constitution gives them, they can solve the problem through their respective states. Jan LaRue Esq.’s argument has no biblical foundation and more government isn’t the answer no matter how much he wants to solve the problem. When God and his teachings are removed from any attempt at solving problems, then it is easy to propose solutions that really don’t address the issues. And they don’t address the needed change of heart in order to stop sinful behavior. In Sorting It Out, a moral people standing firm on God’s teaching is the answer to the issues of life. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

09-14-2007 DEC