[Yesterday I read an article at lifesitenews.com (also published at crisismagazine.com under the title “Men don’t March for the Natural Law”) about the need to move people to action in defense of what the author, Austin Ruse (like many others) persists in calling “traditional marriage”. He laments that fact that
We are about to have faux marriage imposed upon us by what Judge Bork called ‘The Olympians.’ Though we have done everything we were supposed to do in a democratic republic, though we went to the Public Square and convinced our fellow citizens, though we have done all this still we are on the cusp of losing not just marriage but religious freedom….
Except in some academic settings, though, I don’t believe that this is the time for “subtle and careful disputations. Now is more the time for hot debate….
Mr. Ruse points to people like direct mail mogul Richard Viguerie examples of “those who can move the convinced into the streets.” However, though for a time Mr. Viguerie was good at getting mostly middle class conservative people to contribute money, he has never been, or claimed to be, stump speaker.
I find it telling that Mr. Ruse never mentions the plain and simple logic that has always moved Americans, not only into the streets, but onto fields of battle where they risked and gave their lives. It is the logic found in the American Declaration of Independence, which upholds God endowed equality and unalienable right.
Americans didn’t fight and die for “tradition”, or for the self-destructive freedom to oppress and degrade human nature. We have taken our stand- to demonstrate, to march, and even fight and die, if need be- in order to do “right as God gives us to see the right.” We have done so from a sense of duty to our Creator, God, who instilled in every decent human heart the capacity to be deeply moved by self-evident truths of natural justice; by the prospect of well-ordered families, communities and institutions, raised up to respect those truths; and by the plight of humanity deprived of truth- bound, ravaged and oppressed by self-idolizing, greedy, violent souls whose only God is their own prideful power.
Something in the makeup of every true American believes what America’s elitists- increasingly depraved by wealth and power- are determined to make us forget: Standing for truth and justice is the American way, because, as JFK said, “here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.” But these days many experts and others who stand up to speak for such Americans have by and large abandoned the language and logic of the Declaration.
Instead of defending marriage as an unalienable right, endowed by the Creator, they speak of “traditional marriage”, tacitly accepting the notion that marriage is a hand-me-down of human making. They speak of the threat to “religious freedom” when in fact what is threatened is the understanding that is the very foundation of the people’s authority to speak with a sovereign’s voice and power, ordaining and establishing the Constitution by which they are to govern themselves. What is threatened is the whole idea that just government must be limited by respect for God-endowed right. What is threatened is the true conviction that human laws made without respect for the God’s law for human nature are not enactments of law at all. They are criminal acts of tyranny.
The forces bent on replacing the U.S. Constitution with an elitist faction dictatorship have worked for years to banish respect for the Declaration’s logic. They have promoted falsehoods about the “separation of Church and state” to discredit any mention of God in politics. They have falsely claimed the status of scientific truth for a dogma of evolution, even though it discards the fundamental premise of empirical science (i.e., that every objective effect must has an objectively commensurate cause.) They have discouraged moral reasoning and deliberation by pretending that empirically established scientific facts can somehow substitute for moral standards confirmed by the general testimony of human experience.
Though he may not intend to do so, Mr. Ruse falls prey to the stratagem involved in all these elitist faction deceits. He speaks of “hot debate” as the catalyst for action, as if rational moral deliberation has no power to move the America people. But in every generation since the founding, America’s true statesman have decried the demagogic approach that fans the wild fires of what Lincoln called the “mobocractic spirit.” They have appealed instead to the spirit of liberty, which is freedom used to exercise the right, as God gives us to see it, rather than to serve our own unbridled and self-serving lust for power, wealth and public acclaim.
As the ancient physician observed, “that which is used develops. That which is not used, wastes away.” The Declaration’s logic and language of God-endowed unalienable right, now disused, is wasting away. I know from often repeated personal experience that it has the power to move American heart. Large numbers of Americans approve it almost instinctively, just as God intends. Yet, intimidated by the elitist faction’s powers-that-be in the media, politics and academe, people who claim to speak for these true American hearts refuse, from ignorance or fear, to speak to the American people in the American way.
Readers of this blog know that I always aim to do so. In respect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming consideration of the institution of marriage, I have done so often and at length. As I reflected on Mr. Ruse’s article, I was moved to summarize the Declaration’s relevant logic, and the plain language of the Constitutional provision that enacts it. I think it “answers the mail” I have received from many readers requesting a pithy summary of the core argument the Justices should hear and heed.
If they are susceptible to reason and common sense, it ought to persuade them. But if, on account of the Court’s evident prejudices, an opinion emerges that discards the premises of unalienable right, the following summary also epitomizes the reasoning that plainly justifies doing what Americans have done in every crisis of their liberty since the beginning. They have resisted edicts pronounced against God-endowed right and justice. They have done so whatever the cost, in peace or war. They have done so for the sake of God and all humanity including, of course, their own.]
The Declaration of Independence makes unalienable right, endowed by God, the basis of justice. Securing unalienable rights is the purpose of human government. Therefore a government’s actions must be limited by respect for this species of right, or it destroys what it is intended to secure. That’s why there a valid claim of unalienable right trumps purely man-made law.
The marriage of man and woman is
- the basis for the perpetuation of the human race, i.e., the existence of human nature as a whole; and
- The basis for assuring that people are cared for when they are born, as helpless individuals.
Both a) and b) are the result of God prescribed natural inclinations to do right by human nature, in particular and as a whole.
The unalienable right involved in marriage therefore epitomizes the meaning of the term “unalienable right”. Homosexual relations in no way directly define, or serve the preservation and perpetuation of human nature. Such relations are therefore not a God endowed right, rooted in the Creator’s will for human existence. To say that they are denigrates marriage from the status of an unalienable right to the status of a government created legal fiction, entirely fabricated in human law.
But the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids any construction of the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution that denies or disparages others retained by the people. Since the people already possessed them before the Constitution existed, they do not depend on the authority of the Constitution. The first such rights are obviously those that come from the Creator, for they are coterminous with the creation of the human species.
If the U.S. Supreme Court asserts that homosexual relations can constituted marriage on an equal basis with the relations between man and woman, they denigrate marriage from the status of an unalienable right endowed by God. The word “disparage” used in the 9th amendment precisely involves such denigration, which makes the claim of justice derived from the highest authority (the Creator) equal to a claim derived from a lower authority (the opinion of human judge), the greater equal to the less.
This is not “subtle disputation”. It’s plain, sound logic, based on the founding premises of set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, which documents are the key components of the Organic Law of the United States. If the Court disregards this logic they trample on both the unalienable right of marriage, and the authority of the Constitution. It will be an act of tyrannical injustice greater than the abuses that brought on the American Revolution. If Americans accept it, they discard the meaning of unalienable right, and with it the claim to govern themselves, for that claim is logically derived from the purpose of government in relation to such rights.
If this reasoning is too subtle for Americans to understand, then they are no longer fit to govern themselves. If they reject its logic because, like the Declaration, it acknowledges God’s authority, then they are not fit to govern themselves. If they are depraved or cowardly enough to accept the US Supreme Court’s opinion as law, even though it denies and disparages the status of right endowed by God in human nature (the natural law as it government human beings), they are no longer fit to govern themselves.
In every generation before ours, people without high school educations and/or college degrees had the moral and common sense to follow and act on the logic of the Declaration and the Constitution. They did not regard sound arguments based on those documents as “subtle disputations”. They were in fact so moved by arguments based on “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and “right as God give us to see the right” that they waded knee deep thru fields of blood, facing certain death, in response to Lincoln’s assertion that black people (whom many of them regarded as their inferiors by human measures) were entitled to respect for the God endowed right to “eat the bread they earned in the sweat of their brow”.
The major difference between people now and the Americans who responded to reasoning based on natural right and law in past generations is that many have turned their backs on the Declaration’s acknowledgment of God and His authority. If they remain unwilling to turn back again, even if that requires great sacrifice, then they will lose their liberty and all the blessings of order and prosperity derived from it. This is no “subtle disputation”, but a fact proven by the fractured consciences, spirits and material hopes of peoples subject to tyranny around the world.