A Socio-Theology Of Same Sex “Marriage” | Independent Newspapers Limited
Newsletter subscribe

Kingdom Perspective, Sunday

A Socio-Theology Of Same Sex “Marriage”

Posted: Jul 26, 2015 at 12:00 am   /   by   /   comments (0)

Kingdom Perspective

One of the most comprehensive contributions to the debate on what we have tagged a socio-theology of same-sex “marriages” thrown up by the recent United States Supreme Court legitimising and legalising the aberration, was published on kcm.org.

As we pointed out last time, it was written by David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, a Texas-based organization, which insists that the view that the United States Constitution entrenched strict separation of church and state is a myth.

He denounced the decision at three levels – the Moral, the Constitutional and the Structural. He also looked at the road ahead.

Barton posited, at the moral level, that the US Constitution derived its quintessence from the Declaration of Independence and to the extent that the SCOTUS Decision is at variance with the Declaration, it cannot possible line up with the spirit of the Constitution.

His words: “the latter [Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.”

He identified “constitutional moral standards” which, he declared, “placed the definition of marriage outside the scope of government…”

He quoted a 1913 ruling where it was clearly acknowledged that: “Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband…It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation “a civil contract” to such a marriage. It is…a status ordained by God.”

His definitive conclusion was that “Because marriage ‘was not originated by human law,’ then civil government had no authority to redefine it. The Supreme Court’s decision on marriage repudiates the fixed moral standards established by our founding documents and specifically incorporated into the Constitution.”

At the constitutional level, Barton wrote as follows: “The Constitution establishes both federalism and a limited American government by first enumerating only seventeen areas in which the federal government is authorized to operate, and then by explicitly declaring that everything else is to be determined exclusively by the People and the States (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments).

“Thomas Jefferson thus described the overall scope of federal powers by explaining that ‘the States can best govern our home concerns and the general [federal] government our foreign ones.’ He warned that ‘taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens and subordinating it to the general authority [federal government] … would … break up the foundations of the Union.’ ‘The issue of marriage is clearly a ‘domestic’ and not a ‘foreign’ issue, and one that directly pertains to the State’s ‘moral rule of their citizens.’ But the Supreme Court rejected these limits on its jurisdiction, and America now experiences what Jefferson feared:

“[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.

“By taking control of issues specifically delegated to the States, the Court has disregarded explicit constitutional limitations and directly attacked constitutional federalism.”

At the Structural Level, Barton lamented the powers of the indirect “law-making” powers of SCOTUS. In what many might dismiss as a jeremiad, he wrote:

“The Constitution stipulates that ‘The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government’ (Article IV, Section 4). A republican form of government is one in which the people elect leaders to make public policy, with those leaders being directly accountable to the people. More than thirty States, by their republican form of government, had established a definition of marriage for their State. The Supreme Court decision directly abridges the constitutional mandate to secure to every state a republican form of government.

“To believe that the Judiciary is an independent and neutral arbiter without a political agenda is ludicrous. As Thomas Jefferson long ago observed: ‘Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.’

“Judges definitely do have political views and personal agendas; they therefore were given no authority to make public policy. The perils from their doing were too great. As Jefferson affirmed, the judges’ ‘power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.’ He therefore warned: