An Essential Step in Preserving Authentic Liberty and Natural Marriage in the United States
Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society, the first government, and the first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family. Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. It is part of the natural created order.
—Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage, 2015—
[A]s a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.…Conscience is the most sacred of all property.
—James Madison, Essay on Property, 1792—
Overview: As the debate over same-sex marriage began to heat up in the West nearly two decades ago, Christian leader Charles Colson observed that advocates of same-sex marriage were contending “that to deny homosexuals marriage is manifestly unfair. But it’s not unfair,” Colson added. “Gays and lesbians are not unworthy of marriage; they are incapable of marriage.” He said this, not to disparage anyone, but to uphold what ancient wisdom and “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” teach us about human relationships, including marriage. America’s Founders’ understanding of rights was informed by these same sources; this is why the Founders recognized “unalienable,” God-given rights and limited government’s role to upholding and protecting them. We saw in a previous article that “Only God-given, unalienable rights are compatible with liberty and authentic freedom.” Here we will see that same-sex “marriage” is not at all an unalienable, God-given right, but a counterfeit right that government has created and seeks to maintain. Along the way, liberty will suffer, and tyranny will surely increase. We are seeing this already. We must rediscover the truth that marriage is God-given!
This is the 250th Word Foundations post. I am honored to dedicate it to the cause of helping people understand and promote the truth that marriage is God-given and can be nothing other than what “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” say it is.
—B. Nathaniel Sullivan—
Access summaries and links to all the articles in this series here.
We can summarize what we have said previously in this series in these two short paragraphs, which we quote from the previous post.
The modern American view of rights upholds positive rights, which essentially are rights that focus, not on natural opportunities that need to be protected, but on outcomes and opportunities that government must engineer. As the hunger for positive rights increases in an otherwise free country and the people demand more from the government, the nation moves—gradually, slowly—from liberty to tyranny.…
The Supreme Court of the United States has issued some egregious rulings in the past, including Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which effectively legalized abortion in all 50 states. These and several other SCOTUS opinions notwithstanding, I believe the most blatant example of a ruling violating negative, inherent, unalienable, God-given rights in the history of the United States has been Obergefell v. Hodges, the SCOTUS decision that effectively (and unconstitutionally) redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. No other decision stands so defiantly against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” or against the ideal of rights as envisioned and upheld by America’s Founders.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas understands these realities as do few others. In his dissent in Obergefell, he made many vital and important points, including these three.
-
-
- A “right” to same-sex “marriage” is unnatural and outside the realm of rights the Founders of America recognized. (Notice Thomas’s point here is that a right to same-sex marriage is unnatural. It is not God-given, inherent, unalienable, or readily recognizable as a right.)
- Second, those demanding recognition of same-sex relationships as marriage never had any of their inherent rights violated. They demand a “correction” where no true harm has been imposed on them.
- Granting a right to same-sex “marriage” sets the stage for the natural, inherent rights of others to be thoroughly disregarded.
-
Let’s take each one of these and consider it carefully.
First, a “right” to same-sex “marriage” is unnatural and outside of the realm of rights the Founders of America recognized.
Here is the opening paragraph of Justice Thomas’s dissent in Obergefell.
The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.
Here’s what Thomas is saying.
Those demanding that government recognize their homosexual, same-sex relationships as marriage are asking government to manipulate the playing field unnaturally in their favor. This is true because same-sex “marriage” obviously is not a natural, God-given right. It requires government manipulation and control, two things that never accompany government’s protection of rights that are God-given and therefore unalienable. Since the establishment of same-sex “marriage” relies exclusively on government, it must reject “the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate.” Instead, it strongly “suggests instead that it—[dignity]—comes from the Government.” This is antithetical to a bedrock principle on which the United States of America was founded.
Second, those demanding recognition of same-sex relationships as marriage never had any of their inherent rights violated. They demand a “correction” where no true harm has been imposed on them.
These words may sound harsh, but the question is not whether a state’s failure to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage was offensive to those wanting such recognition. Clearly, it was. To redefine marriage because individuals are offended by its age-old definition is utterly foolish. We must understand not only 1) what marriage has been for millennia, but also 2) why it’s been what it has been, and 3) why governments have not redefined it until recently. We must respond, not just with our hearts, but also with our heads.
Strictly speaking, even though steps had been taken in a majority of states to uphold marriage as a one-man-one-woman institution, plaintiffs were not asking the Court to initiate measures to correct wrong actions on the part of states that defined marriage as it always had been defined. Affirming marriage as what it always had been represented no substantive change. Instead, they were asking the Court to force states to take action to align public policy with their perspective on marriage, despite how the institution had been defined for millennia, and despite everything nature and ancient wisdom have taught. Thus, this was clearly a case of petitioners asking government to create for them a positive “right.”
Plaintiffs were not asking the Court to initiate measures to correct wrong actions on the part of states that defined marriage as it always had been defined. Affirming marriage as what it always had been represented no substantive change. Instead, they were asking the Court to force states to take action to align public policy with their perspective on marriage, despite how the institution had been defined for millennia, and despite everything nature and ancient wisdom have taught. Thus, this was clearly a case of petitioners asking government to create for them a positive “right.”
Here are Justice Thomas’s own words.
Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace. They have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in States that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious ceremonies in all States. They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit.
Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental restrictions. Petitioners do not ask this Court to order the States to stop restricting their ability to enter same-sex relationships, to engage in intimate behavior, to make vows to their partners in public ceremonies, to engage in religious wedding ceremonies, to hold themselves out as married, or to raise children. The States have imposed no such restrictions. Nor have the States prevented petitioners from approximating a number of incidents of marriage through private legal means, such as wills, trusts, and powers of attorney.
Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized.
Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government.
—Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent of Oberrgefell—
Third, granting petitioners’ demand will certainly set the stage for the natural, inherent rights of others to be thoroughly disregarded.
It is critical that we understand the warnings Justice Thomas sounded in his dissent. Same-sex marriage by itself violates the Framers’ concept of liberty and rights. This reality is bad enough, but as we have seen in numerous instances since the Obergefell ruling was issued, enshrining this positive right into the practice of American culture has, more than any other governmental action, strengthened the LGBT movement with a whole host of additional counterfeit rights—positive rights that trample on the negative—and authentic—rights of ordinary citizens.
Recall with me that the first two freedoms in President Franklin Roosevelt’s list of “four essential human freedoms” were
-
-
- freedom of speech and expression and the
- freedom of every person to worship God in his own way.
-
Significantly, these two rights are guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Yet it is these rights that a “right” to same-sex “marriage” most weakens and trashes. Freedom of speech and of worship are inherent, God-given rights. Uphold positive rights for a few, and inevitably, God-given rights will diminish. Moreover, as we have indicated already, liberty will give way to tyranny.
Here’s what Justice Thomas declared in his dissent.
Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.…
Numerous amici [legal briefs advising this Court]—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.
The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition.
Writing for the majority of justices in Obergefell, Justice Anthony Kennedy had said,
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.
What?! Advocate with utmost, sincere conviction?! Teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths?! The “proper protection” afforded in the First Amendment clearly allows citizens to do things far more substantive than these! Justice Thomas continued in his dissent, poking holes in Kennedy’s weak view of conscience rights and religious liberty.
Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons…as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.
It is difficult to overstate the ominous nature of the road down which same-sex “marriage” is taking this country.
The Way Back to Liberty
How can we as a people return once more to the path that will lead to liberty and freedom? Here I would mention two things.
First, we must understand that authentic liberty does not permit people to do whatever they might get an urge to do. Authentic liberty is ordered liberty. Just as a train can travel nowhere unless it runs on railroad tracks, so too will a people go nowhere constructive if they do not acknowledge that to maintain liberty, base desires must be held in check. How does this relate to marriage? In an earlier post, we put it this way.
[Consider the law of gravity.] No one can step out of a 10th story window and expect to go anywhere but down, and fast! Gravity prevents us from safely doing a great number of things. Yet when we cooperate with it, we benefit immensely. Why? In a great many ways, gravity, which is part of “the natural order of things,” makes ordered life on earth possible.
Marriage, as humanity has understood it for centuries, is very much like gravity in this regard. When a society respects marriage as an institution uniting one man and one woman in a committed, lifelong relationship, it’s clear that it limits that society in certain ways. Perhaps it’s not as clear that it liberates it in many more! Clear or not, this is the truth! When a nation rejects man-woman marriage, devastating consequences follow.
Second, we must rediscover and reaffirm the truth that marriage, an institution uniting one man with one woman for life, is not man-made, but God-given. As a God-given institution, it is unalterable and unchangeable. Government’s role is to recognize it and protect it. It has no authority to change it!
Marriage is not man-made, but God-given.
In relation to this last point, I would remind you of an initiative worthy of your support. I wrote about it in late October in a post titled “Reclaiming Marriage.” Read or reread it to learn more about practical steps you can take. Also visit www.godgivenmarriage.com.
How much is authentic liberty worth to you? How much is God-given marriage worth?
Will you consider giving yourself wholeheartedly to a cause that seeks to uphold both?
Copyright © 2019 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.
The content of this post has been adapted from articles in the series “Misinformed and Misled: How a Distorted Perspective on Rights Is Leading America into Tyranny.”
top image credit: Lightstock
Be First to Comment