Consensus & Constitution

[This letter was sent to the Washington Times, Feb. 17, 2004.  It was inspired by an article by Brian Fahling of the American Family Assn. Ctr. for Law & Policy, who wrote in favor of the marriage amendment.   E. Fox]

 

To the Editor (Washington Times):

There are two things which will prove the homosexual-rights momentum to be no juggernaut at all, only a house of cards:  (1) an honest public discussion of homosexual behavior, and (2) a clear, logical understanding of the moral and spiritual issues. 

First, homosexual advocates are selling a pig in a poke to a very naive public.  They have, with astonishing success, kept the public from any honest discussion of what they want approved, namely their behavior, or of its attendant medical, psychological, and sociological consequences.  They have succeeded, not because they have a good case, for they have no case at all based on fact and logic.  They are succeeding because so-called conservatives (who cannot conserve anything) are either too timid or too ignorant to challenge their behavior publicly. 

Secondly, the issue behind all the flap is not sexuality, but "Who defines our reason for being --  God or civil government?"  Both moral and political issues are about our ultimate reasons for doing things, the values we hold most deeply.   Without God, there is no way to decide between competing reasons and meanings, so we have a contest of pragmatism (what "works"), or failing that, a contest of arms (who is toughest).   A contest of arms leads to the the rule of the strong man.  But pragmatism also leads nowhere because what "works" for one group will not for another.  Pragmatism is moral relativism.  Hence the inevitable and irresolvable contest.  

The purposes of the Creator (as our Declaration of Independence recognizes) are in a logical category of their own -- they define the reason (and therefore meaning) of our existence.  Only the Creator of something can give the reason for its existence.   No creator, no reason -- and back to conflicting pragmatism. 

The Biblical worldview is the only one based on a personal Creator who gives not only life but meaning and direction.  Not just any meaning, but a community of love (see Decalogue and two Great Commandments).   Thus our reason-for-existence becomes the (one and only) basis for objective morality and thus for righteous law, that to which we all, without exception, are accountable.  Any nation not under God will not long remain "one". 

A constitution cannot create moral consensus.  Moral consensus comes from the bottom up, from the people under God -- who then write a constitution to administer the moral consensus.  An amendment to the constitution cannot (from the top down) do the job which only a renewed spiritual and moral consensus (from the bottom up) can do.  A "marriage amendment" will thus not resolve the homosexual issue, only (like prohibition) create inner social tensions.  It will misconstrue the difference between constitutional and statutory law by misplacing in the constitution the kind of item belonging in state statute.  

Once leadership becomes informed enough and courageous enough to tell the public of the actual behaviors typical of the homosexual lifestyle, the jig will be up.  The public will not stand for it.  Neither would a Creator who loved His people. 

And once people of honest common sense begin to understand that the moral, spiritual, and political issues are intertwined and inseparable, America (maybe even the West) will begin again to recover a common moral and spiritual consensus -- which alone can unite a people. 

 

See also Biblical Government vs. Marriage Amendment --- 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page;  => Apologetics Library;  =>  Homosexuality LibraryConstitution Library;   => ROAD MAP