What Seems Good Isn’t Always Good

We need to think about the things Congress is codifying into federal law. The Tenth Amendment says:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Theoretically the states are the government laboratories–the places where policies can be tried and if they are successful, copied by other states. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost that concept. When Florida led the country in prosperity and in success in handling Covid, most other states ignored their example. While California is experiencing major energy problems due to rushing too quickly into green energy, some states are considering following suit. While some states with high taxes and bloated governments are losing population to states with more sane fiscal policies. the high tax states are making no effort to rein in their governments. Those high tax states will continue to suffer the consequences of their policies (unless the federal government steps in to help them, which would be a mistake). You don’t give an alcoholic beer money–you let him suffer the consequences of his actions. Subsidizing states that overspend does nothing to solve the problem. The federal government has become expert at overstepping its legal bounds.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed HR 8404. This bill is called the Respect for Marriage Act. It federalizes approval of gay marriage. It also has some language in it about bi-racial marriage, but that it not what it is about. The language about bi-racial marriage is an attempt to link the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. They are not the same. I really don’t care what someone does in the privacy of their own home. I also don’t want to see anyone denied their rights because of their sexual orientation. Actually, I don’t need to know anyone’s sexual orientation. However, traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman, whatever race or races are involved. There is a danger here of churches being forced to perform ceremonies that go against Biblical teaching. That infringes on the First Amendment. It would be much simpler for the federal government to stay out of marriage (except for tax purposes) and leave the matter up to the states. If you are gay and choose to get married, move to a state that allows gay marriage.

There is no reason for the federal government to get involved in the issue of marriage. Marriage is a church sacrament. If the federal government wants to establish civil unions for tax purposed only, I believe they have that authority under tax laws, but they do not have any authority to interfere in a church sacrament.

He Was Right, But No One Believed Him

On June 26, 2003, the New York Times published a story with the headline, “Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Law Banning Sodomy.” The case was Lawrence v. Texas.

The article reports:

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent and took the unusual step of reading it aloud from the bench this morning, saying “the court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,” while adding that he personally has “nothing against homosexuals.” Joining Justice Scalia’s dissent were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Scalia said he believed the ruling paved the way for homosexual marriages. “This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky, grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” he wrote.

He was right, and no one believed him.

I need to explain some of the reasons I oppose Gay Marriage. I don’t oppose Gay civil unions, and I don’t oppose gay people. I oppose Gay Marriage because it can easily infringe on the rights of people who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. When Massachusetts legalized Gay Marriage, all the Catholic adoption agencies left the state because their right to run their agencies in accordance with their religious beliefs was taken away. What about their right to practice their religion? Would Bible-believing pastors be forced to perform gay weddings? Would their rights be violated? In my opinion, calling civil unions gay marriage opens up many more legal questions than it solves. I am willing to give gay partners the full rights of married people–I am just not willing to let them trample on the religious rights of others.

Enhanced by Zemanta