 |
| Photo courtesy of davidlat |
If you have read any of my other posts you know that there are many things that I find disturbing in our society. Hopefully some of the same things disturb you as well. However, one of the most frightening developments of late is the elevation of the Supreme Court over and above God. What I mean is that if the Supreme Court says something is okay, then it is okay. This is actually a sign of a deeper and more widespread problem, the idea that legality equates with morality. That is, if something is legal then it must be morally acceptable. The problems with this idea are many and varied, suffice it to say that if morality is defined by what is legal then there is no solid foundation for morality. This, of course, would fall right in line with current postmodern, relativistic philosophy. The problem arises from the fact that if this is the case then nine human beings, who are no better than you and I, get to define morality for the rest of us. I don't know about you but to me that is a little unsettling.
You have to admit that there is a certain amount of arrogance associated with sitting behind a bench and basically telling people "We don't care what God or anyone else says, we're the law in this land. What we say goes." Let us not forget that the Supreme Court's duty is not the "legislate from the bench" but to uphold the Constitution just as all other elected and appointed officials. Now, instead of coming to a conclusion about what the law says, as written, the justices seem to believe that their job is to decide what is and isn't legal. There is an important distinction here and it is as clear as the branches of government. It is the job of the legislature to make laws defining what is legal or illegal. It is the job of the court to determine when someone has transgressed the law of the legislature. This is the case with what the Constitution calls "lesser courts" or "inferior court" so why is it different for the highest court in the land.
I agree that it is within the powers of the Supreme Court to try cases regarding the Constitutionality of a particular law. However, with the not-so-new phenomenon called "Constitutional Review" it is less about what the actual intent of the Constitution is and more about what the judges like or dislike. The major failure in worldview is that rather than understanding that the Constitution was put in place to limit government, the Supreme Court now seems to see it's role as seeing how far the government can reach into the lives of the citizens. A perfect example of this is the recent catastrophe that has come to be called "Obamacare." Once the case was brought before the Court they should have looked at it and said, "Are you crazy? This is ridiculous and not at all in line with the ideals that our nation was founded upon. Case closed."
Another more recent example would be the case for homosexual marriages. The fact is, this is not a Constitutional issue or even a legal issue. It is a religious issue, something the Supreme Court should never be in the business of deciding. They are so bent on removing all signs of religion from the public sphere but are more than willing to take the public arena into Church. This is philosophical treason of the highest order. Again their response should have been, "Are you kidding me? This is a religious issue and we're not a theological tribunal. Take this to the Vatican or somewhere else."
This may take some time but I think it will be worth it. Marriage is not the same as a civil union or a legal contract. In our society there is some correlation between the two but they are distinct entities. Marriage is a vow...a covenant that a man and a woman make between themselves and God. Our legal system has given that covenant some weight and that is as it should be. Logically, if someone were willing to make a vow with God it would make sense that it would carry even more power within the lesser realm of earthly law. If two homosexuals want to enter into a contract or union on this earth that gives them certain legal privileges then I have no problem with that whatsoever, especially under the Constitution. The fact is, the privileges of marriage are granted automatically because of the nature of the vow and who it was made with. I would wager that most of the same privileges are attainable through the legal system, it just requires more effort. However, demanding that it be given the title of "marriage" is stepping outside the legal realm into the religious realm. In effect what the pro-homosexual marriage lobby is doing is saying, "We want the Supreme Court to tell the Church what it can and cannot believe." At this point it would be appropriate to proclaim that which the anti-religious people say so often..."Separation of Church and State!"
The real problem here though is not with the squeaky wheel but the mechanic that puts oil on it. If the Supreme Court would start taking their job seriously and do what they are Constitutionally allowed to do, and nothing more, these issues would not exist. The Throne of Grace has been replaced by the Bench of Power and it seems to me the justices are more than willing to usurp what is God's alone. If we, as a society, began to realize that our rights are not granted by nine humans sitting in Washington DC but by a great and mighty God I think we would really begin to live in the freedom that we have a natural right to. Our Founding Fathers had it right when they said that every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That pretty much sums it up. We don't have the right to other people's money, free health care, or to do whatever we dang well please no matter who it hurts or what divine laws it transgresses.
So what are we to do with ourselves since we will in a country that is increasingly run by an oligarchy? First of all, we have to realize for ourselves that the Supreme Court isn't the highest court around, God is. Secondly, we have to demand that the justices, present and future, begin to judge according to the law of God and the law of the the land (the Constitution). If public opinion began to move back to freedom and liberty, as our nation was founded, then the Court would be moved. Obviously, they are as human as anyone and clearly they are swayed by public outcry. So let's cry out. Furthermore, if we were to elect freedom loving patriots to the legislature then they would have the power to reject candidates for justice that want to use the Constitution as toilet paper.
In the end I am far more concerned about what God has to say on issues than what nine politicians have to say. Man saying something is okay only makes it okay when God agrees. Period, end of story.
Semper Libertas,
RV
No comments:
Post a Comment