If that were true, then why did they appeal to the Creator (God) as where our rights truly come from? Why did they say that King George III was in violation of the Creator’s laws as the justification for revolution? Why did they include an oath of office on behalf of that same Creator? Why did they break for prayer during the forging of the nation to “appeal to the Father of Lights?” Why did they collectively and individually pray for the assistance of “divine providence” in many of their writings and public statements?
Yes, the Founding Fathers were suspicious of authoritarianism, but in human form. They didn’t trust monarchies or oligarchies, but still understood that we all must be accountable to something. So they chose to be accountable to Almighty God as free men and based their laws on what He revealed to be right and wrong at Mt. Sinai. Not trusting human nature, they neither instituted anarchy nor mob rule (democracy), but instead a representative republic with checks and balances and a separation of powers, to provide layers of accountable to fallen human nature.
Those that argue for freedom strictly on anti-authoritarian grounds are arguing on behalf of the French Revolution, not the American Revolution.
QUESTION—Can’t we just have marriage as a religious institution and then allow the state to regulate civil unions between any consenting adults?
Fearing this issue threatens to disintegrate both the conservative movement if not the country, lots of well-meaning folks are trying to conjure up a compromise to avoid a showdown here. Conflict avoidance is in our nature, especially when that conflict comes with a price we’d rather not pay.
However, we are not the ones driving this train. We didn’t make this issue a public policy matter, for it had been settled for thousands of years. The other side of the issue is driving the train, and driving the issue right down our throats. They say what happens in their bedroom is no one’s business, but then they want to change public policy, redefine a morality that sustained western civilization for a millennium, and alter our understanding of freedom, liberty, and the rights of conscience. Pardon me if I see an inconsistency there.
They’re not suing for the right to visit a loved one in a hospital, or be treated as a spouse by the estate when their domestic partner dies. They’re not asking for a compromise. They’re asking for a clarification.
In every government (whether it was nations or individual states) that started out recognizing civil unions, the next step was to redefine marriage, then redefine morality, and then ultimately personal/religious liberty.
Redefining marriage always threatens freedom of speech and religious liberty—always. This is incontrovertible as a recent Harvard Law study found. Those who claim otherwise either have their heads in the sand, or they are really okay with this and they just don’t want you to know it. Infiltration of the enemy’s camp is a featured tactic in Rules for Radicals after all.
Please note those fighting to redefine marriage aren’t also standing with Hobby Lobby or Notre Dame when their religious freedom is threatened. They’re not publicly saying the church and the Word of God are off-limits to this debate, but instead are saying and intending the exact opposite in their own words.
They are not after neutrality here. It’s all or nothing for them. They are actively seeking to undo 31 state Constitutions defining marriage by trying to generate a Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court on the issue of marriage. I would think most libertarians who could care less about marriage but care about the rule of law and state sovereignty would be concerned about that if they’re intellectually consistent.
The ultimate goal here is the eradication of marriage and the Christian church’s influence in America. But don’t just take my word for it, they’re flat-out saying so if you’ll just bother to listen.