tthor Wrote:
May 10, 2013 1:06 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." These words are, of course, an echo of the powerful and freeing truth first and best expressed by Locke: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order, and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s." As a Christian, I'm keenly aware of the proscriptions against homosexuality in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Romans. But I'm even more aware of our Lord's 2nd Great Commandment, and constantly struggling with the thorny issue of how to best live in, and promote healing of, our broken World. As a conservative of the classical empiricist school, I'm loath to carelessly experiment with social structures that have long served us reasonably well. But as an American, I'm even more leery of a government that feels inclined to tell American citizens how they must live and govern their most basic and personal affairs. Bottom line, in spite of my personal misgivings, I feel I must stand for individual freedom, even if I don't wholly approve of how others might choose to exercise that freedom. As a point of law, I've concluded that the federal government should have *nothing* to say about marriage. It's an issue that should properly be left to the several states and their unique circumstances. Government closest to the people governs best, as does government that governs least.