The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.
Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.
It seems some rights are more equal than others.
The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them.
We have gotten away from that idea. Too far away. We must turn back. To protect our rights we must understand who granted them and who can help us restore them.
1978 prophetic insights for our day in the fight for good:
…the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments.
Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church.
If the challenge of the secular church becomes very real, let us, as in all other relationships, be principled but pleasant. Let us be perceptive without being pompous. Let us have integrity and not write checks with our tongues which our conduct cannot cash.
There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself.
For all practical political purposes, the government of the United States is for sale to the highest bidder.
America’s founders knew one thing: The republics of history all died when narrow interests overwhelmed the common good and the interests of the commonwealth.
The question is: By adhering to its highest principles and ideals, will America continue to have the moral authority to lead all people of goodwill? The answer remains to be seen. And that answer will have much to do with whether we have the courage to drive the money changers from the temple of democracy and recapture government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
We are not the same country we started out to be. We cannot conduct our political process the way we are doing in the twenty-first century and claim to adhere to our earliest principles. We must decide who we are. And if that decision is to restore our highest ideals, then major changes must be made in the way we elect our presidents and our members of Congress.
An accidental Internet disclosure last month showed that the stealthy form of political corruption known as “dark money” now fully permeates governor’s offices around the country, allowing corporations to push past legal barriers and gather enormous influence.
Our society’s ills are because good men and women refused to get involvement in government.
It would be similar to not feeling duty-bound to serving missions to preach Christianity, and the only people left on the religious landscape are mafia and corrupt preachers.
This what I can’t stand about progressivism (well, one of the many things). It doesn’t even have the guts or intelligence to come up with new ideas. It just takes bits of the old idea, removes the parts that seem challenging and inconvenient, and then randomly asserts that everyone should accept their weird, dismembered version of things.
Societies across the globe and throughout history, until about 12 minutes ago, have attested to the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization depends entirely on it. No other relationship bears the weight of that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded this bond a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a name: marriage.
Marriage is the context in which families are formed and maintained. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family, and to obliterate any reason for the institution to exist.
People have long complained that the government should get out of marriage, but it was never in marriage until it decided to dismantle and reshape it.
Mormon-owned KSL Utah now hails Senator Hatch as a hero for his role in drafting secret legislation that wasn’t made public, most likely because it was highly illegal and unconstitutional.
See also Deseret News, Hatch plays key role in Senate passing trade bill
This is an emotional time and we all need to think through these issues with a care that recognizes the need for change but also respects the complicated history of the Civil War. The Confederate Battle Flag has wrongly been used for racist and other purposes in recent decades. It should not be used in any way as a political symbol that divides us.
But we should also remember that honorable Americans fought on both sides in the Civil War, including slave holders in the Union Army from states such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and that many non-slave holders fought for the South. It was in recognition of the character of soldiers on both sides that the federal government authorized the construction of the Confederate Memorial 100 years ago, on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.
This is a time for us to come together, and to recognize once more that our complex multicultural society is founded on the principle of mutual respect.
Free and Independent United States of America
July 4, 1776 – June 24, 2015
Many see the Confederate flag as “a symbol of racial hatred,” Romney tweeted on Saturday. “Remove it now to honor Charleston victims.” — Confederate flag sets off debate in GOP 2016 class
Mitt Romney’s Statement Leads to Removal of Angel Moroni Statues from Mormon Templates—Future Headline
This future headline may not be unrealistic as The Associated Press cunningly pounds away again at the First Amendment, and KSL and other media organizations knowingly or unknowingly echo its propaganda.
Future historians may demonstrate how your call to abolish South Carolina’s state rights led to the removal of Angel Moroni statues from Mormon templates.
The United States Civil War was fought over states’ rights, at least from a southern standpoint. South Carolina displays the Confederate flag to symbolize the importance of states’ rights.
Before the Civil War, Americans felt allegiance to their individual states. That is why General Robert E. Lee, a Virginian, declined Lincoln’s offer to lead the Union Army. Lincoln and the northern army eventually destroyed states’ rights.
How would you like if politicians demanded the removal of Angel Moroni statues from Mormon Temple steeples?
Moroni represents the other angel to fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, declaring all other religions invalid. Is that not offensive to the 97% of Americans who have not read the Book of Mormon?
It doesn’t matter what people think or say, or even if they express bigotry, it only matters that you and all Americans support their right to publicly state their beliefs and varied opinions, as canonized in the First Amendment.
Mitt, you have your right to express your opinion but understand it aids the propaganda machine designed to destroy the First Amendment.
Maybe it is time your statements be reviewed by Church Correlation before publication.
Robert John Stevens
P.S. Using the force of government to remove Angel Moroni Statues would be as unconstitutional as removing Christian Crosses or McDonald’s Arches (which could be said by dietitians to represent rounded obesity).