0

THOMAS: No standards remain

Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." -- Genesis 2:24, NIV

The problem for people who believe in an Authority higher even than the Constitution is that in our increasingly secular and indifferent society it has become more difficult to persuade those who do not subscribe to an immutable standard to accept that view. It is nearly impossible to restrain a people intent on throwing off any and all restraints. History is full of examples of empires that collapsed from within before they were conquered from without.

The Supreme Court has narrowly, but effectively, removed another standard on the way to full acceptance of its right to redefine marriage and raise itself to a level higher than the Creator. What or who is to stop them? Various religious-political groups formed over many years to confront cultural erosion are in retreat and increasingly ineffective.

Modern courts might have trouble with Thomas Jefferson's declaration, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." Is there anything that is self-evident today and not subject to challenge given the right circumstances?

Even a secular person should be required to answer a question before removing such an important cultural underpinning as traditional marriage: If marriage is no longer to be reserved for one man and one woman, as it has for millennia in many different cultures and religions, what is the new standard and on what is it based? Should we change America's motto to "in polls we trust"?

The New York Times recently editorialized in favor of transgender rights. Polygamist groups have made it known they wish to be next in line to enjoy full constitutional protection for their lifestyle. Utah was forced to outlaw polygamy before admission to the Union. Can it, should it, revert to its previous practice and who has the authority to say "no?"

There are people who favor sex and marriage between adults and children. On what basis should they be denied their "right to happiness?" Today's "that goes too far" easily becomes tomorrow's "right" with a morally vacuous media leading the charge and a morally exhausted people who are afraid to say "stop," for fear they'll be labeled "bigots."

Boundaries serve a purpose, in sport and in life. Fences keep out trespassers and protect children on playgrounds. Governments impose speed limits. Lines define a football field. The problem faced by moral-political forces -- from Prohibition, to abortion and now same-sex marriage -- is that they are confronted by growing numbers of people who do not believe in, or can be persuaded by, ancient, even biblical, instruction constraining human behavior. Many young people whose parents are divorced, or who are cohabiting without marriage, are not influenced by such commands or "preaching."

While the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision overturning the Defense of Marriage Act does not establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that's where it seems headed. Justice Antonin Scalia predicted it would a decade ago when the Supreme Court invalidated laws prohibiting homosexual conduct in Lawrence v. Texas.

One doesn't have to approve of the Court's "reasoning" in order to hand it to the gay rights campaigners. They have done a magnificent job advancing their objectives, but they couldn't have done it alone. A verse from the Old Testament warns about the detrimental effects such "advances" can have on individuals and nations that abandon moral boundaries: "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did what was right in his own eyes." -- Judges 17:6, NIV

Email nationally syndicated columnist Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com. For archived columns, go to www.gwinnettdailypost.com/calthomas.

Comments

kevin 1 year, 3 months ago

This administration doesn't want Americans to put religion first, but wants us to put government and current culture first. What a way to live in a free-country. This is as low as you can go.

0

Why_not 1 year, 3 months ago

You are free to practice any religion you desire. You aren't free to force your beliefs on another person. That choice belongs to each individual.

2

kevin 1 year, 2 months ago

why do you always misunderstand what people are saying just to make your own point? I never said anything about forcing religion on anyone. Those that have it want to practice it like the Constitution states. Each person makes their own choice if they want to believe in God or some person instead. You are free to put this government first. I hope you enjoy it.

0

Why_not 1 year, 2 months ago

Re-read your comments Kelvin......

1

Why_not 1 year, 2 months ago

Kelvin....your idiotic comments cry out to be challenged.

1

keleko 1 year, 3 months ago

Thankfully we live in a democracy and not a theocracy. It seems the GOP is pushing for the latter with their agenda and arguments against social reform. All the above article is null and void when put against the First Amendment. Try again without quoting or referencing any religious text. You're welcome to use nature, but be aware there are examples in many species of mated same sex pairs. And yes, they even raise their young, which they have by visiting an opposite sex in what could be called artificial insemination through a "one night stand", as the pair. Some species, such as a frog species I saw in a zoo last week, can even change sex if there is too many of one gender around. It's also been suggested that humans aren't biologically suited to staying with a single mate for life. Our culture has decided that we should, but our genetics say otherwise.

So you can't use religion or nature as your evidence. All you're left with is "I don't like it." Well, I don't like rap music. Can we get that banned, too? It would even benefit the environment by cutting down on noise pollution from all the thumping bass cars driving around. Let me know how Defense of Music Act goes.

1

Sign in to comment