LAST WEEK, Judge Arenda Wright Allen, an Obama appointee to federal district court, struck down Virginia’s constitutional marriage amendment, passed by voters in 2006. She thus cleared the way for homosexual “marriage” in Virginia. Altogether, this was not a surprising development. Indeed, it would have been very surprising if it had turned out otherwise.

Wright Allen, a black woman who was educated at Kutztown University and North Carolina Central University, took just over one week after hearing oral arguments to deliver her 41-page decision. It is not unreasonable to assume that she had made up her mind well in advance.

Wright Allen opened her decision with a strong hint at its conclusion. She quoted from Mildred Loving, in her book Loving All:

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government should have no business imposing some person’s religious beliefs over others. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

Loving and her husband, Richard, were the plaintiffs in the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia, in which they successfully challenged the state’s law against interracial marriage and effectively ended all regulation of interracial marriage, which the court declared as unconstitutional.

Mildred and Richard Loving

Wright Allen argues that morality changes and the history of interracial marriage, which is no longer considered unacceptable, is proof of this. Most Virginians would probably agree that interracial marriage laws were deeply wrong. The fact that Virginians themselves cannot martial any defense of laws against interracial marriage (to defend these laws is not necessarily to argue that they should still be in effect) makes Wright Allen’s point an especially effective argument.

In reminding Virginians of this history, Wright Allen is saying in so many words, “You were bigots once and thus it is not unreasonable to claim that you are bigots now.”

Wright Allen’s ruling essentially asserts that the citizens of Virginia have no good reason to define marriage as it has always been defined everywhere on earth. The grandiosity and hubris that underlies this claim is nothing short of breathtaking. With two bits of legal training, Wright Allen confidently asserts that the parameters of the most fundamental human relationship in history have been irrational and an expression of animus toward an oppressed minority.

But, of course, comparing interracial marriage to same-sex “marriage” is comparing apples and oranges.

Marriage between a man and woman of different races does not involve a strong possibility of physical disease caused by abnormal sexual relations. Marriage between a man and woman of two different races is not by nature non-procreative. Marriage between a man and woman of two different races does not present the risk of buying and selling children in arrangements of artificial reproduction. Marriage between a black woman and a white man does not involve the possible establishment of a home in which children are not only denied contact with one or both of their parents, but are denied intimate and regular contact with a person of the same sex.

In short, marriage between a black woman and a white man does not redefine the essential nature of marriage, which is an institution primarily established for procreation and protection of the young. Civil society has no interest in preserving “loving relationships” indiscriminately. It does have an interest in — or at least it once did have an interest — in protecting the most fundamental family bonds.

Judge Arenda Wright Allen

But to Wright Allen, the main purpose of marriage is to create happiness for adults. On this score, she writes, “Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and create loving, intimate and lasting relationships.” There is a substantial body of social science data that says otherwise and shows that homosexuals are more promiscuous and have stormier relationships. Regardless, since homosexuals were never permitted to “marry” until very recently, Wright Allen cannot prove that homosexuals are as capable of lasting and loving relationships.

Wright Allen is no different in her basic views of homosexuality than most Americans, who personally know only a small number of homosexuals, have their opinions formed by popular culture and are simply unaware of the disease and disorder that often accompanies homosexual relationships. However, Wright Allen is different in that her position of authority placed upon her the obligation to know more.

Wright Allen made another important error and it underlies her Constitutional arguments. She wrote:

“There can be no serious doubt that in America the right to marry is a rigorously protected fundamental right.”

Wright Allen maintains that homosexuals are denied this right. But homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. They possess the very same rights as heterosexuals. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. All people in America are constrained in their rights to marry. Wright Allen’s argument, which is repeated endlessly, is similar to the claim that the person who wants to marry someone who is already married is denied the right to marry. In fact, that person has the same rights as everyone else. No one is permitted to marry without observing certain marital limits. No one is permitted to marry a child of 13. No one is permitted to marry a sibling. No one is permitted to marry someone against his consent. The right to marry is limited for every single person in the United States.

“When core civil rights are at stake, the judiciary must act,” Wright Allen wrote.

The framers of the Constitution, we can be sure, never dreamed that their document would be used to assert the right of  man to “marry” a man. However, Wright Allen is adhering to fundamental principles of individual liberty that underlay the American founding. If the highest goal of government is to obtain “life, liberty and happiness” for its citizens, if government recognizes no moral authority higher than politically appointed judges, the case for homosexual “marriage” is not preposterous.

Fortunately, the highest goal of man is not to obtain “life, liberty and happiness.” Societies and governments do not go to heaven or hell. But human beings do. The highest goal of man is to attain eternal union with God. Human beings are social creatures. Societies and governments absolutely help determine the eternal destiny of individuals.

Most American conservatives view the U.S. Constitution as an ingenious solution to the religious strife that engulfed Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. For a time, it seemed as if it was an ingenious solution to religious disagreement. The material prosperity of America lent strong support to that argument.

Now we see that it wasn’t so much a resolution of religious strife as a postponement of it. Mildred Loving said it well, though somewhat crudely. The Founders were much more elegant, but they would have agreed with her point:

“Government should have no business imposing some person’s religious beliefs over others.”

It is upon that fundamental conviction — not whether homosexuality is good or bad — that the moral anarchy and division we see today rests.

— Comments —

John writes:

Actually, liberals are correct to link interracial marriage and “gay marriage.” Both express rebellion against God’s created order, though I will concede that “gay marriage” is a more egregious example.

Sixty percent of the people of Virginia voted to uphold true marriage, but what does it matter what these lowly masses think? A black-robed federal pooh-bah has ruled otherwise, and her wishes must be obeyed! In her legal opinion, Allen stated that the Consitution declares that “all men are created equal.” Of course that’s in the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal authority. But only a hater, a bigot, or a homophobe would care about such technicalities. The important thing is that superior people must rule so that we can all be made equal.

In pursuit of this goal, let’s do away with all referenda and elections. They cost a lot of time and money and encourage the peasants to become uppity toward their betters. Nothing must thwart the holy quest for Equality!

Bill R. writes:

In response to the quote from Mildred Loving, “Government should have no business imposing some person’s religious beliefs over others,” and the observation that the Founders would have agreed with it, albeit more eloquently; I think some distinction is in order here.  The Founders were pretty settled on the notion of not wanting the agenda of any particular organized religion to gain dominance.  For example, they certainly did not want an official State Church as they had in Britain.  But obviously the Founders knew their fellow Americans were, as they were, very religious, and that in creating a self-governing republic the nation’s social and political agenda would of necessity be a reflection of those values.  The Founders would have understood, therefore, that while “some person’s” religious belief would not be imposed by the government, obviously the religious beliefs of the people in general would be, since their will would logically and quite properly reflect Protestant Christian values since that was at the time, and for a long time to come, the identity of the overwhelming proportion of the American people.  And it was the overwhelming desire of the American people to maintain their Protestant Christian identity, and to create and maintain laws that ipso facto would be a reflection of the morality of that identity.

But there’s another point irrespective of the issue of religion that comes into play in this issue of Judge Allen’s decision, and that is whether or not the people of a presumed-to-be self-governing republic have the right to set their own social and political agenda, to decide through the laws legislated by their elected representatives, what is to be considered good and therefore permissible, and what bad and impermissible.  In other words, does the majority of the citizenry have the right to have their moral choices enacted into law, or is this power to be reserved to unelected judges or any other minority elite?  Wright Allen can throw in all the liberal, feel-good, sanctimonious prose into her decision that she likes, the plain fact of the matter is that all those sentiments are hers and not mine, nor that of many others, nor those of the people of Virginia, so all she has done is simply substitute her personal moral choice for that of the people.  There can be no more basic a description of tyranny than that.

Wright Allen says, “When core civil rights are at stake, the judiciary must act.”  That is incorrect.  First of all, the judiciary is not supposed act in a vacuum but in determining the merits of a lawsuit brought before it.  I would suggest that Wright Allen’s choice of words here hints at her self-righteous, rule-by-decree mentality, and her only thinly veiled contempt for the people on whose behalf she ostensibly acts as a public servant.  Secondly, she is not treating the issue of same-sex marriage like a civil right.  She has elevated it to that of a constitutional right, and she has done so for the most obvious of reasons; so that she can rule on it constitutionally, from which she knows there is no appeal except to a higher federal court composed of fellow leftwing elites like herself.  Thirdly, when the judiciary takes up a lawsuit on constitutional grounds, they are tasked — so has the unwritten tradition of Judicial Review been understood — with intervening only when constitutional rights are at stake, and then only if there is a relevant provision in the Constitution that compels their intervention.  The notion that there is any provision in the Constitution declaring same-sex marriage a right is, of course, patently ridiculous.  And absent a provision in the Constitution, the people are supposed to be allowed to act and decide on civil rights through their elected representatives, as they often do, and sometimes quite wrongly, as when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed (although in fairness to the people, let us remember that even when acting through their elected representatives it is all-too-often not the will the people that ends up expressed but that of the elites who have lied to them).

As for the argument Wright Allen makes comparing interracial marriage to same-sex marriage, I agree there is something more fundamental and biologically obvious in a same-sex marriage prohibition than in an interracial one.  However, while I agree with Laura’s observation that “marriage between a black woman and a white man does not redefine the essential nature of marriage,” I also maintain that there is no reason on earth, and most certainly none in the Constitution, why a supposedly self-governing citizenry should be limited by that consideration when deciding to whom they are going to extend the right to marry.  The people may decide that they want to put limits on marriage beyond those that would redefine its essential nature, and they have every right to do that.  Perhaps they are concerned with a competing interest, the essential nature of something else that’s at stake.  For example, they may not wish to see the essential nature of their race redefined.  And while allowing interracial marriage might not redefine the essential nature of marriage, prohibiting it doesn’t redefine it either.

Finally, I would say that putting into the hands of unelected judges the power to make final, unappealable decisions as to what are even constitutional rights is tyrannical, never mind dictating to us what are and are not civil rights, and this would be true even if judges adhered strictly to the Constitution and followed what Robert Bork called the philosophy of original understanding.  It’s as simple as this; to make judges the “final arbiters of the law” is obviously to make them the law, and therefore ours a government of men.  As it is, such fidelity to the Constitution by our judiciary has been a ludicrous pipe dream anyway, especially in the last half century and more since the activist Warren Court.  Our judges clearly have, and have had for some time, no intention whatsoever of being bound by the Constitution, or indeed by any other limits save their own personal, and more often than not wretched, preferences.

Laura writes:

You write:

And it was the overwhelming desire of the American people to maintain their Protestant Christian identity, and to create and maintain laws that ipso facto would be a reflection of the morality of that identity.

But the principle of individual judgment was at the center of that “Protestant Christian identity.” Yes, the early Americans never imagined that Protestant Christians would someday be defending homosexual “marriage” (Judge Wright Allen considers herself a Christian) just as Martin Luther didn’t envision Pentecostals, but the principle of individual judgment was common to both.

I agree that the electorate should be free to restrict interracial marriage. [Revision: I think cultures that are cohesive discourage interracial marriage because it is difficult to raise children in two cultures. I think the best way to do this is by custom, not law.]

You write:

Finally, I would say that putting into the hands of unelected judges the power to make final, unappealable decisions as to what are even constitutional rights is tyrannical, never mind dictating to us what are and are not civil rights, and this would be true even if judges adhered strictly to the Constitution and followed what Robert Bork called the philosophy of original understanding.

Though I titled this entry, “Another Judge Usurps the People,” the central issue here is not the violation of democracy. Let’s say Virginia voters had passed a law making homosexual “marriage” legal and a judge had stepped in and overruled the law, restoring traditional marriage. Would you consider that tyranny? Would you be arguing that the judge’s decision was an outrage against democracy? I would not. In the case of Wright Allen, it is tyranny because there is no fundamental right to immoral and dangerous behavior. There is no fundamental right to create mock families. So the basic issue is objective morality. In this case, the people are defending the objective good and the true fundamental rights. The people are ultimately defending not their own rights, but the rights of God, who has absolute sovereignty over society.

Laura writes:

The thinking behind our Constitutional order is that objective morality will ultimately win out through the balancing of powers. The judiciary and the executive branch and lawmakers elected by the people  will, through conflict, arrive at what is objectively good. But this is clearly not the case. This balancing is powerless to prevent decay unless it stands upon some body of knowledge or revelation as to what is objectively good. There is no authority outside government in the American system to define morality in changing circumstances. And the necessary role of government in helping citizens attain salvation is not recognized.

By the way, it is not accurate to say that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, to name two of the most famous Founders, were “very religious.”

Bill R. writes:

Well, accepting that no human institution is perfect, let me put the onus on you; if governments that are based on the principle of individual judgment are so flawed that they inevitably (in your view?) must invite monstrous propositions like same-sex marriage, what principle would you suggest in its place, and exactly how would you go about achieving a consensus regarding that principle or, if you anticipate not achieving such a consensus, how would you plan on establishing this alternate principle as a principle of government?

 [Laura writes: Please re-read my comment about individual judgement. I was referring to religious matters. You wrote that the early American wanted to preserve their Protestant heritage. I acknowledged that that is true and that religious heritage, which was quite new in the historic scheme of things, revolved around the principle of individual judgment in religious matters. The Founders could not possibly have advocated an established church given the conflicts among Protestants over ultimate meaning. That doctrinal splintering results from the idea that there is no central authority to resolve religious dilemmas.]

You write, “Though I titled this entry, ‘Another Judge Usurps the People,’ the central issue here is not the violation of democracy.”  Perhaps not, but it is imperative that that issue be addressed.  [Laura writes: Obviously, it is imperative and that’s why I addressed the issue in this entry. Obviously, I think Wright Allen abused her judicial authority.] You write, “The people are ultimately defending not their own rights, but the rights of God, who has absolute sovereignty over society.”  On the level we’re talking about, nothing could be more obviously, more patently untrue than that statement.  If God had that kind sovereignty over society clearly we would have no problems, nothing to worry about, and nothing like this that we’re discussing.  [Laura writes: God has indirect sovereignty over society. The social decadence that surrounds homosexual “marriage” is proof of the underlying sovereignty of God’s laws. I did not mean that God directly controls politics.] God’s sovereignty is obviously not what we have to worry about, then, is it?  So what then are we worried about?  What is it that so concerns us?  It is the human agencies that come between God to impose their will on us, their will of hostility toward God and the good that he has authored.  Therefore, while God’s sovereignty may be true in an ultimate sense, after saying that we are still left with the practical matter of how society is going to be governed and by what laws and what the authority will be that decides what laws we will have, and more specifically how and by what means people such and as you and I are going to defend ourselves and who and what we love from those that are seeking to destroy it.  God does not write the marriage laws nor the decisions of our courts, much less enforce them.  Again, if he did, we’d have no problem, would we?  Our problem is that our laws are being effectively written by unelected judges acting out of their own personal sense of right and wrong, and we’re stuck with them.

But, now, you seem to go further and suggest that even if the democratic process worked as it’s supposed to, so long as the majority are comprised of Protestants the democratic process will be unable ultimately to stand up for what is objectively good supposedly because the primary moral devotion of Protestants is to this “principle of individual judgment,” which you apparently deem incapable of ascertaining, at least consistently enough, what is objectively good.  But I repeat, if not the judgment of a majority of individuals in society, then whose?  (Bear in mind, this is the message I’m taking from your words; if I have misunderstood you then please correct me.) 

You say, “This balancing is powerless to prevent decay unless it stands upon some body of knowledge or revelation as to what is objectively good.”  But people have disagreed about that particular “body of knowledge” and its contents since the beginning of time.  Your statement makes it sound as though human beings had yet to decide on that body of knowledge.  It’s just the opposite.  They’ve decided on it so much and for so long now throughout human history, that you have countless competing versions of it, many so entrenched that human beings have routinely sacrificed their lives for it since the dawn of civilization.  So then you either have to resolve the disagreement over what is good, and humanity hasn’t had much luck with that so far, or you have to have one particular version of it imposed on people, or your have to form the best consensus possible that allows for as many elements of the various competing versions of it as the people comprising your society can agree on.  Incidentally, I reject the notion that Protestants view the “principle of individual judgment” as a moral principle in itself as opposed to a method for perceiving moral principles and moral truth.  Besides, everybody follows the principle of individual judgment, including devout Catholics, some of whom take it upon themselves individually to decide that the current pope is not, in fact, the pope at all but a fraud.  If not, let me ask you, when and to whom did you turn over your sovereign right of individual judgment? [Laura writes: This is ridiculous.You have misread and distorted what I am taking about. I am speaking about the absence of any authority in moral matters, not the absence of all individual judgment. I suppose you would believe that children must have individual judgment over all their affairs because after all individual judgment must be honored. I recognize that you are not saying such an absurd thing. I have not taken your words and distorted them. Both you and I know there must be authorities over human affairs. And my objections to the Anti-Pope are fully in accord with my belief in authority. For the Anti-Pope has denied that authority.]

What makes the issue of self-governance a moral issue of central importance in its own right, whether in this same-sex issue or any other that effects how we are governed, is this:  How we are governed is going to be in one of two ways; either by a majority consensus of the individual judgments of the members of society or it is going to be imposed upon that majority by the individual judgments of some minority.  God’s not going to do it.  Let’s get beyond that right now.  We’re not going to be governed by God’s sovereign judgment.  That era is part of what the poet called “Paradise Lost.”  We lost that kind of governance a long, long time ago.  At best we will be governed by some human determination as to what that Divine judgment is.  So, either we govern ourselves or it is imposed upon us by someone else.  That’s it.  Now, if you say (I’m not saying you do, but if you do) that such an imposition is fine so long as it represents what you believe to be the one true revelation, then I’m going to have to insist on the imposition of what I believe to be the one true revelation.  And that’s the whole history of the human race and all its wars, isn’t it?  Because fight a war is what we’re going to have to do if we come to that impasse and are unwilling to accept a majoritarian consensus and compromise that, while it gives neither of us all of the society we would like to have, it can give us some desirable elements of it, such as civil order, social stability and predictability, mutual security, the ability to engage in beneficial transactions with each other, and perhaps even, if we’re lucky, the preservation of our race and culture.

Furthermore, I’m not all that anxious, frankly, to strive for some unrealistic, morally ideal society.  I think the idealists have done enough damage already, principally because they conceive their end as so precious they have shown, time and again, their willingness to pursue it until they have, in the words of the poet, “shut the gates or mercy on mankind.”  So I submit, if not an imperfect consensus, then war.  I don’t know what else because I can guarantee you that however much we agree on many things, I have absolutely no intention of accepting the imposition of what you consider to be the one true revelation or the one true means for obtaining knowledge of objective good, nor to ever willingly surrender the Protestant identity of my country to a Catholic theocracy.  You’ve got a hard road and big battle ahead of you to create here a country that never existed, and I mean a big battle with people that agree with you 90% of the time.  I leave it to your imagination to contemplate what you’re facing with those of my countrymen who agree with you less, let alone not at all.  We’re either going to have to fight a war to decide whose body of knowledge about objective good our government will abide by, or we’re going to have to see if we can achieve some less than ideal (for either of us), imperfect human solution based on a consensus.

Finally, there are some of us who believe that human society must inevitably be imperfect in any case, for such is man; it is the atheists and leftists, rather, who reach for heavens on earth and the perfectibility of man for they have renounced the idea of any other kind of heaven or any other kind of perfection.  It is not the job of government to help citizens attain salvation.  That’s asking something of it far beyond its design limits (unless you’re a liberal, of course, then you think government can do anything).  Helping citizens achieve salvation is what the utopianists seek from government.  And they’re going to see to it that government helps them obtain the liberal version of salvation and objective good whether they want it or not.  Aren’t you asking for the same thing?  The content of your salvation may be different, but what is the difference in the means?  And the ends do not justify the means.  No, I am willing to accept some moral imperfection in society and government, for I believe that the unwillingness to accept that leads to far greater moral imperfection, and also because I accept that imperfection is the nature of man, at least on this side of the grave.  Perfection and salvation aren’t supposed to exist here.  “My kingdom,” said Christ, “is not of this world.”  We are wrong to ask for it to be, and even more wrong to ask that it be brought by, of all things, government, the archetypal necessary evil if there ever was one, and an entity, according to one of our, in your estimation non-religious Founding Fathers (they certainly were not Catholic), that was at its best when it was doing the least.

Who, by the way, are your Founding Fathers, Laura, if any?  And what, if any, has been your country?

Laura writes:

This is a very, very long statement. I do not have the time at this moment to read fully, let alone respond to each and every point.

But let me make a few basic comments. 

There will always be authorities, and there must always be authorities, to resolve religious disputes in a society. That basically is what Wright Allen has done here. She has ruled on a serious moral matter, based on the theology of the ruling class, which says that homosexual activity is not a grave spiritual danger and indeed is even a good thing. She is enforcing the paganism of the American ruling class — and a substantial portion of the population.

All societies are driven by ultimate principles and a religious view. What we are seeing in America is the unfolding of the belief that individual judgment reigns in religious matters. Of course, individual judgment is involved in religious matters. We have free will. Everyone has the freedom — and should have the freedom — to decide his own beliefs. However, we do not have the right to believe truth is false. That would be an absurdity. We have the freedom to choose what beliefs we will hold and to act upon them, not the right to believe whatever we want. Government should tolerate a range of religious beliefs, but not religious liberty in the modern sense because that it a facade. Government can only act upon one general scheme and it must (and will) strongly encourage its own beliefs in individuals. We are social creatures; we are formed by each other and we must collectively act. We cannot remain agnostic collectively.

You write:

Now, if you say (I’m not saying you do, but if you do) that such an imposition is fine so long as it represents what you believe to be the one true revelation, then I’m going to have to insist on the imposition of what I believe to be the one true revelation.

You believe in that the best society is a place where God’s revelation would not guide government because God’s revelation is a matter of individual judgment. That is exactly the principle that I am addressing. It is a principle that cannot prevent the Wright Allens of the world from ruling. You believe human beings cannot collectively decide upon certain religious principles, observe a supernatural element in human affairs, and set up a religious authority to guide and infuse sacred law into the workings of society.  The problem with this, as I said, is that they must and will act upon certain conceptions of God because life constantly presents moral dilemmas. Look at the dilemma of immigration. Some “Christians” believe America has the moral duty to accept unlimited numbers of immigrants. Some “Christians” believe it has the moral duty to care first for its own.

The sort of religious freedom you advocate actually leaves a vacuum for pagan religion, which is especially congenial to human desires, to fill.

 You write:

Finally, there are some of us who believe that human society must inevitably be imperfect in any case, for such is man; it is the atheists and leftists, rather, who reach for heavens on earth and the perfectibility of man for they have renounced the idea of any other kind of heaven or any other kind of perfection.

I’m not sure where you see a utopian message in my words. It seems to me you are quite utopian in your view of the American founding. It is not utopian to expect that politicians would be guided by a non-political moral authority and that politicians would refuse to approve outrages like same-sex “marriage” or abortion. There would be all sorts of problems in America if abortion and same-sex “marriage” did not exist, but there would not be the problems and the spiritual harm to individuals caused by abortion and same sex “marriage.” Societies are obligated to follow God’s revelation. They have the freedom to disregard it, but they are obligated to follow it and will suffer immense disorder if they do not. More importantly, many individuals will not attain everlasting happiness amid such disorder. That is how God’s sovereignty is enacted. I don’t see how in my references to salvation in another world you see me advocating utopia in this world. I advocate immense sacrifices and suffering to make union with God in the next life possible for individuals.

God would not have revealed himself to the world unless he had made his revelation accessible to human intelligence and capable of guiding people in their actions. Furthermore, God loves unity. God loves the society consecrated to his glory. The Eucharist is the continual reenactment of that revelation in this world. Government should recognize the institution that honors and protects this supernatural role of God in the world. That does not mean priests should be politicians. That does not mean that civil authorities should not act upon practical matters independently and without the intervention of the Church. It means the government should honor the indirect power of God’s moral law and his Church. It should never reject the Church’s moral teachings because these are God’s laws and, where there is conflict regarding moral matters, the Church and its 2,000-year tradition should decide. A Nation will have spiritual authorities. The dream of a society without religious authority is the great enabler of nihilism and unprecedented social decadence. I know most people share your views on the beauty of religious freedom, but we are going to have such egregious tyrants (and already have such egregious tyrants) that what I am saying will one day look miraculous and beautiful to those who have held such views as yours because it is based on the utter supremacy of Christ over men’s affairs, rather than the utter supremacy of Lucifer. One will rule. Society has this supernatural dimension too.

Just as no individual can attain sanctification without God’s revelation, no society can avoid chaos without it. How stupid to suggest I am talking about political perfection or escape. Catholics do not glory in this world. We are born to suffering. Our suffering has great meaning and value. The purpose of life is not to avoid great sacrifices and self-denial.

We are wrong to ask for it to be, and even more wrong to ask that it be brought by, of all things, government, the archetypal necessary evil if there ever was one, and an entity, according to one of our, in your estimation non-religious Founding Fathers (they certainly were not Catholic), that was at its best when it was doing the least.

The principle of limited government is certainly in accord with Catholic teaching. I detect some sneering, perhaps I am wrong, when you say, “They certainly were not Catholic.” How sad that you would not lament this fact and would view in a sneering way the institution without which you would not have one shred of Christian revelation or the civilization upon which you and your ancestors have flourished. Catholics are often criticized for venerating the saints, who are masterpieces of moral perfection and devotion to God. But we all must have our human models. How sad to adore politicians and political philosophers more than the great spiritual masters of our civilization, upon whose souls and intercessions we depend for strength and fortitude in this, perhaps the greatest civil battle ever against the reign of nihilism in society.

Who, by the way, are your Founding Fathers, Laura, if any?  And what, if any, has been your country?

My Founding Father is Christ the King.

As Pope Pius XI wrote in his encyclical Quas Primas in 1925:

It has long been a common custom to give to Christ the metaphorical title of “King,” because of the high degree of perfection whereby he excels all creatures. So he is said to reign “in the hearts of men,” both by reason of the keenness of his intellect and the extent of his knowledge, and also because he is very truth, and it is from him that truth must be obediently received by all mankind. He reigns, too, in the wills of men, for in him the human will was perfectly and entirely obedient to the Holy Will of God, and further by his grace and inspiration he so subjects our free-will as to incite us to the most noble endeavors. He is King of hearts, too, by reason of his “charity which exceedeth all knowledge.” And his mercy and kindness[1] which draw all men to him, for never has it been known, nor will it ever be, that man be loved so much and so universally as Jesus Christ. But if we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that he may be said to have received from the Father “power and glory and a kingdom,”[2] since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created.

As the summit of human creation, Christ is the Sovereign of society, not just of individuals, and should be recognized as such. That is a principle, not a political system. Political systems may vary considerably while observing this supernatural fact though it also entails recognizing the spiritual authority of the Church. Societies and cultures may retain their particularities while recognizing this supernatural reality, just as human beings retain their particularities when recognizing Divine law. This supernatural fact is a principle of order and the single most important political idea. Nationalism is cheap and vulgar when it is not subordinate to a love of God.  To love one’s country is to want the best for it.  I would hate my country if I did not wish it to abandon the pernicious principle of religious liberty (as opposed to the good and reasonable principle of religious toleration) and the disregard for God that have led it astray and are at the root of this judicial decision. The Founders had some very wise notions of government and some wrong notions.  The price of patriotism should not be the worship of Caesar. Like the early Christians, who were also accused of being un-patriotic, I say, “No, I will not worship Caesar and his gods.” I refuse.

Jay writes:

To continue with the theme of a connected lawyer getting promoted to a “judge” deciding what is best for the rest of us.   I wonder if anyone today would have the guts to speak the truth on this.  Inter racial marriage needed to be made legal because one does not choose to be black.  However one does choose to engage in homosexual behavior, thus the Loving case cannot be used as a justification to over turn the will of the people of Virginia.

Of course we have all been told by everyone, including those engaging in the behavior, that they are a race now in every sense of the word.

To be clear I am very libertarian on this issue, if one wishes to engage in deviancy that harms nobody but the consenting adults that is fine.  The problem comes from the fact that it never stays that way.  The deviants now want the same things as everyone else.   This includes marriage and children and families, and they could care less how much damage they cause in the process.

They also do not care about the legal precedent they set, the first lawsuit to overturn the multiple partner marriage laws has been filed, and the child predators can’t wait to file theirs as well.

Laura writes:

Bill has responded at length. I have to put off the discussion for now, but I will definitely be returning to this subject in the future.

Please follow and like us: