Liberty vs. morality: a defense of traditional marriage

By R.T. Johnston

...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;... – The Declaration of Independence

Our nation was founded upon this great proposition: We are all created equal and we have certain unalienable rights that come from our Creator and not from man! Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property) are foundational to what America represents. Most of us on the side of Freedom & Liberty agree upon these basic principles, although sometimes, we disagree upon the true source of these principles and the best way to maintain them.

Some take the secular approach of reason alone, while others place additionally more reliance upon the Divine. An overwhelming majority of our founding fathers recognized God as the sole source of the liberties we enjoy, but also recognized every individual is free to make their own choices (as long as they don't harm, or violate, the rights of others). They fully understood the only way for society at large to maintain that liberty, was staying true to our religious and moral underpinnings.

Here is a sampling of just some of their thoughts:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?... – Thomas Jefferson

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. – Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, ....The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people. – Samuel Adams

Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants. – Benjamin Franklin

It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. – Patrick Henry

If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity. – Daniel Webster

...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands,... – Noah Webster

Many more could be provided, but even these few speak volumes.

This brings me to the purpose of this article: emphasizing the importance of protecting traditional marriage.

From the beginning of time, and in every culture both secular and religious, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. It's the foundational relationship out of which families are formed, and children are born, thereby shaping nuclear families to be cornerstones of a civil society. While some single parents, out of necessity, perform well the challenging duties of raising their children alone, nevertheless children possess a natural need for the unique influences of both a mother and a father to grow up into well rounded individuals. This is God's designed balance for guiding children toward becoming productive, and prosperous, individuals. As tradition demonstrates, upon reaching adulthood, most choose to start their own families, and so the cycle of life continues.

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, God's Word (the Bible), with unmistakable clarity, states it's an immoral choice running contrary to nature and His design. Some may be "confused" about their "feelings" because of particular influences in their lives brought about by the sinful nature of man, but...it's still a choice: a choice many individuals have eventually turned their back on (having chosen once again) to live normal, heterosexual lives.

So, what should we do? And, how should we treat it? "Liberty" dictates that individuals have the right to freely form their own personal choices, even wrong ones, but it doesn't absolve them from the consequences of those choices; nor does it suggest a civil society should be accepting of them, although it's their "right." "Morality" dictates it's an abhorrent and unnatural choice inviting punishment by God, as "ll" other sins also do, but there's also room for mercy, forgiveness, and healing. So, what should we do? How should a virtuous society respond to this loud and vocal minority (being around 2%, per recent polling) shouting for "equal" rights?

First, it's important to understand they already have "'equal" rights, but what they're truly seeking are "special rights" by distorting the definition of marriage into something it's not. Homosexuals possess the same rights as every other individual (as marriage is defined) to "marry" an individual of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, rather than fit the mold of definition, detractors of traditional marriage seek to not simply ignore its defining parameters, but destroy the existing time-honored parameters to include their newly discovered, and self-serving, "special rights."

Secondly, I believe we should love the individual but discourage their behavior. It's really no different than having a friend making other "wrong" choices; even though they're not illegal, you exhibit love toward them while inviting them to see the error of those choices. You certainly don't change the definitions of time-honored institutions simply to make them fit in, or feel normal as if they're doing nothing wrong. Society as a whole (for its own benefit) has the inherent right to look, with judgment, upon this behavior, as it "should" look equally upon other practices such as adultery, sex outside marriage, and other sexual (or moral) deviations. It's crystal clear, for those willing to admit it, that beginning with the 60's sexual revolution, and the continuing "loosening" of our moral standards, there's a direct correlation to our government growing more and more estranged from our founding fathers' intentions. Many, seemingly, don't grasp that each dovetails with the other, but if one seeks to understand human nature and the importance of moral standards, they'll quickly grasp that if any shortcoming of moral design is left uncorrected, it only leads to another, and another, and then another – the ultimate tipping of dominoes. It's a very slippery slope, and without guardians of moral absolutes in one area of our lives, it begs the question, are we devolving toward the absence of "any" moral absolutes?

Third, and finally, I cannot justify an expanding government policing what people do in their bedrooms, as that runs contrary to my fundamental small government and constitutional beliefs. However, society as a whole should be frowning upon sexual depravity because it would help make people "uncomfortable" in their immorality, thereby helping discourage their open and "in your face" displays. We need to understand this: while we don't require "permission" from government (particularly the federal government) as to whom we can marry, it's perfectly legitimate (particularly for state governments) to recognize, and support, the proper time-honored definition of marriage for the benefit of a civil society.

You see, Liberty and Morality aren't really at odds with one another, it's just very important to understand the maintaining of the former requires adherence to the latter. Not through theocratic or dictatorial governance, but rather through the voluntary realization of the importance of both.

© R.T. Johnston