The Christian Solution C   S  
Home Page   About TCS   Contact Us   Document Library  
March 13, 2010

What did God give us in our God-Given Rights?



Joseph Farah
An epitaph for CPAC

Greg Laurie
God's definition of 'family'

    Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) supports gay marriage

    Officially, not even Barrack Obama supports same-sex marriage.

    Officially, not even Hillary Clinton supports same-sex marriage.

    That's how unpopular this fringe movement is.

    It has been rejected by voters in America every single time it has been put to the test.

    Some polls show opposition to same-sex marriage as high as 90 percent. Yet, there was CPAC catering to the same-sex marriage movement at America's most well-known "conservative" conference.

    -- Joseph Farah
I recently had a conservative friend, who never complained of any of my other articles this site has published, but complained about the treatment of homosexuals in America.

He believed that 1,000 laws, written over a 200-year span, needed changed to accommodate homosexual marriage, as he firmly believes that government owes homosexuals every freedom, every liberty and every right to their lifestyle as heterosexual couples have.

And for all this governmental activism he advocates, he further believes himself a "small government" libertarian.

Talking Points

POINT : Gay marriage is illegal and should be made legal
TCS RESPONSE : Marriage can be neither legal nor illegal, as it is not a function of the State. The State cannot make marriage legal (or illegal) anymore than it can make childbirth legal (or illegal). They are God-given rights. Marriage is an association between two people, not between two persons and the State. It can however, recognize that families with children need to be encouraged and families with no possibility of having children, such as gay marriages, need to be discouraged. Furthermore, it is required by the 1st Amendment for the government to honor the church's Sacrament of Matrimony. Therefore, gay marriage is NOT illegal. Being gay is NOT illegal, the Supreme Court has already said so in Lawrence.

POINT : It takes positive government action to ban gay marriage. If there were no government, gay marriage would inherently be legal.
TCS RESPONSE : As far as I know, there are no governments anywhere that have laws making homosexual marriages illegal. Gay marriages are not banned, they are just not recognized by the governments. Church marriages are recognized because to do otherwise would be to violate ones freedom of religion. Normal marriages are recognized and promoted by governments for the societal good they perform in procreation.

POINT : Homosexual couples should have the same tax considerations as normal couples
TCS RESPONSE : So help EVERYONE out and get rid of the IRS, because taxes are not so wonderful for married families either.

POINT : Homosexual couples cannot have their loved ones visit them in hospitals
TCS RESPONSE : Hospitals are private, so fight government dictates to them

POINT : Homosexual couples cannot inherit their lover's assets
TCS RESPONSE : Make a will!!! If you want to address real unfairness in estate planning, then attack corporations. Corporations are deemed "persons", but they never die, they pass on their inheritance forever, and they never pay inheritance taxes. Over time, corporations will own everything. Besides, inheritance taxes are another PROGRESSIVE tax used by government to redistribute the wealth from people who earned it and wanted to give that hard-earned money to their loved ones, replaced with the PROGRESSIVE idea that government will seize a large part of the estate and give it to unrelated people, who absolutely did not earn it by even being a loving caring person deemed deserving of the inheritance. Rich people have this privilege of incorporating, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Kennedy Foundation, but not the rest of us.

POINT : Homosexual couples should be allowed to marry and have it recognized by the State
TCS RESPONSE : Marriage is a Church function and the State has no right to refuse to recognize Church marriages, while at the same time has no right to dictate what marriage is and is not. Besides, homosexual couples would be crazy to want government coming between them. For normal couples, divorce in a government "family" court violates every Constitutional principle we have -- from the Separation of Church and State, to being read our Miranda rights, to our right to a Grand Jury indictment for our "crime", to our right to contract in our marriage contract, to the right to a trial by jury, to a right to be innocent until proven guilty where our most prized possession, our children, are removed from our homes and only given back when innocence is proved, to a right of appeal to a higher court.

POINT : People have the right to associate with whomever they want
TCS RESPONSE : How can I stop them from associating in the privacy of their bedrooms however they want to associate? How could the government stop them from associating? However, there is no government requirement to recognize groups, or giving one group favorable treatment over other groups, but there is a government requirement and duty to treat every individual as equals; the exception being in our freedom of religion involving the religious association of marriage configured as the "nest" required for responsibly raising children.

Parody to illustrate a Point

Taking all his concerns in hand, I constructed a hypothetical "family" for him to protect and defend their rights and their liberties to the death. This theoretical individual would want a family "corporation" which would never die, that would pass down its inheritance without ever being taxed and he wanted to freely associate with the ones he loved most in his life.

Since his wife loved her son more even than she loved her husband, and since his son loved his mother more than any other woman in the world, he would ask that his wife bring their son into their marriage. And later, when his son met a young lady he was fond of as much as he was of his mother, then she too would be asked to join the marriage. Grandchildren would soon arrive and the grandchildren would be married into the family. This way if any one died, there would be multiple wives, husbands, child husbands and wives, and grandchild husbands and wives to inherit the estate.

So instead of my friend defending the right to suck parts of another's body, or the right of one to insert his body parts into the anus of another, or the right to tea bag, I asked him if he would support changing the 1,000 government laws that prohibited this man from having the family of his dreams? Laws such as incest, statutory rape, bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, inheritance, and many unjust laws imposed upon opposite sex couples.

Of course, he deferred and never answered the question, proving that he was being just as hypocritically selective in only supporting homosexual marriage as he believes I am in only supporting normal marriage.

"Bigots and "religious zealots" were OK to restrict the freedom and liberty of my hypothetical association, or family, but these bigots and religious zealots were not allowed to interfere with his beloved homosexual marriage.

Cherry-picking morals from the Bible

One of the points my friend makes about religion is that people look through the Bible and cherry-pick out parts that suits them at the time.

To prove his point, he links me to a Youtube video titled, CONTEXT!!!!

The video starts off benign enough quoting typical "Praise the Lord" and "Do unto other.." quotes many Christians are endeared to. But soon, the quotes start telling us to kill our wives if she cleans house on the Sabbath, or if she uses two different kinds of thread in a garment. To which the Christian stick figure yells "CONTEXT".

Naturally, I duly note that both he and the creator of the Youtube video are attacking Christians over the inherited Jewish part of the Bible.

No attack on Jews for stoning people to death, like the Muslims still do, are ever written about or discussed by atheists.

No it is all those evil Christians who atheists feel brave enough to confront about their basic religious beliefs.

The YouTube creator in his comments section made a point in saying that atheists never have to defend stoning, but Christians are put into the hot seat of having to defend stoning at some time in life because Yahweh told them to do so.

Sorry, but every single Christian I have ever met in my life, when asked about stoning, immediately starts quoting Jesus Christ, who says, "Let those without sin, cast the first stone". (-- A reference to needing competent witnesses to convict someone of a crime. Deuteronomy 17:6 requires more than one witness to convict for a death sentence. Obvioulsy, it would be hypocritical for a mob of adulterers to be competent witnesses against an adulterer.)

Perhaps Jews and Muslims may have a harder time defending the practice of stoning and perhaps they are the ones who should be confronted by this barbaric act.

POINT : The New Testament does not condemn homosexuality
TCS RESPONSE : Besides the fact that Jesus gave the wedding gift of turning water into wine at the wedding of one man to one woman, instead of two men or two women, the New Testament does clearly say that homosexuality is a sin.
    Romans 1:26-27

    Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

POINT : Christians should not impose their religious beliefs on others. Even atheists know that killing is evil for instance.
TCS RESPONSE : Without religious beliefs, what beliefs are there.

Atheists believe in nothing -- Animals believe in nothing.

With a belief in nothing, then the closest guiding principles will be the ones that guide animals.

And what are those beliefs?

Basically, anything that insures survival of self and survival of your offspring.
  • In nature, male lions kill the offspring of another male all the time, so as to propagate their own offspring.
  • In nature, given no other food source, killing humans to eat is acceptable.
  • In nature, rape is a surefire way to spread your genes to as many babies as possible.
  • In nature, child birth at age 12 and 12 babies afterward is a surefire way to genetically overpower another woman's genes who waits until age 30 and only has two children.
  • In nature, stealing the hunting grounds from another tribe will insure your tribe does not starve to death.

Libertarian view of Constitutional Rights

In sum, the basic belief of my friend is that of the Libertarian.

    The only Morals in our society are that which is contained in the Constitution and in its Amendments.

    And since these Founding documents give us the freedom to pretty much do as we wish, then it is a morality to have no morals.

    As long as one does not hurt someone else, then anything goes.

POINT : Homosexual marriage does not hurt anyone, so as a Libertarian I have to support their cause
TCS RESPONSE : Oh yes it does. It hurts children.

Studies have shown that boys raised without a father, with a cruelly abusive father, or with a cruelly inattentive father, and without a loving uncle or coach replacement, all tend to become homosexual and if they become homosexual, then they are deprived of the joys of fathering their own children.

The same studied have shown that the sisters of these fatherless fathers turn out to become hyper-promiscuous.

Both show the NORMAL human instinct to be attracted to the opposite sex become derailed. The boys become obsessed for a man in their life, as do the girls.

The same happens in families without a mother figure, but since most children stay with their mothers, the rate of incidence of this is much less. We have lesbianism in women obsessing for a mother replacement and we have hyper-promiscuous men who turn out to be serial rapist.

To illustrate how powerful these instincts can be, it has been shown that baby ducks can "imprint" on pretty much anything they are shown at birth. Ducks have been shown to follow dogs, cats, and people as their "mother".

Dogs following a man as his pack leader is pretty darn unnatural if you think about it for a while.

Furthermore, any interpretation of the book "The Bell Curve" clearly shows that the most successful children in terms of
  • staying in high school,
  • going to college,
  • not getting pregnant out of wedlock,
  • staying out of prison,
  • not living in poverty,
  • not being prostitutes and many more,
is the fact that these successful children came from families that had
  • both the father and the mother still married together,
  • who both graduated from college and
  • lived in an upper middle class neighborhood.
Unfortunately, the book did not cover the religious faith of the families, but it would be fair to say, even in these crazy days of divorce, that the parents who stayed together were statistically more likely to be religious.

Constitutional view of Constitutional Rights

The basis of the Constitution has been judged to be derived from the Declaration of Independence.

Declaration of Independence

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
Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness.

Cherry-picking morals from the Constitution

Here is where I tell my cherry-picking Biblical friend that people also cherry-pick parts from the Constitution that they want to follow.

Some cherry-pick the 1st Amendment in order to protect all other rights with free speech from a press or microphone; while others cherry-pick the 2nd Amendment in order to protect all other rights with the right to put down a dictatorial government with a gun.

I guess it is talk first, and if that fails, shoot second.

The difference is that in this Republic, created by the Constitution, the majority, speaking through their legislative bodies, was to be the final arbitrator of how the Constitution was to be interpreted, not individuals, and certainly not individuals in the Supreme Court.

Free-Will vs Free-dom
  • Christians believe a Christian God gave us free-will.

  • Americans believe the Founding Fathers gave us free-dom.
The two are not inseparable and the Declaration of Independence marries them together.

The unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are given by the Creator.

I have a God-given right to life, yet I can forfeit my right to life by refusing to recognize another's right to life and then act on that belief.

I have a God-given right to liberty, yet I forfeit that right if I kidnap and rape another, and I am punished by being sent to jail, thereby losing my liberty.

Here is a critical distinction which confuses many.

You have both a Christian free-will and American free-dom right to do both right as well as wrong.

Both God and American society may decide to allow you to continue to do some wrong, as when adultery is being committed and not punished, but it is still not what either society wants nor is it what God wants.

But understand this concept, the Declaration of Independence ONLY protects and defends GOD-GIVEN rights.

God never gave us permission to murder, rape, commit adultery, commit incest, steal, lie, cheat, or defraud others.

These are NOT God-Given rights as God would never agree we should do them.

And if they are NOT God-given rights, then the Constitution does NOT protect them.

Again, who defines what are and what are not God-given rights? Churchs for one, but also our Constitution, our legislatures and our courts.

An inportant distinction needs to be made here. We are not talking about Yahweh-given rights or Allah-given rights, ONLY God-given rights. Both are foreign to the concept of the Constitution.

Our Constitution lays out a few unalienable rights, such as gun ownership, speech, the press, jury trial and so on, otherwise, freedoms are as defined by what the majority says are God-given rights. There are no rights to do things that are wrong, evil or sinful.

You can read further at The Problem.
You can read further at Guide to "Checks and Balances".
You can read further at The Solution.
Article located at:
Last Hope for America
Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
Church and State

The Christian Solution ©             First Release: March 15, 2008