With the flurry of federal litigation regarding Indiana’s marriage statute, a law that has been on the books since 1986, it appears that our Hoosier society is on the verge of walking through a door never negotiated.
Homosexuality is probably the most-discussed sin in a sea of hundreds. This Christian certainly stands in the front of the line of those in need of mercy and grace. But what the litigation suggests is indeed profound in terms of how our society orients itself and, more importantly, governs itself.
Principles of self-government were always predicated on a strong moral foundation, usually anchored by our value system based in large part on the Bible. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Back then, it’s hard to imagine these rights included gay marriage or civil unions. Especially when the creator referenced is the same creator from the Bible, the same Bible that references homosexuality as an abomination in the sight of God.
Rights come from God and are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away by man, or more importantly, by government. Governments are instituted among men to protect those rights. Not even courts have the power to create or remove rights.
So how can a right exist that does not come from our creator, and what modern rights do we honestly believe are divinely inspired as opposed to invented and imposed by a left-wing orthodoxy?
Probably the biggest mess of all was when the government started involving itself in marriage. Tax benefits, estate-planning benefits and societal legitimacy are all things traditional marriage brings participants.
Even so, the stability of society from traditional two-parent families has served our state and nation well for years. This is what we are walking away from in our unquenchable thirst for political correctness and false tolerance.
Now there is evidence that not only will businesses be sued for operating according to their own faith traditions, but churches themselves can be sued if they refuse to ordain a union their God rejects. Social order has been inverted and no one knows the effect, not even the staunchest advocates for this hard turn to the left.
I recall a lecture down in Bloomington when I was in college by William F. Buckley. He was answering a question regarding the legalization of marijuana, something to which he seemed sympathetic. He said that until societies truly understand the social costs and benefits of public policy and know that the benefit outweighs the cost, they should tread carefully. No one knows the end of the path we now walk.
Perhaps we should consider this in the case of opening the floodgates to traditional marriage. No one with a soul wants someone harmed or discriminated against for being gay. But they also don’t want 200-plus years of social norms flushed down the drain without knowing the effect on the world. This is our dilemma. We are becoming a society and world without boundaries. Anything goes if it has a market.
The liberal indoctrination is endless as we watch cultural elitists attack traditional values and bedrock American social norms.
Mickey Maurer, owner of the Indianapolis Business Journal, and John Krull, journalism director at Franklin College and publisher of the Statehouse File (and former head of the ACLU of Indiana), have both used their positions and media outlets to promote intolerance of traditional social norms, including long held Judeo-Christian views.
Political reporters Brian Howey and Jim Shella reinvent the chic diet of false entitlement, false rights and false fairness while attacking proponents of traditional values, suggesting a dirtiness for those who cling to their guns and Bibles. And they are all supposed to be friends of the American experience, friends of freedom when it agrees with their perverted worldview.
It’s past time that we consider removing marriage completely from the confines of government, and let the church and other faith-based institutions marry according to their own belief systems and traditions. If I have learned anything over the last months in the HJR 3 debate, opponents of traditional Judeo-Christian values don’t fight fair or with honor. They fight to win, and to date have been very successful. I have to give the devil his due.
But the issue is still unresolved, and thinking members of faith still have time to engage. There is hope for an outcome where we all can win. By then we may have a better understanding of the net social cost or benefit from the path we march down.