Deanna Spingola
The Federal Marriage Amendment, a trojan horse
By Deanna Spingola
The federal government has certain obligations defined by the Constitution. Along with others I endorse what Ezra Taft Benson said: "I believe that God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and that no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these; that the sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression." [1]
Those responsibilities not under the jurisdiction of the federal government remain the responsibilities of the several states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment
Again Ezra Taft Benson said the following: "I believe that each State is sovereign in performing those functions reserved to it by the Constitution and it is destructive of our federal system and the right of self-government guaranteed under the Constitution for the Federal Government to regulate or control the States in performing their functions or to engage in performing such functions itself." [2]
Jurisdiction over marriage is and should remain a state responsibility. And before it was under the jurisdiction of the several states it was under the jurisdiction of the churches. The encroachment of the state into church issues is highly questionable and extremely dangerous. It is HOLY matrimony, a union of one man and one woman — God ordained the institution of marriage — the state didn't. Therefore his laws should suffice.
Each state stepped in to issue licenses and then began to set up certain parameters such as age. That should be the extent of government involvement in the affairs of any church. And with their agenda driven arbitrary application of — "separation of church and state," which is not found in the Constitution, the government will soon separate marriage from God. The best assurance of peace and longevity in any marriage is in direct proportion to HIS influence in that marriage. And if you think marriage, as an institution, is in trouble now, wait until the federal government intrudes. I do not trust a government who suspends public prayer to uphold the church's influence over marriage. Whatever the federal government regulates, whatever the government funds — the federal government CONTOLS.
"I am especially mindful that the Constitution provides that the great bulk of the legitimate activities of government are to be carried out at the state or local level. This is the only way in which the principle of 'self-government' can be made effective." [3]
"It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the community or city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possibly do the job, should the federal government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom." [4]
"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body." [5]
"It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states." [6]
The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" In as much as marriage is actually a function of the church we need to consider the following possibilities should the federal government be successful in seizing complete control away from the churches as well as the states? What will that amendment allow?
The government should not pretend to legislate morality as they did in 1919 with Prohibition. If corrupt politicians audaciously legislate decency then they can legislate any other kind of behavior. Personal morality and goodness are unenforced options provided by our God-given free agency. Do the federal authorities, who cannot even police themselves, have the authority to force individuals to be good? If they do, can they then, under different circumstances, force individuals to be bad?
The political plotters are at it again — manipulating the Christians and other good people who demand a solution to something the government and their big money cohorts initially created. And that government solution will deprive us of control over the most basic freedom that we have. Individuals are essentially in charge of only their own behavior — we cannot induce or compel others to pattern their personal, consensual activities after our own. We can only lovingly invite, not enforce by law. Preventing same-sex marriage will not change or terminate homosexuality. This Trojan horse law will only alter our own marriage options.
In true Hegelian Dialectical style the government and their currency-rich cohorts promoted homosexuality as a lifestyle (as well as abortion). Now they pretend to stand against both for the protection of the family. Remember, abortion used to be under state jurisdiction. I personally do not trust the federal government to make moral choices in my behalf. Nor do I trust the federal government to spend my tax dollars which they appear to be doing to perpetuate preemptive war and fund mass murder via abortion.
"A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me." [7]
The government should also not pretend to be charitable by confiscating about fifty percent of our hard earned tax dollars to redistribute to whomever they choose.
"The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will." [8]
Why in Heavens name would I trust them with complete jurisdiction over the most important union in society? Activities that sound favorable are often as detrimental to a society as the proverbial Trojan horse. Think of other so-called harmless laws or government departments that concerned citizens supported that sounded harmless: the Equal Rights Amendment, Pro Choice, the Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind which is associated with the Department of Education. Evaluate the quality of education since the federal government seized jurisdiction of our schools. That should alarm you! Of course there are hundreds of other laws purported to be of benefit to the populace that have further enslaved us.
"Men in the public spotlight constantly are asked to express an opinion on a myriad of government proposals and projects. 'What do you think of TVA?' 'What is your opinion of Medicare? How do you feel about Urban Renewal?' The list is endless. All too often, answers to these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid principle, but upon the popularity of the specific government program in question. Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they, themselves, wish to be popular — especially if they seek public office." [9]
Amendments, particularly the first ten, were designed to protect our rights. The Federal Marriage Protection Amendment, while appearing beneficial, would place unwarranted and undesired restrictions on the majority while allegedly attempting to confine a minority. "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom."
Conscientious Christians and others must exercise caution in what we hope or pray for. What else is occurring while we are all busily calling our senators? Is this for our diversion? Saving the institution of marriage, the purported purpose of this proposed amendment, begins in our own homes, with Heaven's inspiration and blessings, not in the halls of Congress!
NOTES:
© Deanna Spingola
The federal government has certain obligations defined by the Constitution. Along with others I endorse what Ezra Taft Benson said: "I believe that God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and that no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these; that the sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression." [1]
Those responsibilities not under the jurisdiction of the federal government remain the responsibilities of the several states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment
Again Ezra Taft Benson said the following: "I believe that each State is sovereign in performing those functions reserved to it by the Constitution and it is destructive of our federal system and the right of self-government guaranteed under the Constitution for the Federal Government to regulate or control the States in performing their functions or to engage in performing such functions itself." [2]
Jurisdiction over marriage is and should remain a state responsibility. And before it was under the jurisdiction of the several states it was under the jurisdiction of the churches. The encroachment of the state into church issues is highly questionable and extremely dangerous. It is HOLY matrimony, a union of one man and one woman — God ordained the institution of marriage — the state didn't. Therefore his laws should suffice.
Each state stepped in to issue licenses and then began to set up certain parameters such as age. That should be the extent of government involvement in the affairs of any church. And with their agenda driven arbitrary application of — "separation of church and state," which is not found in the Constitution, the government will soon separate marriage from God. The best assurance of peace and longevity in any marriage is in direct proportion to HIS influence in that marriage. And if you think marriage, as an institution, is in trouble now, wait until the federal government intrudes. I do not trust a government who suspends public prayer to uphold the church's influence over marriage. Whatever the federal government regulates, whatever the government funds — the federal government CONTOLS.
"I am especially mindful that the Constitution provides that the great bulk of the legitimate activities of government are to be carried out at the state or local level. This is the only way in which the principle of 'self-government' can be made effective." [3]
"It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the community or city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possibly do the job, should the federal government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom." [4]
"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body." [5]
"It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states." [6]
The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" In as much as marriage is actually a function of the church we need to consider the following possibilities should the federal government be successful in seizing complete control away from the churches as well as the states? What will that amendment allow?
- Creation of Federal Marriage Licenses;
- Place restrictions on church marriages;
- Require civil marriage before church marriage;
- Allow federal requirements in the wording of all marriage ceremonies including those given in any church;
- Allow for federal licensing of all marriage performers: ministers, priests, bishops, etc.;
- Allow for court proceedings to require the church to perform a church marriage even when a member may not qualify due to church worthiness policies;
- Allow federal inspectors to be present at all church marriage ceremonies;
- Allow federal divorce laws;
- Allow for federal child custody laws;
- Allow federal DNA testing for marriage licenses along with data bases to enforce this amendment and accompanying laws that will come with it;
- Allow for federal co-habitation laws;
- Allow the federal courts to determine the meaning of the word marriage and all that goes with it; (Remember abortion was justified by the 14th amendment)
- Allow for federal adoption laws;
- Prohibition against the marriage of disabled individuals;
- This amendment could outlaw all church marriages if marriage becomes a federal government sanctioned activity. Therefore, to comply with the phony "separation of church and state" no marriages could be performed in churches or religious ceremonies.
The government should not pretend to legislate morality as they did in 1919 with Prohibition. If corrupt politicians audaciously legislate decency then they can legislate any other kind of behavior. Personal morality and goodness are unenforced options provided by our God-given free agency. Do the federal authorities, who cannot even police themselves, have the authority to force individuals to be good? If they do, can they then, under different circumstances, force individuals to be bad?
The political plotters are at it again — manipulating the Christians and other good people who demand a solution to something the government and their big money cohorts initially created. And that government solution will deprive us of control over the most basic freedom that we have. Individuals are essentially in charge of only their own behavior — we cannot induce or compel others to pattern their personal, consensual activities after our own. We can only lovingly invite, not enforce by law. Preventing same-sex marriage will not change or terminate homosexuality. This Trojan horse law will only alter our own marriage options.
In true Hegelian Dialectical style the government and their currency-rich cohorts promoted homosexuality as a lifestyle (as well as abortion). Now they pretend to stand against both for the protection of the family. Remember, abortion used to be under state jurisdiction. I personally do not trust the federal government to make moral choices in my behalf. Nor do I trust the federal government to spend my tax dollars which they appear to be doing to perpetuate preemptive war and fund mass murder via abortion.
"A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me." [7]
The government should also not pretend to be charitable by confiscating about fifty percent of our hard earned tax dollars to redistribute to whomever they choose.
"The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will." [8]
Why in Heavens name would I trust them with complete jurisdiction over the most important union in society? Activities that sound favorable are often as detrimental to a society as the proverbial Trojan horse. Think of other so-called harmless laws or government departments that concerned citizens supported that sounded harmless: the Equal Rights Amendment, Pro Choice, the Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind which is associated with the Department of Education. Evaluate the quality of education since the federal government seized jurisdiction of our schools. That should alarm you! Of course there are hundreds of other laws purported to be of benefit to the populace that have further enslaved us.
"Men in the public spotlight constantly are asked to express an opinion on a myriad of government proposals and projects. 'What do you think of TVA?' 'What is your opinion of Medicare? How do you feel about Urban Renewal?' The list is endless. All too often, answers to these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid principle, but upon the popularity of the specific government program in question. Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they, themselves, wish to be popular — especially if they seek public office." [9]
Amendments, particularly the first ten, were designed to protect our rights. The Federal Marriage Protection Amendment, while appearing beneficial, would place unwarranted and undesired restrictions on the majority while allegedly attempting to confine a minority. "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom."
Conscientious Christians and others must exercise caution in what we hope or pray for. What else is occurring while we are all busily calling our senators? Is this for our diversion? Saving the institution of marriage, the purported purpose of this proposed amendment, begins in our own homes, with Heaven's inspiration and blessings, not in the halls of Congress!
NOTES:
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
© Deanna Spingola
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
