Time for a Federal amendment to define marriage to be the union of one man and one woman.


Below is a copy of my e-mail to my Congressman and to Speaker on the nee for a Federal amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:04:10 -0700
Subject: My e-mail to Congressman Walden & Speaker Boehner on the need for a Federal Amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
 
Dear Congressman Walden;
 
It is time for the Congress to pass an amendment to the Federal Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and woman because of the wayward behavior of U.S. courts.  Because the courts are acting so irresponsbily in an area that touches on the very foundation of civlized order, the Congress must move to remove that area of jurisdiction from the U.S. courts.
 
That marriage can only be the union of a man and a woman is obvious for anyone to see.  The truth is self-evident that only
 
male and female can, i.e. are able to, marry because only male and female complement one another to form a unit, the family unit.  Because of the nature of man, reason argues against homosexual marriage because reason teaches us that only complements form units and, therefore, concludes from the nature of man itself that marriage must mean the union not of like sex but of complementary sex. 
 
From the self-evident facts of human nature, we can easily conclude there is no homosexual marriage according to the law of nature and,
positively, conclude there is only marriage according to the law of nature where male and female come together. 
 
These facts are so plain, reasonable, and self-evident, that they easily defeat the arguments for homosexual marriage.  These facts readily frame and clarify the issue so a solid conclusion can be drawn because they define for us self-evidently the nature of marriage from the nature of man.
 
I understand that faith also argues against homosexual marriage.  St. Augustine writes in The City of God (and here I paraphrase for the sake of brevity):  The union of man and woman is the seedbed of the city. Book 15, Chapt 16, para 2.  But in the secular sphere was must argue from reason -- informed, of course, by faith -- because not everyone in our country operates from faith.  But arguing anthropologically, i.e. from the nature of man itself, we can show negatively that there is no same-sex marriage and positively that true and wholesome marriage is the union of man and a woman.
 
The proper, anthropological understanding of marriage is important to the nation because government arises from marriage.  Homosexuality adversely impacts civil society.  The government is created by marriage; marriage is not created by the government, as some assert.  Hence, for example, in the Roman Empire, the rulers were called "patres patrias", "fathers of the country".  They were called fathers of the country because the ruling or public offices are extensions of the home. Marriage law is merely the recognition by the state of that which already exists, namely, marriage and the households created thereby. The government does not create marriage but merely, as an extension of marriage, regularizes and coordinates the relationship between households, which households are the creation of marriage, so they can relate properly to one another in an orderly way, forming the foundation for civilized order.  Homosexuality obviously cannot form the foundation for civilized order because homosexuals are not complements and cannot, therefore, form a unit. 
 
Finally, homosexuals cannot propagate the human race because they cannot produce offspring and, therefore, cannot form a basis for civilized order.  Homosexuality, or any other deviation from marriage, e.g. adultery, fornication, prostitution, polygamy, etc., are corrosive to civilized order because they dissolve the foundational unit of government and civilized order:  marriage.
 
Because the U.S. courts can no longer be trusted to recognize and follow that which is obvious from the laws of nature, namely, the anthropological nature of marriage, it is high time for the Congress for the sake of our civlization to pass a Federal amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and, thereby, remove review of the U.S. courts this foundational institution for society.
 
Thank you.
 
       Sincerely,
       Willis C. Jenson.
 
+"The correlative of saving faith is that grace of God, that remission of sins,
which Christ earned for us some 1900 years ago by His satisfactio vicaria,
which is dispensed and deeded to us in His Word and Sacraments." 
Francis Pieper, 'Christian Dogmatics', Volume III, p. 176.+

Do you like this post?

Showing 4 reactions


commented 2013-07-03 18:56:14 -0400 · Flag
To which laws of nature do you refer? The first three laws of thermodynamics? Every action has an opposite and equal reaction? Or, perhaps, m=e/c2? What have they to do with marriage? But I suppose that you are referring to some “self-evident” principles of social behavior. Please explain where they are written so I can read them. Jefferson’s use of Franklin’s suggestion to refer to self-evident rights in the Declaration of Independence did not then and does not now make them so. His was a rhetorical flourish. It resonated among his fellow 18th Century compatriots familiar with Enlightenment philosophy, the most important aspect of which held that knowledge of the world could be ascertained through the application of reason, something, I dare say, is lacking in your post. Homosexuality exists in nature. How, then, can it violate the “laws” of nature? Your attempt at trying to make an argument against same sex couples marrying is embarrassing to the reader and you should be embarrassed not only for having written your piece but for publishing it.
commented 2013-07-01 11:01:14 -0400 · Flag
Thanks for your comments. Yes, amongst Christians every book of the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. But in civic matters we may not argue from the Bible because not everyone in our country believes the Bible. Hence, we must argue from nature and reason, informed of course by faith, which faith is created by the Bible. Nature and reason are not at odds with Scripture because they are created by the same God that wrote
the Bible. Hence, when we argue from nature and reason in civic matters, our outcomes will agree perfectly with the Bible and will also prevail in the civic debate because we have argued from nature and reason and, therefore, from principles and logic that are binding upon all men, whether they believe the Bible or not.
commented 2013-06-30 15:14:56 -0400 · Flag
We can not say that we only believe in some Bible books but not others. We believe in Isaiah but not Leviticus? Chapter 18 says it all in that book.
published this page in Forum 2013-06-27 15:16:39 -0400