The Establishment Clause and Homosexuality

Some have asserted that laws defining marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman violate the establisment clause of the Constitution; more specifically, the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Recent (late twentieth century) judicial opinions have skewed the meaning of the word "religion" to refer to any mention or acknowledgment of God, as if the Founders really wanted to exclude God from government. The buzz-phrase often used to characterize this interpretation is the oft-repeated mantra "Separation of Church and State," which is ripped without context from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. They had expressed concerns that the Federal Government would use the first amendment to persecute churches. He replied, intending to fully assure them that the Federal Government is prevented from doing so because the Consititution has erected a "wall of separation" between church and state. Since then his words have been taken wildly out of context, being used to promulgate the very opposite of what he meant. His letter actually affirms that the Federal Government cannot set up a National Church, nor can it oppress any of the sectarian churches. Taken out of context, and endlessly repeated, that phrase has been mis-used to ram all kinds of anti-religious bias down the throats of the American people. It has been used to ban God from public life, and now such attitudes are creeping into even the private domain. Are you familiar with "Christmas wars," or "creche wars" every Christmas Season? (There! I said it!)

If we want to be correct in our interpretation of the Constitution, we ought to let those who debated and voted for the Bill of Rights inform us of what they meant when they used the word "religion." The true meaning of the term comes out of that time, not today's.

Today's revisionist interpretation would banish God and all mention of Him from public life because the mention of "God" implies "religion" to some people today. Then it is but a short step to infer that the Founders meant to ban God.

But that is not at all what the founders meant by "religion" in the first Amendment. They were referring to a national established sectarian church, like England had. State church establishments were clearly OK with them, for even after the ratification of the Constitution, a number of state sectarian churches persisted for many years. Nobody questioned that or tried to overturn it as "unconstitutional" or as a violation of the "establishment clause." The reason? Because no one tried to set up a national church based on one of the Christian Sects. If you want to understand the word “religion” as they meant is, insert the word “Christian Sect” in place of it and you get the idea.

Today's interpretation is radically revisionist. It turns the establishment clause upside down and uses it as a bludgeon against present-day believers who are of the same mind and mold of those who founded this country. It tries, in effect, to banish us and our religious convictions into outer darkness, or to be confined within our heads but nowhere else.

People like us founded this country, and we will not let anyone playing a "shell game" with rhetoric or revisionism deprive us of a government set up to secure our religious liberty.

This country was founded by and for Christians who were fleeing religious oppression in England, and later Europe. Now, the oppressors are with us again, but this time they grew up in our midst, and are attempting to carry out the same oppression the earliest settlers came here to escape. The difference is that the latter-day oppressors are Humanist, not Deist. The result is the same.

The Founders made it clear in their writings that this government was not set up - or adequate - for an immoral and licentious people. Therefore, by any fair historical measure, Homosexuality and "gay" marriage are not included in the Bill of Rights.

Having said that, we recognize that such sins have been with us from very early in human history. Gen 9:24 may be the first record of a homosexual event in the scripture. Even then, the act brought about a huge judgment. One can only wonder what massive judgment awaits this country if we so flagrantly flout God's laws as come vocal minorities are attempting to do now.

None of us propose to jail or persecute such sins, since they are personal and usually private. We deplore them, but generally will leave it up to an individual’s choice. But we won’t countenance the attempt to change the rules so that what is immoral gets enthroned as "moral", and what we recognize to be moral to be made immoral or irrelevant. We will fight to the death to prevent a complete inversion of the moral landscape in our culture.