I’m sure we all recognize those three words from the Ten Commandments in which eight of the ten begin with those words, “Thou shalt not…” My intention with this piece is not to “preach at” anyone, but to make a connection. I hope you’ll bear with me as I try to accomplish that.
Someone needs to explain to me what we are closer to today, rule under King George III or the Constitution and laws as designed?
I really like the way you arrived at this question. God gave man the right of liberty and self restraint. Kings gave themselves the right to restrain man.
I believe that the government that we have today is not the government that the founders intended. It’s more like a faceless and nameless king that our elected representatives can’t or won’t restrain, diminish, or control.
I am under no illusion that anything will change anytime soon. In fact we have so many generations conditioned for government to care of them, they are incapable of doing so for themselves.
So much of this was engineered. Where have all the vocational trade programs gone and why is learning a trade stigmatized? Why is college so much more expensive comparatively to the prices from 10, 15, 20, or 30 years ago? Why do so many young people feel scared to strike it out on their own and start a small business?
I think that all of the problems we see today are from decades of planned attacks and government involvement in personal affairs that have eroded Christianity, marriage, the family, traditional gender roles, work ethic, entrepreneurship, education, integrity, and even personal finance.
None of the problems we are facing today occurred by happenstance.
I believe the “requirement” of a college degree for success was sold by a coop between business and education
What I find interesting is that many who consider themselves conservative and constitutional want the federal government to control things like marijuana, but not guns. Progressives want the freedom to have access to marijuana and restrict access to guns.
This of course has been the bane of our Republic for many years… Progressives understand the conflict and say so what… ‘conservatives’ don’t see the hypocrisy and still don’t understand, regardless of their individual moral view, just why the government can anoint one pair of citizens with ‘marriage’ and is somehow powerless prohibit another…
I always believed the answer to the marriage thing for instance in KY would have been for the state to get rid of marriage licenses all together. Have a contract for those who want a state sanctioned thing and let churches do marriages as it always was til the mid 19th century
Of course the government ‘laws of things’ always has its roots in control and it is no less true with the marriage license. Rooted in anti-miscegenation laws inherited from the English. Those laws, which held that people must marry within their own race, were upheld by the courts many times even after the passage of the 14th amendment. Plessy v Ferguson reinforced it as a concept but as usual the many government expanding efforts that started in the progressive expansion of the 1920’s saw the inclusion of the first state issued marriage license. To be fair some states never had enacted any anti-miscegenation laws and the south were by a long shot the latest to strike them from their books. The marriage license of course was a control feature of a different sort. It prevented interracial marriage even in the absence of the older laws but it also worked as a state gatekeeper of wealth… the state got to decide who would be the legal heirs of an estate and who wouldn’t… common law did not trump the state marriage license. I am not so sure that gays buying into the marriage license project as it exists was particularly good for them or the country.
As you say a simple easily promulgated contract of union could be initiated and filed with the state and enforceable in federal court… and churches could perhaps get back to marrying people based on the sacraments… although I suspect the collection plates being filled by good time petitioners is far more important than being the stalwart defender of the faith…