Equality: Missing the Key Word

 

What The American People Need to Know

Equality, Marriage and the Supreme Court


America was watching as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the Obergefell vs. Hodges case on Tuesday. A case that could determine the fate of marriage in America. This may seem like a complicated subject on the surface, but I’ve broken it down into what I believe are the main three distinct areas of argument and attempted to give a simple answer to each.
The three areas are: equality, the definition of marriage, and the court’s role vs. the people’s.
So let’s jump into this - equality. Twitter has been abuzz with#equalityforall. But there is an inherent flaw with people’s understanding of the whole concept of equality. They are missing the key word.
All men are created equal. Given certain rights by their Creator. And government’s purpose is (supposed to be) to protect those rights (see the Declaration of Independence, well worth the read). 
So what is equality? Did the signers of the Declaration mean that we all have the exact same starting point, intelligence, pay, car, house, job, ability, respect, or station in life? Were all men born equal? Are all men on an equal playing field? I think the answer is obvious. If they did mean that, they’d be very wrong, because not everyone does. They did not mean that.
The Signing of the Declaration of Independence
The key word that most people miss is: “created”. “....all men are created equal….” This Creator, created all men equal in that we are all human. We all have the same potential for good or evil, love or hate. In that sense we are equal, the law and the government is to see us all as equal. This Creator also gave us rights. We are equal in our rights as well. All of us have the equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is what the 14th Amendment and the Declaration mean when speaking of equality.
In the arguments before the Supreme Court this week, this concept of true equality (I will call it “created equality”) is warped into an entitlement to specific privileges. How so? The answer comes as we hit on the next subject, that of the definition of marriage.
So the question becomes why cannot homosexuals have the ‘equal right’ to marry? The answer is, a “committed relationship” between two men or two women does not equal marriage. If you create something you get to define it. God created marriage. He said that it was to be one man and one woman for life. He said homosexuality is a sin.
If I put a set of fenders and an engine on a bicycle and called it an F 150, it would not make it a truck any more than two men or two women in a “committed relationship” makes it marriage and therefore worthy of equal standing with real marriage.
Putting a name on something does not make it what you call it. Let’s say someone wanted, in the name of equality, to receive the same benefits that Native Americans do. In order to do that they would have to be a Native American, so they decide to call themselves - “a Native American”. Does that make them a Native American? Does that make them eligible for the benefits? Of course not. Yet that is the exact same reasoning used by the homosexual “marriage” proponents.  
Saying a non-Native American cannot have the benefits that Native Americans receives is not denying that person ‘equality’. Why? Because he’s not Native American. It’s not denying ‘equality’ to say that homosexuals cannot marry. Why? Because two people of the same sex cannot have a marriage.
Call it a ‘union’, call it a ‘partnership’, that would be one thing. But they call it “marriage”, therefore they claim they deserve the same benefits. Equality, right? Wrong. It’s not marriage. You cannot arbitrarily redefine words.
The final issue is that of the court’s role vs. the people’s. In the Constitution, Congress is given 10 sections laying out their responsibilities, the Executive Branch has only 4, but the Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court) has only 3. This should tell us something about the Founder’s intention for the Judicial Branch, it was to be the smallest and weakest of the 3 branches.  
The Federalist Papers is arguably the best treatise on our Constitution, written by men who actually had a hand in drafting the document, so one could safely assume they knew what they were talking about.

Federalist #78, “The judiciary….may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy [effectiveness] of its judgments….. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power…..The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province [responsibility] of the courts…..the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents…..The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.”
Now, I don’t know about you but redefining the fundamental institution of marriage for the whole entire country doesn’t seem to be a ‘weak’ action. Especially since 30 states passed laws that protect marriage as one man and one woman. The intention of the people ought to be preferred to the intention of their agents.
At first, this issue may seem very complex, but when you break it down, it makes a lot more sense. Equality becomes warped when we miss the key word - created. Definitions are there for a reason and cannot be arbitrarily changed to attempt to meet the demands of false equality. The Supreme Court was designed to interpret, not to redefine fundamental institutions and overturn voter approved laws.
It is my hope and prayer that the Supreme Court will realize these things, that the American public will inform and educate themselves, that they will forget prejudice and preconceived notions, and instead take the pains necessary to bring the truth to light.


Jonathan Paine

@painefultruth76


Comments

  1. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this! A respectful dialogue is what this country needs right now. Thanks for sharing this as well, the more that know the more that can act!

    ReplyDelete
  2. So your saying that in a time period when you could own another person based soley on skin color or class the definition of equality might be different from what equality could mean today?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You raise an important question and one that perhaps I will address in a later post. Until then I would recommend checking out this link here - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=122 this article is the most complete answer on this subject and really sheds some light on it. Thanks again for raising this important question! -JP

      Delete
  3. I'm not trolling, simply asking: You do realize that if the basis of your legal argument is religious, that in America you'll lose in a court of law, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would disagree that the 'basis' is religious. In this article I'm pointing out where America started.
      James Wilson, signer of the Declaration, Continental Congress Member, driving force behind the Constitution, leading legal theorist and one of the six original justices appointed to the Supreme Court by Washington, said,
      "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."
      My purpose in this article was not to pose an argument to any court, but pose a reasoned response to this issue to the American people at large.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Articles

Nazis, ANTIFA, and the Real America

And Now, The Work Begins - A Price Worth Paying

Socialism is Bad, Very Bad: Venezuela