Copyright © 2013 by Wayne Stegall
The Constitution is written in King James language. As such, it should only be interpreted by the definitions of its vocabulary at the time of its writing, not by how those same words are known today. Have you ever thought it might be endangered by altering the meaning of its words? I heard a preacher cite a KJV scripture containing the word quick in its former meaning of living to advance the idea that the works of God were always swift. Is it possible that the Constitution or the law could be subverted this way? Certainly; our society has been changed by insidious word play and some activists are not above changing the Constitution by a slow process to redefine all constitutional words in their favor. Consider the politically correct movement1 and attempts by feminists to eliminate words that distinguish unique feminine virtues,2 among others. Even the legal phrase reasonable doubt has a different meaning and intent now than it did when coined during the founding days of America.3 In the context of a legal system that makes very precise use of words for exact clarity, an attempt to advance legal and political issues by this kind of redefinition of words seems to be so much tampering with process rather than using it properly.
Now homosexuals want to alter the law by changing the definition of marriage as has been known for thousands of years. However, Noah Webster of dictionary fame would have never defined the institution of marriage other than that of a husband and wife. The Defense of Marriage Act does not really attempt to deprive homosexuals as much as to prevent the confusion that results from redefining legally and morally important words. Furthermore, the word marriage is a word conveying moral acceptability as distinguished from words describing immorality instead. In this light, homosexuals should pursue their rights under a different label.
What homosexuals actually want in pressing gay marriage is for the government to grant moral approval to their lifestyle by granting it an ancient word of respectability. As much as the citing of the label Establishment Clause is used improperly to bash Christianity, it actually prohibits the government from granting them this moral approval. To do so would establish as a state religion the apparent Western humanist religion of Liberal Universalism that sides with this immorality. This seems in violation of the actual text of the Establishment Clause, one meant to prevent government interference in religion rather than Christian participation in public life:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Aside from this misuse, It seems a ruse that those who use this clause deceitfully only cite its label rather than its text. Indeed the text does not support their modern interpretation. What will be next? Will they label the Second Amendment as the Gun Control Clause to hide its real meaning?
Save the Constitution and the American way of life!
DefinitionsLiberal Universalism is the most commonly believed religious fallacy today. Its proponents believe that all religions and spiritual paths lead to salvation and that everyone will go to heaven, sometimes limiting this expectation to those who are good. It is the declared doctrine of Freemasonry, the "common sense" belief of religious freethinkers, and the view of Eastern religion, including New Age, toward religion in general. Liberal Christians often advance this doctrine as well. I have heard it from Catholics and Protestants alike. Although this belief is Biblically incorrect, here the concept of legal importance is that it is a religion and one often advanced in politics in the guise of human reason.
2See article: Critical Thinking Required.
3See article: Unreasonable Doubt.
March 27, 2013 Created.
March 28, 2013 Added a new sentence to add more logical support to premise then a definition of Liberal Universalism at the end.