Friday, November 05, 2004
Divinely Inspired
I just read a letter to the editor in the Deseret News, written by one Chuck Tabaracci of Ogden, Utah, expressing his dismay over Utah's recent passage of a state constitutional amendment to define marriage:
Obviously, Chuck is referring to the LDS belief that the U.S. Constitution was inspired, backed up specifically by such scriptures as D&C 101:80, "And for this purpose have I [the Lord] established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."
Yes, there is a lot of talk about the inspiration given to the Founding Fathers (why call them the gender-neutral "Framers" for the sake of political correctness when they were all, as a point of fact, men?) in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. But Chuck quotes the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 as part of Reconstruction. The aforementioned scripture affirming the divine sanction of the Constitution and the men who created it was given 35 years earlier, in 1833.
So here's my question: Are the amendments to the U.S. Constitution (specifically those other than the Bill of Rights) equally divinely sanctioned, just like the main Constitution? At the time the Lord spoke his approval of the Constitution, it only included the first 12 amendments. It's been amended 15 times since then. Did the supporters of the 27th Amendment (providing that when Congress gives itself a raise it's not effective until an election has occurred) really receive divine guidance in drafting and advocating it? Is the Lord somehow obligated or committed to inspire legislators when they amend the Constitution? To what extent should we rely on the assumption that the later amendments are inspired?
Now, to be sure, I think Chuck's argument that the 14th Amendment invalidates the state constitutional amendments is bunk. I'm no fan of substantive due process or defining homosexuals as a suspect class. But Chuck is right that the lawsuit will be filed, and I can conceive of it even succeeding. The current prophet has spoken out in favor of marriage definition amendments, so we can assume the Lord is on that side. If the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution invalidates the state amendment the Lord approves of, then what does that say about the Lord's attitude toward the 14th Amendment?
I am amazed that even though a majority of the citizens in Utah believe the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired, they went against their beliefs and voted for Amendment 3. Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Now begins the long and costly lawsuit, which Utah will lose.
Obviously, Chuck is referring to the LDS belief that the U.S. Constitution was inspired, backed up specifically by such scriptures as D&C 101:80, "And for this purpose have I [the Lord] established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."
Yes, there is a lot of talk about the inspiration given to the Founding Fathers (why call them the gender-neutral "Framers" for the sake of political correctness when they were all, as a point of fact, men?) in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. But Chuck quotes the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 as part of Reconstruction. The aforementioned scripture affirming the divine sanction of the Constitution and the men who created it was given 35 years earlier, in 1833.
So here's my question: Are the amendments to the U.S. Constitution (specifically those other than the Bill of Rights) equally divinely sanctioned, just like the main Constitution? At the time the Lord spoke his approval of the Constitution, it only included the first 12 amendments. It's been amended 15 times since then. Did the supporters of the 27th Amendment (providing that when Congress gives itself a raise it's not effective until an election has occurred) really receive divine guidance in drafting and advocating it? Is the Lord somehow obligated or committed to inspire legislators when they amend the Constitution? To what extent should we rely on the assumption that the later amendments are inspired?
Now, to be sure, I think Chuck's argument that the 14th Amendment invalidates the state constitutional amendments is bunk. I'm no fan of substantive due process or defining homosexuals as a suspect class. But Chuck is right that the lawsuit will be filed, and I can conceive of it even succeeding. The current prophet has spoken out in favor of marriage definition amendments, so we can assume the Lord is on that side. If the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution invalidates the state amendment the Lord approves of, then what does that say about the Lord's attitude toward the 14th Amendment?
Comments:
Interesting question. A few thoughts concerning:
1.As states the 12th Article of Faith, "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." We happen to live in a country that allows us a say in how some of those laws are made. As King Mosiah in the Book of Mormon stated, "...it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law--to do your business by the voice of the people."
As far as I am concerned, the people of the state of Utah (and 10 other states as well, I believe) made their voices heard on this issue, and I believe we chose rightly.
2. It falls to the courts to decide whether or not this amendment is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. From my standpoint, I see nothing that conflicts-- we are not abridging any privileges or immunities of any single person-- we are defining what constitutes a legally recognized marriage, just as we have defined what legally constitutes a corporation or any other group of people bound by some law and extended certain rights and privileges. This amendment does not deprive any single person of life, liberty or property, nor does it deny any one person equal protection.
3. It is interesting to see that some of the same people who fight and condemn polygamy as being immoral would defend gay marriage. If you say that a marriage is a legally recognized union, regardless of gender, how can you limit the number of people with whom one can enter into this union? I support neither gay marriage, nor polygamy, and fail to see how if you legally allow gay marriage, you can prohibit polygamy.
It is too bad that we have come to the point where something so fundamental has to be defined so clearly. It would seem that this basic unit of society which has existed for thousands of years before the constitution should not need to be legislated.
Post a Comment
1.As states the 12th Article of Faith, "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." We happen to live in a country that allows us a say in how some of those laws are made. As King Mosiah in the Book of Mormon stated, "...it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law--to do your business by the voice of the people."
As far as I am concerned, the people of the state of Utah (and 10 other states as well, I believe) made their voices heard on this issue, and I believe we chose rightly.
2. It falls to the courts to decide whether or not this amendment is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. From my standpoint, I see nothing that conflicts-- we are not abridging any privileges or immunities of any single person-- we are defining what constitutes a legally recognized marriage, just as we have defined what legally constitutes a corporation or any other group of people bound by some law and extended certain rights and privileges. This amendment does not deprive any single person of life, liberty or property, nor does it deny any one person equal protection.
3. It is interesting to see that some of the same people who fight and condemn polygamy as being immoral would defend gay marriage. If you say that a marriage is a legally recognized union, regardless of gender, how can you limit the number of people with whom one can enter into this union? I support neither gay marriage, nor polygamy, and fail to see how if you legally allow gay marriage, you can prohibit polygamy.
It is too bad that we have come to the point where something so fundamental has to be defined so clearly. It would seem that this basic unit of society which has existed for thousands of years before the constitution should not need to be legislated.
