Your Opinion: Respect morality, natural law
Saturday, March 30, 2013
So, Sen. Claire McCaskill says government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. Seriously? That would mean that a 42-year old father could marry a 20-year-old daughter if they simply love each other. The state should not limit that scenario any more than it should limit a 21-year-old brother from marrying his 20-year-old brother if the two simply love another.
Now I suspect Sen. McCaskill would say we have government laws that would limit such unnatural acts. But her norm for ethics is no longer natural law, nature’s God and the Judeo-Christian ethos. Her norm is some subjective, undefined feeling of passion that history patently, without exception, declares is precipitous to civilizations. Twenty-two great civilizations have tried and 22 great civilizations have died attempting McCaskill’s social experiment.
Noticeable in Sen. McCaskill’s defense of redefining marriage out of existence was the absence of the principal principle for freedom — morality. She spoke of equality and liberty but not morality. Equality minus morality leads to anarchy. Liberty minus morality leads to license. The architects of the French Revolution sadly learned this the hard way. Have we moderns learned nothing from history?
There are far better ways to handle this volatile issue than blowing up the foundation of freedom. Unfortunately, Sen. McCaskill does not either comprehend or believe in natural law, the Judeo-Christian ethos and how the Framers considered the nuclear family to be a self-evident truth. Perhaps Hegel was correct.
The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting