Having it Your Way: A Different Type of Value Meal

Every now and then, I come across a classic statement that epitomizes the depth of the moral divide that exists between values-based conservatives and the self-appointed intellectual elite: progressives, socialists, and secular humanists, among others. In a recent poll, Gov. Mike Huckabee (http://www.huckpac.com/) asked visitors to identify the top grassroots issue they would be willing to fight for: Protecting Marriage in States, Fair Tax, Border Security, Controlling Spending, or Energy Reform. The following is one of the blog responses posted:

“I feel like this is an episode of ‘Which of these things does not belong?’ Of the five issues listed, Protecting Marriage in States does not belong. If two men or women wish to marry to show their dedication to one another, I say let them. It's no skin off my nose. All the rest of the issues effect [sic] us on an everyday basis.

This is the main reason I will not join the Republican or the Democratic parties. Too much time and effort is wasted on trying to legislate morality while the economy goes to hell in a hand basket.

Let's get our noses out of other peoples bedrooms and back to the grindstone. We need to fix this fiscal mess and fast.” Jonathan Reid on the Huckpac.com Website, 6/09/2008

Mr. Reid's response wrongly asserts that no connection exists between morality (in this case the institution of marriage) and economic prosperity.

While I do believe that homosexuality is a sin against God (Lev 18:22, among others) and therefore is morally wrong, that is not the only basis for opposing it. First, homosexuality does not produce children. Without children (approximately 2.1 per adult couple) or accretion in population from other sources, a society will die out. As the society declines in population, its economy will decline.

Second, our elected representatives legislate morality every day. Legislating, at its core, is explicitly about creating laws that define the moral accountability and relationship between the government and the governed. In fact, it is the defined moral relationship in our law that creates our economic institution and not vice versa. The concepts of individual and corporate property ownership, fairness, truth in lending, contract law, adjudication of conflicts, etc., are all moral concepts. The real question is what is the basis of the government’s moral authority to legislate? The last time I checked, in America the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States provide this moral authority. Both of these documents have as their basis Judeo – Christian principles as expressed through a biblical worldview. In this worldview, marriage is explicitly created and is defined, by God, to protect the family and populate the world. A secondary benefit of marriage then is the creation and protection of the economic engine that Mr. Reid is worried about.

So, if Mr. Reid were worried about the long-term viability of our society, in both a moral and economic sense, and about understanding how we as a society have arrived at this point in time, he would be concerned about marriage as well as many other moral issues. But, alas, most humanists are not; they are worried only about themselves. Unfortunately, truth is absolute not relative and ignoring it has real consequences. I guess Mr. Reid will have to choose between the moral principles that made this country great or the value system instituted by other nations and their children when they populate this country. Hopefully, they will produce satisfactory economic results.