I utterly oppose homosexual people associating themselves with marriage. They may call it something else if they like. The only reason I am not pushing for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage in the actual definition (btw a man and a woman), is not because I support or condone the association of homosexual people with the concept of marriage, but because I do not want a mushroom-like Federal government, which is not in the Original Intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
The Federal government is currently like the top of a mushroom, spreading itself everywhere and doing everything (and running all the powers) at the top, and the states mere little filaments/stem supporting the giant mushroom top.
The United States of America is no longer a Union of 50 states, as intended by the Founding Generation as separation of powers, lest power be concentrated in one area and easily leading to tyranny, because the Founding Generation knew well what was in a person.
The United States of America is now one state, of 50 provinces. Big difference.
The reason the Founding Fathers wanted a Congress and a Senate made from reps of 50 states is so that the power of governing would be distributed among the State governments and the Federal government.
Now, not only the Federal government has expanded way beyond proportion and is lording over the states, with power siphoned away from the states and concentrated in one spot: DC even in DC, within the Federal government, power has been inordinately concentrated in the office of the Presidency, at the expense of the legislative and judicial branch.
At some point, perhaps after the Civil War, the Federal government started unconstitutionally expanding its power at the expense of the States.
At some point, perhaps during and after FDR, the Presidency started unconstitutionally expanding its power at the expense of the legislative and judicial. And each successive President tried to expand the power of Presidency beyond what his predecessor had.
It hasn't been helped by the fact that mainstream (much of it a sludge of retardation and twisted God-view) Christianity of the United States wants to unbiblically view the Presidency as the king of the Old Testament, a throne that only Christ can be on after 33 AD.
It also hasn't been helped that certain Christians seem to think that only visible progress count as "success" in the Kingdom of Heaven, taking the model of American enterprises and applying to the spiritual realm. So, much effort is concentrated in the visible "progress" of legislating morality top down, and less effort is done in the much less visible progress of advancing the Word of Christ in people's hearts.
Whereas the Founding Generation knew, and wrote, though I don't remember the exact quote, that the Constitution (Supreme Law of the Land) alone can't govern the people, without the moral structure and support of the Word of God and the good/moral living that happen as a result.
Should I paraphrase it, I'd say that corruption and all the troubles of society are like floodwaters and the Constitution and Word of God are like the levee holding it back and keeping safe the City. The Word of God is like the concrete/cement, and the Constitution like the steel grid/girdles/structure. By itself, only by the power of law, the Constitution can never hold back corruption. People will try to distort the letter of the Constitution far beyond the spirit (intent/meaning) of the Constitution. It must be combined with a conscientious people who govern their own actions without needing external coercion.
And that's only possible with the Word of God thriving in people's hearts.
I personally think there would be less homosexuality if there were less broken homes, failed interaction among people, domestic violence, less wickedness destroying people's lives especially at young age (falsehood, that people are born homosexual, there are no babies born homosexual, just like there are no babies born pre-destined with certain lifestyles, they choose during the formation of their lives), and most importantly, knowing the reality of Jesus Christ, so they don't see every choice as equal.
It is taken for granted that there is a choice of putting one's hand in the fire, and a choice of not to, and it's never questioned, merely because people don't see it as equal choice. Or the choice of eating good food, and the choice of eating raw sewage or dust/soil, and people don't see it as equal choice. But when the regular and God-given ways of seeking and receiving love are destroyed by wickedness in the world, then like in a massive starvation, people would turn to anything that would sustain them.
In other words, all the brokenness of society are either directly or indirectly contributing to the spreading of homosexuality. It is not very different from people going to cocaine or heroine. Except there is no excuse of chemical substance addiction, and it's a lifestyle guaranteed to lead to death and eternal separation from God, and not being able to "eat from the Tree of Life" at the center of the paradise of God.
And, I would be in total support, in principle and in person, of a Constitutional Amendment giving the definition of marriage. Because that's exactly true.
The Founding Generation never wrote that as an Amendment because they never even envisioned the need of ever doing so. The Constitution is like the "last line of holding things back". Like successive firewalls, the Constitution is like the last layer, the Word of God growing among the people should have resolved the marriage view from bottom up.
I would like to give the example of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment of the Constitution. These were passed by the Congress and ratified by the States at the end of the Civil War. Around that time, as I read in "America's Providential History", there was even unconstitutional expansion of power by the Federal government over the States. I need to re-read it, and I don't know whether it was related to these Amendments or not. Either way, around that time there started the practice of preferring to concentrate power in the Federal government, and legislate from top down.
However, even though the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments in the 1860s established structures that people were supposed to follow, (Abolishing slave, giving people equal citizenship and voting) the people in the Southern states essentially cut all kinds of corner to not fulfill the intent of these Amendments, until 100 years later in the 1960s with the agitations of Martin Luther King. By the 1960s, there was enough actual agreement in all the States with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and thus they actually came into effect.
This is the difference between legislating from top down and changing people from bottom up.
So this is why I'd support the Marriage-Amendment in principle (because of what I believe) and in person (because of who I am), but I rather it be done by the States. Lest doing it through the Federal government encourages the current, erroneous, thought that Federal government is "king" over the States, and Presidency is "king" over the Congress and Supreme Court.
The dual separation of power between Federal and State,
the triple separation of power between Executive, Legislative and Judiciary,
these are two sets of different situations, but unconstitutional centralization in one of these two sets also encourage the unconstitutional centralization in the other set, because it adds unto the overall erroneous (and perhaps mostly unthought, but reflected in political momentum and trend) centralization, if not done for the sake of expanding power, then done for the expediency of getting some policy passed, whatever it takes.
---------------
In summary, I don't like the idea of passing a policy that I agree with
-when the top-down effectiveness of doing-so is not that much on people's life-view/world-view without bottom up spreading of the Word of God so that people govern themselves. So that's in practice not going by the Constitution of people governing themselves.
-and when doing-so would accelerate the attitude of dismissing the separation of powers, (which are "firewalls" the Founding Generation put in place so tyranny wouldn't happen), and doing-so would feed the unconstitutional tendency/habit/trend of concentrating power in Washington D.C.
So that's in structure, not going by the Constitution of people governing themselves.
In other words, the habit of doing everything from D.C., practically and structurally deprives people of their right and responsibility of self-governance, and like a drug habit that wastes away people's health or Ebola virus that wastes away people's physical body, it encourages the trend of people participating as little as possible, taking as little responsibility as possible, ceding away more and more of their rights and responsibilities, which the Founding Generation set in place to have separation of powers, while a few people decide everything from top down, and people "participate" in the running of their lives one day every four years. But the Founding Generation did not want concentration of power in the hands of a few, that's why the United States was established in the first place.
Washington refused to be king of the United States in the late 1700s, even though the army officers (e.g. those who had the most power at that time) really wanted it. Because he didn't want to centralize power, like all the other countries in the world. I am rather sure Washington would be terribly unpleased to see that some 300 years after he refused to be king, 90% of the power in the country is concentrated in Washington D.C. (should only be half, the other half distributed among the States), and the Presidency is seen as some kind of de-facto king. (each President expanded upon the previous one)
I could have just started writing after the "-----", but all the previous explanations and elaborations were needed to clarify what I was trying to say.
Speaking with people has been made exceedingly difficult because of the devilry of thought-reading, but that equally apply to anyone. And by the abundance of the grace of God I can withstand anything in this life.
So, I speak with homosexuals as I'd speak with heterosexuals. I get along much better with female homosexuals because they wouldn't hit on me. Any male homosexual thinking that I am like them is an automatic insult. Now, when I talk with people I just talk with people as human beings, I don't start doing some kind of political campaign or yell at their lifestyle (even if I disapprove) like they would imagine what a "conservative" Christian would do to them in the stereotypes. Even if I talk about Jesus, it'd be very different way from what they'd expect (they probably think it'd be like how Republicans speak with Democrats). I can speak with people whose political or any viewpoint is completely different from mine, and I like to listen to different people talk how they see life and what they learned. Without the camera and all the stalking, people usually don't know that my points differ from them, because I mostly see it much more valuable that I learn how people see things. Just because I speak with anyone doesn't mean I am part of their category/clique or think their category/clique is better than others. People keep assuming that, just because most people only disdain to speak with people of their own clique or category. It's rather horrible.
0 comments:
Post a Comment