Why Obama Refuses to Defend Marriage: Marxist Theology v. Natural Law

[Sandra]

Is Obama Our Secular Samson -- Pulling Down America as He Destroys Himself

Why Obama Refuses to Defend Marriage: Marxist Theology v. Natural Law

 By Kelly O'Connell  Sunday, February 27, 2011



Obama just announced he will not defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, designed to block gay marriage legalization. Barack stated the reason­because it is “unconstitutional.” But is it any coincidence Marxist doctrine teaches marriage is a subset of the state; whereas our Founder’s Natural Law only countenances heterosexual unions?

By stating he will not honor legally passed statutes, Obama openly rejects the rule of law. He has pushed the presidency from a defender of our laws into being its destroyer. The reason is that, despite any disagreement Barack has with particular pieces of legislation, he swore an oath to defend the whole Constitution. If he were to challenge this law in a law-abiding manner, this would at least respect our institutions. But to simply declare a particular law “illegal,” is certain to sow future chaos and an antinomian spirit into our Republic.

Consider the Oath of Office for US President:

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Further, most Americans should draw the conclusion Barack is putting the entire USA at risk for openly defying and contradicting nature. Most pointedly, Obama has now exposed himself as a lawless rogue, in defiance of God, country and citizen, and therefore he must be immediately impeached.

I. Obama’s Refusal to Defend DOMA

On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement from Obama and Holder on behalf of the US Department of Justice stating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. It stated, in part:

After careful consideration, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination…that DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples…is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

The upshot of the announcement is that Obama has made a unilateral decision putting US law of marriage on a course to include homosexual relations.

II. DOMA History

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law by Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The purpose to keep states that allow gay marriage from forcing these marriages on other states, under the Full Faith & Credit clause of the US Constitution. Thirty-seven states have their own Defense of Marriage Acts, while 30 states have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, including the three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) that passed constitutional amendments in November 2008.

The Bill itself is very short. It gives the title, then explains how the law applies to the States:

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

The Bill then goes on to define “marriage”:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

III. Marx Versus Natural Law

A. Socialist “Morality”­An Unavoidable Contradiction

Since the official position of Marxism is that religion is a hoax, the Ten Commandments are rejected. Further, since no humanistic replacement for these absolutes has ever been established, there is no such thing as a universal right or wrong in Marxism. Instead, there is merely subjective moral posturing that cannot be proved right or wrong. For instance, Steven Lukes in Marxism & Morality recounts, “The moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter.”

This lack of an ethical center in leftism creates an interesting dilemma. While no activity more defines Marxism than making sweeping denunciations against foes, no action can ever be proved truly good or bad. Yet, this has not stopped hundreds of millions of people from killing, or being killed, in the support of Marxism.

B. Marx & Marriage

Given the lack of any genuine moral center, the position of socialism on such issues as marriage has one overriding concern. That is “pragmatism,” meaning the outcome of actions are justified by the results. So, leftism will take any position upon “marriage” as to further the goals of Marxism. In fact, the book Their Morals & Ours, Marxist Versus Liberal Views On Morality admits this point, stating “Dewey agreed with Trotsky that the end justifies the means.” Recall Thomas Dewey is Obama’s role model for his pragmatism.

Specifically, Marx and other socialist writers were huge critics of the traditional family, detecting a bulwark against progress. Because families tend to be entities preserving traditional practice, socialists wanted the family unit smashed so the state could adopt the role of arranging procreation and the raising of children into the tenets of leftism. In fact, one can argue the general purpose of public education is to instill in children the precepts of Political Correctness, etc.

Therefore, true leftists favor of allowing gay marriage, group marriage, or procreation outside marital bond, given that marriage has been an institution resistant to Marxism.

Says Richard Weikart, in an essay called Marx, Engels and the Abolition of the Family,

‘It is a peculiar fact’ stated Engels a few months after Marx died, ‘that with every great revolutionary movement the question of ‘free love’ comes to the foreground’.’ By the mid- to late-nineteenth century it was clear to advocates and opponents alike that many socialists shared a propensity to reject the institution of the family in favour of ‘free love’, if not in practice, at least as an ideal.

Further, once the family unit has been broken down, and reformatted like so much beef into baloney, there will be no intact carrier of traditional views, outside the church. And once society chooses to accept gay marriage, the church then becomes corrupt, also spouting party doctrines from emasculated pulpits. Writes Leon Skousen, in The Naked Communist,

Strong family solidarity is part of our religious strength and part of our national strength, but it is despised by the materialist. Marx and Engels wrote in their Manifesto that they stood for the abolition of the family.’ Immediately after the revolution, Lenin attempted to wipe out the family pattern of life…

C. Natural Law’s Morality

What is “Natural Law” and how can it help us understand marriage and other moral topics? Natural Law is the name for a set of ideas which first occurred to mankind in the recesses of history, to such groups as the Greek Stoics and ancient Hebrews. A Natural Law definition encompasses at least three complimentary ideas. First, the notion of a natural order or laws observed in nature. A second aspect is revelation, specifically being that of the Old and New Testament. A Third part is classical philosophy, and a Fourth is application of common sense or logic in applying these elements.

Chief model for the US Constitution, John Locke, generally explains the Natural Law:

The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it which obliges everyone:... that being all equal and independent no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions (Locke, 270-71).

Natural Law is deemed “higher law,” as described by Lord Edward Coke in Calvin’s Case, being a law above human laws, allowing criticism based upon unimpeachable precepts. Coke was a colossus of the Common Law, one of the greatest jurists England ever produced. It was Coke’s writings whom the great Blackstone’s Commentaries were modeled upon, being the most influential legal work used by the Founders and Framers.

Coke states in Calvin’s Case,

For the laws: 1. That ligeance or obedience of the subject to the Sovereign is due by the law of nature: 2. That this law of nature is part of the laws of England: 3. That the law of nature was before any judicial or municipal law in the world:, 4. That the law of nature is immutable, and cannot be changed

The overall idea in Natural Law is a revealed order, or law exists, set over the universe, which can be deduced through diligent study and reflection. The greatest name in the history of Natural Law is Thomas Aquinas, but many writers have added to this rich set of ideas. The Founders of America were keen students of the Natural Law, seeing everywhere its signs and effects. In fact, the Constitution and Declaration were statements of its precepts, express in the typical language of the Enlightenment’s Laws of Nature & Nature’s God, which was just another formulation of the Natural Law.

Coke continues on in this vein in Calvin’s Case:

The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex ¶terna, the moral law, called also the law of nature. And by this law, written God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time gone law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter or writer of The Apostle in the second chapter to the Romans… And this is within the moral law, honora patrem, which doubtless doth extend to him and be the words of the Great Divine…and Aristotle, nature’s secretary…

Concluding this theme, Coke writes:

This law indeed is the eternal law of the Creator, infused into the heart of the time of his creation, was two thousand years before any laws written judicial or municipal laws. And certain it is, that before judicial were made, Kings did decide causes according to natural equity…

Before rejecting Lord Coke’s theories as a historical legal anachronism, let’s remember he wrote some of the most important decisions in Anglo-American legal history, and also helped pen the British Bill of Rights, the precursor to the American Bill of Rights.

D. Natural Law Analyzing Marriage

Natural Law defines “marriage” as the union of a single man and woman, in a monogamous union. But how do we know this? Because the Natural Law is built from biblical revelation which says heterosexual unions are the only marriage model. Also, gay marriage was not accepted in the ancient world, either. But even if we did not know this, gay marriage is not acceptable because it does not naturally produce offspring. Barring outside intervention, natural fruit of the womb never occurs. So, a central purposes of marriage­procreation­can never be naturally fulfilled in a gay marriage.

IV. Obama Attacking the Constitution Destroys American Rule of Law

Obama Rejecting DOMA

Barack’s rejection of the historic definition of marriage is an attack on our law and way of life from two perspectives. First, as a Constitutional Republic, we are committed to the rule of law over leadership by fiat. Consider, to disregard any particular statute, regardless of how well-meaning, is to subvert the Constitution at the deepest level, because Barack’s reasoning itself more illegal at a fundamental level than any attenuated law he attacks. Further, our Common Law/ Natural Law heritage simply does not support the creation of new fundamental law out of thin air. The Natural Law already defined “marriage” thousands of years ago, and any individual man is helpless to change this, via a court­just as ancient King Cnut could not hold back the waves simply by command.

Conclusion

Natural Law does not allow for the possibility of an innovation like “gay marriage” because this idea cannot exist in fact. Our current separation between facts, morality and legal theory means our society inches closer daily to full-fledged chaos. While this would be ideal for Marxists who want anarchy to achieve their goals, for the rest of us it could represent a recreation of the French Revolution.

Writes Weikart,

While Marx once alluded to a higher form of the family in communist society, he and Engels usually wrote about the destruction, dissolution, and abolition of the family. The relationships they envisaged for communist society would have little or no resemblance to the family as it existed in nineteenth-century Europe or indeed anywhere else. Thus it is certainly appropriate to define their position as the abolition of the family.

The US is famed for its separation of powers, long-protecting the States from would-be emperors. Now Obama, in deciding to be a one-man Supreme Court has raised the specter of tyranny and put all Americans on notice he will use any power to further his wild, leftist dreams. Since most Americans self-identify as Christian, dismissing God’s law as “bigoted” cannot sit well with the majority. Moreover, fears are growing God must punish his willfully disobedient followers for rank apostasy. Therefore, Obama must be impeached before total tyranny or anarchy dissolves America into murderous chaos, or historical irrelevancy.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33832