-- Tom Hoefling
"Wars are more often than not fought at crossroads. Check out Gettysburg sometime. Or Bastogne. The battle for America's survival in liberty is no different. Today it is being fought at the crossroads we call marriage. You see, marriage lies at the intersection between what is eternal, and right, and inherently good, and most of the critically-important temporal blessings. It is the type, or picture, of the Lord's eternal relationship with His body, the church. But it is also the earthly guarantee of the domestic tranquility, the economic productivity and prosperity, the security, and the future physical EXISTENCE of civilizations, societies, governments and peoples. So, please give no place to the enemy. And don't surrender the crossroads. We have the laws of nature and nature's God on our side. That's an absolute guarantee of ultimate victory right there, if we don't compromise and if we don't quit."
-- Tom Hoefling
by Tom Hoefling
“Hi Joe, I'm Mo. And I'm pro-Joe.”
“Joe, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your mama's gonna kill you.”
“Oh...uhh...well, she said she was going to kill me lots of times when I was bad as a kid, but...”
“No, I mean, she actually wants to kill you. Says you're messing up her life-style.”
“And the Supreme Court says it's okay for her to do it, too.”
“Yeah. They say she can kill you any time she wants. It's her choice, since you're not really a person and you're a part of her and all.”
“Well, that doesn't sound right.”
“Yeah, I hear you. But, don't you worry Joe. Because I'm pro-Joe. And so are the Republican politicians I'm helping to get elected. We've got majorities almost everywhere now.”
“Well, that sounds good. What a relief.”
“Yeah, aren't we awesome? Why, just last session we passed a law that gives your mama legal permission to kill you, but only if she does it before the end of the year. And another one that requires her to use only approved hit men.”
“Wait. You passed laws that give her legal permission to have a hit man kill me if she wants, as long as she does it on schedule?”
“Yeah, we're pro-Joe.”
“Yeah, really. Why, this session we passed a law that requires the hit man to operate only from an approved Planned Parenthood mega-killing center, with admitting privileges at a hospital. And another one that makes your mama look at your high school graduation picture before she has you offed.”
“Wow. That doesn't sound so good from where I'm standing. So, what do the courts say about that?”
“Well, they struck those laws down. Said it placed an undue burden on your mama's access to the ability to kill you. And you know, we have to obey the judges, no matter what, right? But don't you worry about it, Joe. We sent out some more fund-raising letters telling people about our great pro-Joe successes, and they sent us millions of dollars again to help elect more pro-Joe Republicans. And we're working on some other great pro-Joe legislation too.”
“Oh, really? Uhuh...hmm...I'm almost afraid to ask, but what kind of legislation?”
“Well, we found some scientists who say that if the hit man gives you a double dose of morphine, you won't feel a thing when you're killed. So, we passed a law that says they have to give you the morphine. We call it the 'Pain Capable Born Child Protection Act.'”
“Oh my. Uhmm...but, I'll still be dead, right?”
"Well, yeah, but, we have to save some, you know. And hey, you won't feel a thing!”
“Uhmm...Mo, let me ask you something: Didn't God say 'you shall not murder?' Didn't the Declaration of Independence say, 'all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,' starting with the right to life? Doesn't the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of our land, require equal protection for the right to life of every person, in every state? Doesn't my state constitution require pretty much the same thing? And don't all the people we elect swear an oath to God to support and defend those constitutions?”
“Oh, I get it now, Joe. You're one of those All-or-Nothing Purists. Hey, do me a favor and stay away from me from now on, okay? We'll never beat the Democrats as long as you're around. Anyway, I gotta go,. I'm on my way to a National Rights of Joe meeting. We're planning a big prayer meeting and fundraiser with all the Republican presidential candidates. They all want our endorsement again and I have to get ready for the photo-op. And besides, I see your mama coming and I don't want to make her feel bad about her choice...”
In Federalist 44, James Madison, the father of the US Constitution, gives us the formula for solving most of our current political problems, which in the end amounts to "make the other branches provide the necessary checks and balances," and, if they won't do that, "throw all the bums out." And what he said in this case applies in just the same way to the judiciary as it does to the Congress:
"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them...the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.'"
-- James Madison, Federalist #44
"If our rights don't come from God, all that leaves is the arbitrary whims of men. Good luck with that."
-- Tom Hoefling
The crowning stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution is "To secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity."
Running up debts that our own generation cannot possibly repay does violence to that supreme purpose.
In other words, it's fundamentally unconstitutional, as unconstitutional as something can possibly be.
We are robbing our posterity of their God-given, unalienable right to government by consent.
We're making slaves out of our own grandchidren.
A shameful inheritance to leave behind, especially when you consider the extreme price our forebears paid to leave us a heritage of liberty.
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword and the other is by debt."
-- John Adams, 1826
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, 1816
"[With the decline of society] begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816
"To preserve independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Kercheval, 1816
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error. It is better to speak the truth that hurts and heals, than falsehood that comforts and then kills. Let me tell you something, friend, it is not love and it is not friendship if we fail to declare the whole counsel of God. It is better to be hated for telling the truth, than to be loved for telling a lie. It is impossible to find anyone in the Bible who was a power for God who did not have enemies and was not hated. It's better to stand alone with the truth, than to be wrong with a multitude. It is better to ultimately succeed with the truth than to temporarily succeed with a lie."
-- Adrian Rogers
"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825.
"The only Person with any legitimate "choice" in matters of protecting innocent life and defining marriage is God. And He made those choices at the beginning of His creation. The only real question left for us is whether or not we will dutifully conform our laws and practices to His choice, so as to be blessed, or to be a curse to our posterity."
-- Tom Hoefling
"Marriage wasn't created "in tradition and the law." It was created by God, at the very beginning. In just the same way "up" and "down" were created by God. It is what it is. Tradition and law are forced to deal with these realities, and to be just and non-destructive they have to conform to them, but they didn't create them. This is not a nitpick. It's very important. The camel's nose in the tent is the idea that men, or governments, have any kind of legitimate choice in matters of natural law."
-- Tom Hoefling
"When it comes to the right to life, and marriage, God has already decided. "You shall not murder." "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." So neither individuals, nor states, nor our national government, have any legitimate right to decide otherwise. All they have is DUTY. The absolute imperative DUTY to agree with nature, and nature's God, and through the laws, and the enforcement of those laws, to protect and preserve one man one woman marriage, and to provide EQUAL PROTECTION for the right to life of every single innocent human person. You may have the POWER to distort what God intended, but all you're doing when you exercise that illegitimate power is codifying injustice, and destroying your own form of republican self-government, and obliterating the very basis for the American claim to liberty."
-- Tom Hoefling
"The time has come for honest men to take consistent ground in politics, or the Lord will curse them. . . . God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in a country such as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. God will bless or curse this country according to the course Christians take in politics."
-- Charles G. Finney, 1835, Revivals of Religion.
"Those who rebel against legitimate authority, in other words authority instituted and authorized by God for our own good, for our own protection, and the good and protection of others, shall not prosper. Conversely, neither will those who refuse to rise up against illegitimate power, against evil. Either way you're a slave, to your own selfish passions, or to a wicked outside force. Instead, let us once again be what our wise forebears were, the moral, self-governing, sovereign, free people of the United States, under Almighty God."
-- Tom Hoefling
A decade prior to the Civil War there were two major political parties in the United States:
Democrats, who favored freedom of choice to own slaves; and Whigs, who tried to be a big tent party to stem the loss of members to the Know-Nothing Party.
In Ripon, Wisconsin, anti-slavery activists met for the first time on February 28, 1854, then held their first State Convention in Jackson, Michigan, JULY 6, 1854.
This new political party took a stand on social issues regarding the value of human life, being against slavery.
Also, in response to a movement in Utah to redefine marriage, this new party stood for marriage being between one man and one woman.
They named their party "Republican."
The chief plank of the Republican Party was "to prohibit...those twin relics of barbarism: POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY."
Those attempting to redefine marriage were denounced by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, December 4, 1871:
"In Utah there still remains a remnant of barbarism, repugnant to civilization, to decency, and to the laws of the United States...
Neither polygamy nor any other violation of existing statutes will be permitted...
They will not be permitted to violate the laws under the cloak of religion."
On December 7, 1875, President Grant stated:
"In nearly every annual message...I have called attention to the...scandalous condition of affairs existing in the Territory of Utah, and have asked for definite legislation to correct it.
That polygamy should exist in a free, enlightened, and Christian country, without the power to punish so flagrant a crime against decency and morality, seems preposterous...
As an institution polygamy should be banished from the land...
I deem of vital importance to....drive out licensed immorality, such as polygamy and the importation of women for illegitimate purposes."
Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes stated, December 1, 1879:
"Polygamy is condemned as a crime by the laws of all civilized communities throughout the world."
President Hayes stated December 6, 1880:
"The SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE and the FAMILY relation are the cornerstone of our American society and civilization."
Republican President Chester Arthur stated, December 6, 1881:
"For many years the Executive...has urged the necessity of stringent legislation for the suppression of polygamy...this odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom."
Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite, appointed by Republican Ulysses S. Grant, rendered the Murphy v. Ramsey, 1885, decision:
"Every person who has a husband or wife living...and marries another...is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished...
No legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth...than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of THE FAMILY,
as consisting in and springing from the union for life of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization;
the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
The stand against polygamy is in the comprehensive annotated John Quincy Adams-A Bibliography, compiled by Lynn H. Parsons (Westport, CT, 1993, p. 41, entry #194, Essay on Turks, 1827):
"Mohammed poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy."
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, appointed by Republican President Abraham Lincoln, rendered the Davis v. Beason, 1890, decision:
"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries...
They...destroy the purity of the MARRIAGE relation...degrade woman and debase man...
There have been sects which denied...there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its members...
Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow."
Justice Stephen Field concluded:
"The constitutions of several States, in providing for religious freedom, have declared expressly that such freedom SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXCUSE ACTS OF LICENTIOUSNESS."
Republican President Theodore Roosevelt stated to Congress, January 30, 1905:
"The institution of MARRIAGE is, of course, at the very foundation of our social organization, and all influences that affect that institution are of vital concern to the people of the whole country."
The “lesser of two evils” philosophy is by definition godless Utilitarianism.
That philosophy excludes faith, the belief that if we will simply align ourselves with right, and do right, God will, in His good time, step in on our behalf.
It destroys the foundations of American independence, liberty, and self-government.
George Washington, and the rest of the founders, made constant reference to divine Providence, crediting that Providential Power as the Source for all their successes.
Unless we are willing to return to their attitude, and emulate their moral, courageous actions, there truly is no hope for the republic they fought so hard to establish.
“If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.”
- George Washington
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
— Closing lines of the Declaration of Independence
As part of an ongoing discussion we have been having with certain influential national conservative Christian leaders concerning the dangerous, destructive fallacy of judicial supremacy, my wife Siena penned the response below. It is so good, and so important, that I asked her permission to republish it to a wider audience. I hope and pray that every reader will give serious thought to what she is saying. -- Tom H.
As we take the time to sort out the implications of the ongoing state-by-state attack on marriage, with the courts the primary culprits, I believe that most of us are still in the learning phase when it comes to the powers of the executive and legislative branches to check the judiciary.
Given the importance of the matter, anything and everything should be constitutionally explored to preserve our good inheritance for future generations.
Our federalist system was designed to preserve that inheritance as long as possible. When a state takes a blow in a manner destructive of its constitutional institutions, the federal government is most especially obliged to act.
We cannot lose sight of Article IV in the U.S. Constitution. Section 4 requires that the states (and the people) retain the ability to make laws to govern themselves. We read:
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government[.]"
This means, for instance, that an oligarchy of any sort is prohibited in the states. None but a state-by-state republic is permitted or guaranteed. And we know the word "guarantee" is a legal term, that carries with it the expectation of power and obligation to enforce the promise made.
The federal government is the body charged in Article IV with direct obligatory oversight, as an extra layer of protection to liberty, in order to secure the ability of the people in each state to make laws in their republic.
No branch of government anywhere, whether at the state or federal level, has the constitutional authority to impose oligarchical rule upon the body of the people. Nor does the Constitution tie our hands, or the hands of the chief executive and legislature, when the states are under attack. In its full context, Article IV, Section 4, explicitly names the executive and legislative branches as the chief instruments charged to provide ultimate protection to the states, to fulfill the purpose of federalism in the Constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
When it comes to judicially-imposed radicalism, the Founders did not leave us without recourse. The federal government, in particular the executive and legislative branches, is bound by contract to make good on the republican guarantee of Article IV.
We are designed to be a nation of law, not of caprice. And "we the people" fought a revolution against tyrannical caprice just for the opportunity to make law in harmony with the laws of nature. If we look more closely at the legal instrument our Founders created, we see that they did not leave us unprotected. All we have lacked in modern times is the election of individuals who are wise and courageous enough to uphold their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
P.S. On the question of federal involvement in marriage, you may take a look at the Utah Enabling Act of 1894, in which Congress required the prohibition of polygamy for statehood. The Act fulfilled the obligation of Article IV, Section 2, to put the new state of Utah on equal footing with the original states. Article IV, Section 2, requires: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
Civil recognition of marriage between a man and wife is one of the primary privileges of a civil society. Inescapably, the federal government has the authority and duty to safeguard the exercise of that privilege for every state, in order to constitutionally "insure domestic tranquility."
For domestic tranquility's sake, the federal government maintains the power to oversee a singly exclusive form of marriage in all of the states, to thereby defend for posterity the natural obligations owed by parentage.
P.P.S. No matter its use, the word "domestic," Latin for "house," is inseparable from the idyllic concept of family life: father, mother, child. Even in the national sense, the word "domestic" alludes to family. As Webster's 1828 dictionary puts it, "Domestic . . . 4. Pertain[s] to a nation considered as a family." So it is that domestic violence hits us closest to home. I cannot help but think of Article IV, Section 4, in the context of abortion: a domestic violence in the closet possible place--the womb.
“I would rather be beaten and be a man than to be elected and be a little puppy dog. I have always supported measures and principles and not men. I have acted fearless[ly] and independent and I never will regret my course. I would rather be politically buried than to be hypocritically immortalized.”
-- Davy Crockett
"One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.
...Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. ...A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.' It was 'illegal' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail