The marriage debate has omitted discussion of essential characteristics of marriage that cannot be reconciled with civil rights attained through legislation, no matter how fair it might seem to be. It’s about unalienable natural rights, the protection of which is supposed to be the purpose of our form of representative government. Through natural marriage, and only through natural marriage, guardianship by nature is transferred to the father, and the wife’s natural right to coverture is created.

The contemporary view is that these unalienable rights were somehow relegated to the trashcan of history, although, state civil laws relating to welfare and the placement of state wards have been commingled, and case law has been “interpreted” to make the uncritical of us believe the natural law has been replaced by civil statutes. I have traced case law in Minnesota to make the connections, as the same has been done across the country. What I don’t understand is how educated Christians and others with an understanding of natural rights have fallen for this lie without a fight. I can show how this state has used statutes relating to the placement of state wards to confuse the issue of rightful custody since the turn of the century. Alimony and support money were confused with spousal and child support statutes, aided by the adoption of no-fault laws.

As long as both sides limit the debate to love and commitment, and civil rights supported by equal treatment protections, natural rights are not even discussed. As far as equal protection goes, if one considers the transfer and creation of natural rights by a natural marriage, we are obviously talking about two dis-similarly situated classes, and their argument falls apart. Again, where is the church? And where are the critical thinkers? Don’t wait for the lawyers to second guess everything the bar association has fed them for a hundred years.

Scott Booth

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.