Isaiah Roman

Rule of Law: Destruction

The current debate over homosexual marriage is given to us as a civil rights battle. The argument is presented as the love of two individuals, versus the oppression of religion. Like all other debates, each opponent believes that if the other were educated about the real details they they would – out of conscience – necessarily relent.

There is a problem with this scenario.

Neither side is trying to convince the truly committed. Rather, they are trying to convince the audience of non-committed. All debates do not seek to change the opinion of the opponent, but to sway enough popular opinion in their favor, thereby destroying their opponent’s ability to resist. This is why the homosexual debate is being played out in the context of law and civil rights.

The gay community knows that if it can convince enough bystanders to either ignore the arguments against them, or agree with their cause, they can turn their opponents into the pariah they once were. Having accomplished this, they will then codify their victory with new laws, designed to grant them “equal rights” within society.

The problem with this scenario is that the State doesn’t issue equal rights; it never has, and it never will, because it can’t. Government doesn’t grant rights; God does.

Not so long ago we justified another form of moral confusion in this country. Men began to mold society by enacting laws which endorse their desires. In the South they created a place where ownership over other men not only was acceptable within the law, but was violently defended by the law makers. They had come to believe in the idea that laws were created for the benefit of men, but they also believed that laws made a thing righteous. If enough people voted for a particular issue, then it became the collective will of the people, and therefore was morally supported by the majority of the people. Through a democratic process they created a platform of legal justification for their behavior.

They had already received support for this behavior when looked to other governmental systems; systems which had also endorsed this basic concept of law.

The monarchies of Europe had been abrogating laws and establishing laws to suit their own personal preferences for ages. Though there were a few individuals, like William Wilberforce, who fought against the status quo and eventually won, the prevailing sentiment in these nations was (and still is) that laws are designed to advantage the politic.

So, by strong-arming the vote for ratification, they managed to manipulate the construction of the Constitution to eliminate federal condemnation of their behavior. Subsequently they created laws within their state legislatures based on their own state constitutions to suit their purposes.

These men fully understood that democracy, without checks and balances, can be used as a tool of totalitarianism just as easily as a tool of freedom. All you need is a simple majority of people of either like mind, or simple mind to vote in your favor.

Into history stepped a man who believed in the principles of the founding fathers of this nation. He believed that this nation was established as a republic. In a republic democracy is not the ultimate arbiter of authority, or of the establishment of government, law, or morality. Rather, in a republic law is established on a superior authority; a supreme standard that – once agreed upon – becomes the foundation for all subsequent action. The democratic process is therefore relegated to simply a means of fairly enacting or denying actions based upon that supreme standard.

In the republican concept, every action requires consensus of like-minded, republic conscious individuals who – through self-sacrifice – are each working for the benefit of the republic as a whole within the construct of the supreme standard.

This conflict of basic ideology ended with a bloody, brutal war. The result of that war was that those who chose to mold law in their image lost to those who believed that law should be molded in God’s image. However, this war did not remove the democratic ideology because it is human nature to desire control. It is human nature to manipulate circumstances to one’s own interests.

Having lost the war, those who used democratic methods to manipulate law quickly formed a new plan. They must fundamentally change the meaning of the Rule of Law to fit an understanding that would give them the best advantage.

This change came in the form of a complete reversal of the definition of the Rule of Law. It is the assertion that all laws must treat all persons equally. This subtle twist of semantics is worthy of the great deceiver himself.

The actual definition of the Rule of Law is that all persons must be treated equally within the law. If the laws conform to the supreme standard, then every person who stands outside of that supreme standard is not protected, or accommodated by the law. The Rule of Law in no way infers that all persons must be equally accounted for within the constructs of each law. To force each law to conform to all individuals, each law becomes arbitrary and subject to current caprice. This is the reason for the invention of “case law.”

The idea that law is case dependent, that each individual case creates a “precedence” upon which further cases can be adjudicated is part of the deconstruction of the law. It separates the law from the supreme standard by supplementing the law with the judgement of an individual to fit a current circumstance. One must ask; what is the intent of the individual who sets the precedence?

When a society embraces the idea that every law must be equitable to all persons you are no longer providing justice, but are establishing “social justice.” Rather, you are trying to create an equal status for people so that all people are equal. What constitutes equal changes from era to era. So, in order to accomplish the goal, you have to change the existing laws to suit the current circumstance. To change the law all you need do is establish a system of legal precedence. This system asks law to conform to the needs of those who make law. Sooner, rather than later, you either end up with chaos, or you end up with those who make law deciding that you must conform to their ideal of law and their idea of law changes with the whims of their personal interest.

Government can do one of three things with law; it can punish a behavior, it can endorse a behavior, or it can ignore a behavior. Laws that punish behavior are usually called criminal statutes. Laws that endorse a behavior are called civil statutes. Laws that ignore a behavior are a combination of both. In all cases, the law must decide what is a correct behavior, and what is an improper behavior. If all behaviors are proper, then what is improper? This, by definition, is chaos.

However, when an individual gains control over law, then what they believe or feel is correct will become correct.

The argument over “gay rights” is really the argument for social endorsement of a personal choice of behavior. The gay community is requesting that the people endorse their choice of lifestyle as co-equal within the law to any other couple. The laws would then be structured to civilly endorse homosexual behavior. They need marriage to take part in the special benefits government has established to encourage mating, heterosexual pairs, but more importantly they need the rights of marriage to be affirmed by society as equals.

This is social justice. It is the symptom of the breaking of the Rule of Law. It is only one symptom among many symptoms our society is suffering from a cancer that is eating at it’s soul. That cancer is both natural, and artificial. The nature of man encourages it’s formation, the intellect of men foster it’s growth. When the society is weakened with it’s sickness it becomes confused by the fever of madness. This makes the society vulnerable to a takeover; a final coup by those who want most to control the body.

The destruction of the Rule of Law always comes when an individual, or a group of ideologically conjoined individuals, wants something. They want control, or power, or affirmation, or even worship. Regardless of the want, their want is greater than their respect both for others, and for the law.

Because law is the covenant we all share in our society, it is the rule book by which we all operate. In the society where laws are corrupt, or despotic in nature then the people will become corrupt and despotic in nature. In a society where the law is righteous in nature the people will be righteous. The question is; which laws are righteous?

As we have described before, the founders of this nation believed that righteousness is of God. Their ideals for society were built upon the precepts and laws found in the pages of the scriptures of the Holy Bible. Those who seek to change the laws of this land today want to change away from those precepts to another standard; caprice. They believe either that their ideals are more righteous than those of God, or that God has endorsed their own personal sense of righteousness. Many more, however, believe that there is no such thing as God.

Ironically, as we see these changes begin to take place we see more an more chaos erupt. Children killing their own parents, parents raping their own children. We see men lying in the street dying and people simply walk by. We see flash mobs erupt, and young people are beaten, or killed. The politicians are corrupt, the judges are no longer able to make sane judgements. We have people of peace being vilified while those who accuse them engage in violence.

The communist creed is that there must necessarily be some class warfare in order to bring about change. This class warfare, throughout history, has been the cause of hundreds of millions of murders. But, in the name of social justice, how many lives is enough?

This is madness; it is chaos, yet our society seems to accept this chaos as normative.

To end this chaos we have only one cure; return to the Rule of Law. In order to return to the Rule of Law we must understand where that axiom came from. Without the singular standard of a righteous God, all laws are merely human constructs subject to the whims of despots and fools.

Humans cannot see beyond their own desires and certainly can’t predict the influences that might effect their decisions, or the consequences that might flow from their choices. This is why they believe that laws must mold to the current circumstance. Yet, when laws are allowed to mold to the current circumstance what inevitably comes is what once was criminal soon becomes legal. When law begins to break itself, it is no longer law. It has become fiat. Fiat is the design of the dictator.

Laws are destroyed when men seek glory, laws are restored when we give God the glory.