Dear editor:
In response to "Doc" Crawford's letter in Sunday's S-R which takes issue with Jerry Cox's newsletter, I quote the 10th Amendment to the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court ruling violated this amendment. As for marriage having been a civil union since the Roman Empire, "holy matrimony" dates to the beginning of civilization, predating by far the Roman Empire.
Regarding Cox contradicting himself, lawsuits may or may not have merit. Regarding the "chief end of marriage," Mr. Crawford states that "Happiness has always been chief in the American concept. ... " I would submit that the chief end of marriage is to provide a stable family institution wherein children can thrive.
Regarding the inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, Mr. Crawford conveniently omits the part of the Declaration that states that these rights are "endowed by our Creator" (not by the government) and that the first right mentioned is "life."
Apparently, Mr. Crawford believes that blind obedience to "the law of the land" is the appropriate response no matter how bad the law. He even states that "Publicly elected servants cannot choose to select the laws they want to enforce." I would respectfully ask Mr. Crawford two questions:
First, have you chided President Obama for his total disregard for the law, as exemplified by his disregard for immigration laws, IRS malfeasance, missing Obamacare deadlines and issuing waivers to his supporters, etc.? He obviously considers himself to be above the law.
Second, what if the "law of the land" contradicts God's law? As for me, I choose, like Peter in Acts 5:29, "We must obey God rather than men!"
Ellen Varhalla
Engineer (retired)
JP District 8
Hot Springs
Editorial on 07/29/2015