Everything’s OK if it’s Done in the Name of Love
Love is the new normal. Better, love is the new morality. If a non-resident wants to break the immigration laws of the United States and he or she’s doing it for love, then it’s OK. This is Jeb Bush’s new immigration strategy. “It’s kind of – it’s a – it’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family.”
So if a father steals from the corner grocery store, because he did it as an act of commitment to his family, we should look the other way and open the door for him the next time? I can see the defense attorneys salivating over this new criminal defense. “Members of the jury, Mr. Jones robbed the bank because he was committed to his family. It was an act of love.”
How about this defense in tax court: “Gary DeMar didn’t pay his taxes last year because he had a commitment to his family. It was an act of love.” Sure, that’ll work.
Radical leftist Michelle Goldberg is also pushing the “love” meme on the immigration issue. According to her, since many Republicans believe that the law should be followed (as should all laws), they don’t love people. I wonder what she would say if somebody repeatedly broke into her apartment and stole from her, and in that person’s defense claimed that he had done it for the love of his family. Is there a point where she would say . . . “enough”?
“If Goldberg were fair-minded, she might consider the possibility that some conservatives oppose illegal immigration because of concerns about overpopulation, or a loss of jobs for native-born workers, or a simple belief that no one should be able to break the law and get away with it.”
How many times have we heard from homosexuals that same-sex sexuality is all about love? How can opponents of same-sex sexuality be against love? So long as two people love one another, sex is morally justified.
I love my mother, brother, two sons, two daughters-in-law, and six grandchildren. The Bible says that I’m to love my neighbor as myself (Lev. 19:18; Mark 12:31). So a sexual relationship with any of them would be morally acceptable? It’s interesting that the “love your neighbor” command in Leviticus comes between two passages prohibiting same-sex sexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). Neither does love allow a married person to engage in a sexual relationship with his neighbor’s wife (Lev. 18:20). Love has its limits.
In many cases saying “no” is an act of love.
Here’s the latest from former Republican Senator Alan Simpson:
“Former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, is making the case for a ‘live and let live’ approach to same-sex marriage in a new television ad buy targeting Western states, just as a federal appeals court in Denver prepares to take up the issue later this week.
“‘Whether you’re gay or lesbian or straight, if you love someone and you want to marry them, marry them,’ Simpson, of Wyoming, says in the spot.”
Are there any moral boundaries with this type of ethic? Based on what? Who says? By what standard? Are there any standards?
There are no longer any moral standards. We’re seeing it everywhere we turn. If we accept the notion that the law is pliable, then there is no stopping its redefinition. Liberals like moral fiat when they’re in charge, but what happens when a new administration comes to power?
Thomas More (1478-1535) understood the dangers associated with arbitrary moral and legal redefinition and opposed it to his death. More’s future son-in-law, William Roper, urges him to arrest Richard Rich, whose perjury will eventually lead to More’s execution. More answers that Rich has not broken any law. This doesn’t matter. He should be arrested anyway. He’s a dangerous man. He might one day break a law.
The following is from the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons:
Thomas More: “There’s no law against that.”
William Roper: “God’s law!”
More: “Then God can arrest him.”
Roper: “While you talk, he’s gone!”
More: “Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.”
Roper: “Now you give the Devil benefit of law!”
More: “Yes, what would you do?”
Roper: “Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I’d cut down every law in England to do that.”
More: “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you … where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.”
Liberals use the law as a prop, beating conservatives with it when they’re out of power and ignoring or reshaping it when they’re in power.