Texas voters rose to overwhelmingly communicate their opposition to sodomite “marriages” yesterday. Seventy-six percent of the voters affirmed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. The amendment was a reasonable, appropriate, wise, and constitutional defense of the biblical definition of the family. Texans should be grateful. This being noted, several critical points must be emphasized before Christians rest on the laurels of victory:

1. There would be no need for such an amendment if Texas judges and magistrates simply upheld their oath to affirm the pre-existing Constitution, state law, and common law against extra-judicial, unconstitutional, and unlawful pronunciations of the federal and Supreme Court. This takes the courage of Christian men like Roy Moore who will set the standard by honoring the rule of law, and the God who governs the rule of law, more than the imperial dictates of individuals who declare by fiat that babies may be executed, that God may not be acknowledged, and that men may marry trees, chairs, dogs, other men, or any other perversion of the transcendent, unalterable law of God.

2. Only God can define marriage. We may affirm and enforce His definition, but Americans are not at liberty even to presume that anything other than His definition may govern. Our common law, which finds its origin in Holy Scripture and is incorporated twice by reference into the United States Constitution, has long reflected this fact. More importantly, transcendent moral laws are not subject to legislative nullification. From the perspective of the true rule of law governing in this nation, it matters not whether amendments pass or fail, whether the Supreme Court rules favorably or negatively; no man can change the legal definition of marriage, any more than they can, by fiat, declare that babies may be killed because they are unwanted, that Jews may be gassed for being Jews, or that Christians may not be allowed to exclusively worship the one true God of Scripture. All oath-bound judges are bound to keep their oaths to a law system under God, to uphold the original intent of the Founders when ruling on matters under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and to oppose any ruling of man which pretends to supplant the transcendent moral law of God with the immoral law of man. Again, the problem is not the law, but the lack of courage on the part of our leaders to enforce the law.

3. In the post-Lawrence world, many legal strategists are hoping to protect states that historically banned sodomy from being forced to accept out-of-state sodomite marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Under the Court’s interpretation of Full Faith and Credit, states must accept the legally binding decisions of other states, unless such decisions would be “against public policy.” Texas was one of many states that banned sodomy. This means that homosexual marriages are officially against public policy in Texas. Consequently, court-blessed sodomite “marriages” in Massachusetts would not be enforceable or lawful in Texas. Unfortunately, the Lawrence decision reversed the 1986 Supreme Court decision in Bowers v. Hardwick which upheld a Georgia anti-sodomy law and denied that there was a fundamental right to practice moral perversion. Specifically, the Lawrence decision ruled unconstitutional a Texas anti-sodomy law. Because lawmakers and judges have wrongfully set aside the higher law and the state and federal constitution to kowtow to the usurpatious behavior of the Supreme Court, they are in the position of having to enforce out of state “same-sex marriages,” unless they can prove by some other means that “same-sex marriage” is against the public policy of the Texas.

The Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman is an attempt to do just this. I fully support it because it is a well-crafted affirmation of pre-existing law, transcendental law, and constitutional law. From a biblical perspective, civil affirmations of biblical moral law are always desirable. We cannot do this enough. Also, I am grateful that so many Texans still perceive themselves as supporting the biblical definition of marriage and I am deeply thankful that this commitment has been resoundingly communicated. (As long as such a victory does not lead to complacency, or an unwillingness to address root issues, then I believe there is great good here.)

But — and this is a big but — I do not for one minute think that this Amendment resolves the problem for Texans. Nor do I perceive this as an incremental step on the road to victory. There is no genuine “incremental” advancement unless we build our arguments and our cause on the proper foundation. (FYI: Many in support of this Amendment were afraid to say that God is the author of law and of marriage. They wanted to base their arguments on the sociological benefits of marriage.) We must address the root issues — “who is sovereign?” and “what is the rule of law?”

The question I ask my fellow Christians and constitutional lawyers is this: What will you do when the Supreme Court strikes down this Amendment for being an unconstitutional infringement of the civil liberties of sodomites? Surely, none of us are so foolish to believe that state Constitutional Amendments are free of judicial review of a tyrannical court. What will you do when judges are asked to jail, fine, and punish pastors and businessmen for “discriminating” against sodomites? Will you continue to support professing Christian lawmakers and judges who facilitate and help the murder of the unborn under a twisted view of “the rule of law”? Will you set aside the judicial doctrine of interposition, the meaning of the oath, and your duty to God to enforce immorality? Will you self-righteously persecute those Christian leaders who will not compromise and toss out of office those judges who refuse to enforce sodomite marriages? Will you claim, as did the Nuremburg defendants, “Look, I am just following orders under the rule of law”?

I thank God for an amendment which is a lawful affirmation of biblical truth, but without a commitment to act on principle, to uphold the rule of law, to lawfully resist tyrannical decisions of an imperial court, to remove judges from office for bad behavior, to constitutionally strip courts of jurisdiction, and, most importantly, to affirm the Lawgiver who is the only true source of judicial authority — it is only a matter of time before the same men who argued in favor of the Constitutional Amendment, argue to support the Court in declaring such an amendment unconstitutional.