For the purpose of the preamble to this treatise, the Colonel begs your indulgence as he dispenses with his customary use of the third person self-address. He wishes to be crystal clear of whom and of what he speaks – it is his bona fides on the subject.
I am a black-hearted sinner.
Of all the sinners of whom I am aware – scores of billions since the beginning of man – I am the greatest.
I have broken every law of God, in thought if not in deed.
Although, I deed a lot.
I lie. I lust. I long for the possessions of others.
I am guilty of idolatry, blasphemy, sexual immorality.
I have dishonored my parents.
I have harbored in my heart unforgiveness and hate so strong, that had the object been in front of me at the time I would have taken his life.
I am even guilty of the sin of hypocrisy – condemning sin in others of which I am just as culpable.
I am an authority on sin. I am in my 60th year as a practitioner.
I take no pride in my sin. I fly no flag proclaiming my sin. It is self-evident.
My awful sin separates me from my Perfect Creator.
The only sin of which I am NOT guilty is rejection of my God’s plan for my salvation from the eternal death of separation from Him. Through no other action of my own, save acceptance of God’s Son Jesus as my savior, my sin no longer separates me from my Perfect God.
The purpose of the foregoing preamble is to dispense with the highly favored counter-argument that my argument has no standing due to my hypocrisy. I am dismounted from my high horse and have my feet planted level on the playing field with all others.
The Colonel (resuming his customary third person) actually agrees whole-black-heartedly with his liberal friends who pronounce that government (hereinafter: “the state”) has no business “legislating morality.” Yet, the Colonel has great cause to question his liberal friends’ belief in that principle. Were they true believers that the state has no business legislating morality, they would see no need for so-called “hate-crime statutes.” Hate is at the very root of all immorality.
But that battle for the title of “Greatest Hypocrite” will have to be fought in a different forum. The Colonel has another set of great questions for us to ponder:
Why is the state in the business of “licensing” marriage? For that matter, why is the state in the business of providing incentives for marriage?
If the argument is that “stable marriage is beneficial to society,” why then does the state incentivize single mothers on welfare to have more children outside of marriage?
If the role of the state in a constitutional republic is to ensure equal protection under the law (see the vaunted 14th Amendment to our Constitution), why should a married couple receive more favorable treatment under the tax code than a single citizen?
In full disclosure, the Colonel must admit that he has benefitted from that favorable “unequal” treatment under the tax code for nearly his entire tax-paying life. Furthermore, while on active duty in the Marine Corps, the Colonel received, by virtue of his CHOICE to marry and have children, additional benefits and allowances not given single Marines. Those single Marines did the same job, worked the same hours, and endured the same hardships as the Colonel. The only difference was that the Colonel had a wife and kids – who provided absolutely zero to the combat effectiveness of the Marine Corps.
Both examples in the paragraph above are, the Colonel has come to believe, egregious violations of the 14th Amendment’s “Equal Protection” clause.
For that matter, progressive taxation is also an egregious violation of the 14th Amendment’s “Equal Protection” clause.
For you slow Bama and LSU grads, “progressive taxation” is the socialistic manner in which our federal income tax code is graduated so that those who make more and more money pay a higher and higher percentage of their income in taxes. Marx would be so proud of us.
No, not Groucho; Boudreaux. Karl. Karl Marx.
The Colonel believes it’s time to recognize the concept of “the separation of sin and state,” that, while not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, is just as manifest in the framers’ intent as is “the separation of church and state” and “the right to privacy” – both of which have been used to legislate (by activist courts) more “morality” and limit more religious freedom over the past 50 years than to provide for the individual freedoms for which they were designed.
Homework for the Colonel’s next post: Read, for comprehension, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.