The Constitution Does Not Support Same-Sex ‘Marriage,’ Homosexuality (Part 1)

Barb Wire

When asked for the legal justification and judicial authority upon which the recent same-sex “marriage” court rulings have been based, the typical homosexual will invariably appeal to the Constitution. Likewise, many are quick to cite Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, which described “a wall of separation between Church and State,” when it suits their secularist, anti-religion agenda. Therefore, as we debate the marriage issue all across our country, it would be prudent to examine the underlying meaning and intent of this foundational document along with the other relevant writings and actions of our Founders.

As the historical evidence will clearly indicate, there was not a single Framer of the Constitution who would have ever sanctioned the concept of same-sex “marriage.” So deeply ingrained in their psyches, consciences and legal understanding was the idea of marriage as the union of one man and one woman that they would shudder to think that our nation’s founding social contract, which they carefully drafted in an almost divinely-inspired way, was being terribly twisted to support such sexually aberrant behavior. To say, that they’d be spinning in their graves would be a gross understatement.

There is absolutely no way that the Founders would have supported such a ridiculous and immoral conclusion. In his Farewell Address written over two hundred years ago on September 17, 1796, President George Washington wisely declared: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.” Likewise, each of our the Founding Fathers clearly understood and frequently articulated that this experiment in democracy would only survive so long as civil law and morality – Christian morality, in particular – remained inextricably linked. To divorce these two vital concepts from each other would mean inevitable disaster and the unraveling of true freedom as we know it. And currently, we are woefully witnessing this fact in many cities and states where First Amendment freedoms (religion, speech, assembly, conscience, etc.) are being sacrificed on the altar of so-called “sexual freedom.”

The British Jurist Sir William Blackstone was a brilliant law professor who in 1766 authored the four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone’s commentaries became the law book in colonial America, and they were the most frequently invoked political and legal source of the Founders. Serving as the basis for America jurisprudence, British law identified sodomy, “the infamous crime against nature,” as a capital offense.

Trending: Democrat Hypocrisy of Brett Kavanaugh compared to Bill Clinton

First, Blackstone explained the meaning of “the laws of nature:”

Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being … And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.


This law of nature, being coeval (coexistent) with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”

Blackstone then affirmed that “the laws of nature’s God” are to be found in the Holy Scriptures (“the law of revelation”). He unequivocally and purposefully coupled these two key phrases:

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation (the law of nature’s God), depend all the human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

Finally, with the aforementioned quotes in mind, Blackstone wrote the following about sodomy:

What has been here observed … [is] the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished … I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy][.] … A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: … where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments.

This the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determined to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept.

In accordance with these divine “laws of nature” as informed by the “law of revelation,” every single one of the original 13 colonies made homosexuality a serious criminal offense. In fact, it was the secularist’s darling Thomas Jefferson himself who authored just such a law for the state of Virginia, which stipulated that castration be the punishment for the civil (and moral) violation of sodomy. Sorry to have to burst the homosexual’s bubble, but even one the least religiously evangelical of our Founders realized the inherent social destructiveness of such immoral behavior.

In an American Thinker article, Trevor Thomas provided a further sampling of these anti-sodomy state laws.

New York: ‘That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] … shall be from henceforth adjudged felony … and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.’

Connecticut: ‘If any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death.’

Georgia: ‘… [sodomites] shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime.’

When he was serving as the leader of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War against Britain, then-General George Washington actually dealt with the issue of homosexual behavior, and what he did in that case remains quite enlightening for the marriage debate we’re presently having throughout this country. Washington’s troops were encamped in Valley Forge, during the brutal winter of 1777-78. On Mar. 10, 1778, while still hunkered down in eastern Pennsylvania, Gen. George Washington oversaw the dismissal from service of Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin for “attempting to commit sodomy” with fellow soldier John Monhort.

The ruling is included among President Washington’s papers at the Library of Congress. Under the title, “Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778,” we read the following entry,

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. [Frederick Gotthold] Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier


His Excellency the Commander in Chief [George Washington] approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

When radical liberals and LGBTQ activists are presented with these cold, hard facts, they typically resort to a “bait and switch” maneuver. The strong historical evidence supporting the Founder’s opposition to homosexuality (and thus, the Constitution’s lack of support for the modern same-sex “marriage” rulings by rogue black-robed tyrants) usually prompts the “but the Founders supported slavery” or “the Three-Fifths Compromise” arguments. However, in their attempt to discredit the Founders, homosexuals and their sympathizers can’t have it both ways – appealing to Constitution when it’s convenient, and then in the very next instant, ironically dismissing its legal authority when the flaws in their legal reasoning and their profound lack of historical knowledge are exposed. (As for these slavery objections, they will be soundly refuted in Part 2 of this series).

As Trevor Thomas astutely concludes,

It is also noteworthy that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (the Fourteenth Amendment being ratified in 1868) did nothing to prevent all 50 U.S. states, including each state that entered the union after 1868, from enacting laws against homosexual behavior. As recently as 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state in the U.S.

In other words, for nearly 200 years and without any constitutional conflictions or any serious debate, homosexual behavior in America was seen as immoral and therefore illegal. Thus, we see that the Founders do nothing but support the traditional (biblical) view of marriage.

So, when the militant homosexual movement points to the Constitution to promote their lawless efforts, there is no reason to fall prey to these deceptions. Nothing supports their threadbare assertions. And democracy without morality cannot forever endure — it inevitably leads to tyranny and social decay. Sadly, Christians and conservatives are already experiencing this unfortunate reality unfolding in our nation today. Actual freedoms as specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights, for instance, are under the constant assault of the homofascist onslaught. But now you’ve been armed with the truth to push back against this hostile horde.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Jeff Allen
Jeff Allen is both a senior editor and columnist for BarbWire. He also serves as senior pastor in a mainline Christian church in Indiana. He is an ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene. Jeff is involved in several community ministries.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.