The Righteous perish, the Wicked Prosper

Prompted by my last post; I want to address the issue of fairness. I've come to agree with the wise King Solomon in the matter, "...a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness...is meaningless," Ecc. 7:15, (another chronicle reference of Solomon) The notion that things should be fair is a compelling inherent drive in humans. I say it's inherent because we seem (universally as human specie) to be born with it - contrary to other species, I might add, which allows me to argue a valid point stated in the last post. This is because we are made in the image of our Creator who is by nature righteous, just and fair in His precepts and judgments.

Unfortunately, this world is in rebellion to our Creator (God if you will) and as it has been held traditionally to believe; is the reason for so much evil, wickedness and tyrannical injustices worldwide from its most documented beginnings. So, there's going to be unfairness in this world - it is what it is.

So be it... Allow me to elaborate on my observation (and apparently King Solomon's). I want to address this because I hear a CONSTANT outcry by various voices out there - whether it be the general media or folks with whom I have dialogue; there's a resonate whining going on that things are "unfair". And having noted that - whatever the issue is - interpret that things should be changed based on "fairness". Might I suggest that when most of us cry for fairness; oftentimes, we have a self centered viewpoint. It is not rooted in what is justified, per se - but how it affects a person's life. Frankly, it sounds like a lot of kids on an elementary school playground that want what they want - and NOW!

An example of this is a proposition that's being put to the people in California. Proposition 8 on the ballot is the definition of traditional marriage being that which is the union of a man and a woman. The pro arguments are to protect the institution of marriage, which is fundamentally rooted in a religious status. If it was purely a civil liberties issue; we would have no reason for it because our constitution protects civil liberties for all concerned, including domestic partnerships that are registered. The problem here is that it guarantees our religious freedom, which is at the core of this proposition. Because the status of marriage is, not only a religious traditional partnership; it supports the viability of our human specie through natality and has benefit to our society. This makes for good legislation. Moral law is oftentimes legislated(appropriately so), protecting not only universal civil liberties but also supports viable benefit for societal needs. Legislation for the general public good (a majority) is sometimes influenced by religious traditions. Do not steal, murder or a number of other laws, for example, are rooted in fundamental religious platform, beliefs also held by a universal mindset. I argue that this premise supports viability of a society. To redefine marriage meaning something other than a traditional status of a man with a woman smacks in the face of religious freedom. By the way, it was a few (4) on a state supreme bench that thought otherwise - opposing a tremendous majority in California.

The opposition to Prop. 8 is that it's unfair. Well, life is unfair folks; it's full of discrimination. It rains on the righteous and the wicked. Some die young; some are born blind, weak or poor. It's all around us. Pragmatically, I embrace that universal reality. And I propose that because a supreme law is in order of it, which pre-empts unfairness; it can't be mandated through law. It must be inspired - and oddly enough, most times, is inspired from faith based organizations. The strong need to have compassion and mercy on the weak; those who have should be charitable, and those who would judge need humility. When the latter is inspired; it can be redemptive for humans that are problematically selfish - hence making remedy too, for the unfairness out there.

Back to the original point - to argue that something is unfair, isn't sufficient reason to oppose a piece of legislation (in my humble opinion). There is an apparent need here in California for this (and it will be for other states as well). The thrust of prop. 8 is because it protects the best traditional and natural model of societal viability and natality of humans. It's a no brainer really - that is if we humans want to survive as a thriving community. Civil liberties aren't inhibited by prop.8 for those registered domestic partnerships. We don't need to infringe on our religious rights by redefining marriage. Fairness has nothing to do with it - 'it is meaningless...'