Before God ordained the divine institutions of church and state, He established the institution of the family (Genesis 2:18-24). The family is the most basic of all divine institutions, and the church and the state relate to the individual through the family.
Two provisions of the Decalogue protect the family:
(1) “Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” - Exodus 20:12
(2) “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” - Exodus 20:14
The first is called the “first commandment with promise” (Ephesians 6:2), because when we honor our parents and listen to their advice, that advice may save our lives repeatedly. Our children watch how we treat our parents, and will likely treat us the same way. Remember, someday your children will pick your nursing home!
The family is the source of all governmental authority. As Luther said in his “Large Catechism,” “In this commandment belongs a further statement regarding all kinds of obedience to persons in authority who have to command and to govern. For all authority flows and is propagated from the authority of parents." The “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” discussing the Fourth Commandment, also recognizes that it applies to all authority.
Seventeenth-century thinker John Locke believed that God delegated authority to parents to govern their children and that parents delegate a portion of that governing authority to civil government. According to Locke’s social contract theory, government has only such authority as “we the people” delegate to it, no more. America’s Founding Fathers largely adopted Locke’s social contract theory, viewing the United States Constitution as America’s social contract. The 10th Amendment makes clear that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people, and that sets forth the limits of America’s social contract.
Because governmental authority is derived from parental authority, the role of government is to support parental authority, not undermine it. The bond between parents and their children is strong and sacred, and the state may terminate parental rights only in extreme circumstances. Our Supreme Court recognized this in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925):
The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.
Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris administration has tried to come between parents and children in many ways, most recently through the Department of Education (ED) rule directing public schools to require children to address classmates and teachers by their “preferred pronouns,” even if that violates the religious and moral convictions their parents have taught them. Fortunately, at least five federal district courts have issued injunctions prohibiting the ED from enforcing that rule, and on Aug. 16, the Supreme Court upheld those injunctions in Department of Education v. Louisiana and Cardona v. Tennessee.
The courts have recognized the Decalogue as the source of parental authority and of parental rights. In Ryckman v. Acheson (1952), federal authorities tried to terminate a woman’s citizenship because she had returned to Canada to care for her elderly and infirm mother. But a federal court stated:
To have failed her mother at this time would have been in violation of all the instincts of loyalty of a child for its parent and contrary to the Fifth Commandment to 'Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord, thy God, giveth thee.' Exodus 20:12.
…
[T]he plaintiff ... performed her God-commanded duty to her mother, with the result that certain United States agents are now attempting to forfeit her citizenship in this country.
…
Should such a dutiful daughter be deprived of the priceless possession of her American citizenship for doing nothing other than her filial duty? I think not, and in view of all the facts and circumstances in this case, I hold that the plaintiff’s stay in Canada was, in legal effect, involuntary and, as such, it could not be a ground for forfeiture of her nationality and citizenship in the United States of America.
In Equity Investments v. Paris (1981), Maxine Paris moved her elderly parents into the spare bedroom of her apartment, apparently violating her lease and New York’s rent control laws. The Civil Court of Queens County called the case:
[A]n interesting dilemma of a conflict between two ‘laws,’ one written in stone approximately 3,500 years ago and the other written by mere mortals in 1962. The former is the fifth of the ten commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai and the latter is Section 52(a) of the New York City Rent Control Regulations.
‘If we had the eyes to see the subtle elements of thought which constitute the gross substance of our present habit, both as regards the sphere of private life and as regards the action of the State, we would easily discover how very much we owe to the Jews for the … ten commandments ... and other contributions to western law.
…
[T]he public policy of this state (as expressed by statute and decisional law) is not in conflict with the fifth of the ten commandments. It is all too rare (in these troublesome times of self-indulgence) to find people willing to sacrifice their own comfort and serenity for the sake of their parents. Therefore, far be it for the courts to punish such devotion….
Now let’s look at the adultery portion of the Decalogue.
Until recently, all 50 states followed the Decalogue by prohibiting and punishing adultery. Many of these laws have been repealed or invalidated because of corrupt morals or mistaken interpretations of civil liberties, but adultery remains illegal in at least 16 states and in many foreign countries. Adultery destroys not only the family but the civil order as well, for it causes the breakup of marriages, results in strife between parents and between parents and their children, often leads to violence and even murder, forces children to grow up without their natural parents, leads to impoverishment and neglect because of uncertainty about paternity, and contributes to many other social evils.
In Oliverson v. West Valley City (1995), a case involving administrative sanctions for police officers for acts of moral turpitude, a federal court concluded:
The offense of adultery was not a common law crime, under English law, but it was punished by the ecclesiastical courts which had adjunct authority to the common law courts. It was a crime in the British colonies, where ecclesiastical courts had no jurisdiction, and in the United States. … As Honor้ notes, ‘In many societies adultery is one of the most serious crimes, and often carries the death penalty.’ In Hebraic law the Seventh Commandment forbade adultery. Subsequent Hebraic codes also penalized adultery. Leviticus 20:10 stated:
‘And the man that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.’
…
The codes are often referred to for their religious importance, however, in fact, in Hebraic history they were in part legal codes governing the social conduct of the societies to which they applied. The Biblical books are ancient legal codes and histories. It would be wrong to assume the Hebrew references are merely religious commands.
The Ten Commandments are the moral foundation for law, providing us with the basis for fundamental legal concepts such as respect for life, respect for property, and, as we see now, respect for family. The Western legal tradition is built upon these principles. If we abandon them today, we do so at our peril.
Col. Eidsmoe serves as Professor of Constitutional Law for the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy (obcl.edu) and as Senior Counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law (morallaw.org). He may be contacted for speaking engagements at eidsmoeja@juno.com.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to Commentary@1819News.com.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
