VAN HOLLEN WILL SWEAR ON CONSTITUTION TO UPHOLD BIBLE

By Michael Horne

“As Attorney General I will work to protect Wisconsin's values and the sacred union between a man and a woman. There should be no ambiguity about this in our law or our state Constitution. I strongly support efforts to amend Wisconsin's Constitution to define and protect the sanctity of marriage.”

--J. B. Van Hollen, Republican Candidate for Wisconsin Attorney General

The above quote is featured on the website and campaign literature of J. B. Van Hollen, a republican candidate for attorney general, and provides a revealing look at his political philosophy, which a quick parsing of his statement shows to be tinged with a scary religiosity.

Let’s pluck two words from Van Hollen’s credo before we trash the whole thing and toss it away.

The first word is “sacred,” as in the “sacred union between a man and a woman.” As Attorney General, Van Hollen says he will “work to protect” that sacred union.

Well then, what does “sacred” mean?

The dictionary offers several meanings of the word; all derive from words that mean “to consecrate,” “to make holy,” and “to make sacred.”

The closest definition of “sacred” in the context of Van Hollen’s use of the term is, “organized around ceremonial and traditionalistic values and patterns to the exclusion of new ones -- contrasted with secular.”

So, Van Hollen, who opposes such new values as equal marital rights for gays, would exercise his power as Attorney General to fight for a religious interpretation of our laws. This is frightening, since the Attorney General should be considered a secular post according to our constitution, and not a religious one.

This matters not to Van Hollen, who reminds us further in his credo that he would seek to “amend Wisconsin’s Constitution to define and protect the sanctity of marriage.” That is, he espouses changing the Constitution of this state to incorporate a precept based on current practices of certain, mostly Christian, religions.

I beg your pardon, but Wisconsin’s Constitution has nothing to do with the sanctity of anything. For God’s sake! This state is not a theocracy – yet, but it could become so with Van Hollen as the Grand Inquisitor.

Secondly, let us study the definition of “sanctity.” It, of course, is very close to the word “sacred,” which we have discussed above. It derives from the Latin sanctus, or “holy,” and holy ground is not the best footing for a politician in a secular society.

“Sanctity” (funny word, ends in “titty”) is “the quality or state of being holy or sacred: a religious binding force.”

Again – these are concepts that are wholly out of the purview of any Attorney General. The populace should be very wary of any politician who will put his hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible. [This memorable phrase was coined last month by Jamie Raskin, a candidate for State Senate in Maryland, and a proponent of marital equity.]

There may be many reasons why a civil society should choose to recognize the institution of marriage. None of those reasons should be based on a religious premise. If we are to have an Attorney General who puts God before the Constitution, which, thanks to his intimacy with the Diety, Van Hollen is pledged to do, then God help us all.