Yes but the constitution is a mistake in my opinion. I believe in only a theocratic form of government, but most people don't agree.
People probably don't agree with you because theocratic monarchies breed things like corruption, tyranny, oppression, inefficiency, and immorality.
but that is simply because we have not had a theocracy for thousands of years.
No, it's because they don't work. They lead to violence, injustice, and tyranny.
When Christ returns He will incorporate a theocracy.
Well when Jesus himself steps out of heaven with perfect knowledge, perfect benevolence, and perfect power we can have one. Until then, no; nobody else on the planet is suited to hold the office.
But every freedom of one person costs the freedom of another person.
How you you justify this premise? It's hard to see how freedom necessarily costs someone else or how it would cost more than bondage. And this doesn't even try to touch the moral question of freedom vs bondage. If my being free comes at a cost to you, who cares? Tough. Your enslaving me comes at a cost to me - so bug off. You don't have a valid moral claim to enslave someone because it comes at an arbitrary, and undefined, "cost" to someone else.
I can't go and take your car from you just because refraining from doing so would "cost" me in terms of a great opportunity to turn a buck on your car. You can't hold another person in bondage just because their freedom entails a cost to you.
Slaves got freedom at millions of dollars in lost revenue of plantation owners who had literally free labor. So that freedom did cost someone elses freedom to be lost.
I note that you're not counting all the costs associated with both freedom and slavery and then making a valid comparison. You have not counted the cost of slavery to the slaves themselves and are only counting monetary costs to the slave owner. You have not counted the costs of the act of enslaving and remaining enslaved. Why are you not treating their lives with equal value as the slave owner? Nor have you counted economic costs of systemic slavery in drags on economic output and loss of efficiency. Nor have you tallied up the benefits of freedom and weighed them against the costs of slavery.
More importantly, nor have you justified slavery in any moral way. You have not established that the slave owner had a legitimate moral claim on another person as property in the first place.
And such is the case with every freedom. For homosexuals to have the freedom to marry, this costs christian ministers the freedom to refrain from marrying such couples.
If things were free and just, then those ministers who didn't want to officiate a same sex wedding wouldn't. And those ministers who wanted to would. If we apply a simple no-harm principle, then as long as nobody is coercing anyone else into action, we should all be fine.
The mistake is having a centralized government legislating marriage ceremonies (in either direction). Legislation will not change people's conscience, and probably won't change their behavior. Legislation will not prevent people from finding a "minister" to "marry" them and then go around telling everyone they're "married." Nor will legislation prevent ministers from refraining to officiate ceremonies against their conscience.
The easiest idea is to apply actual principles of freedom and justice through a no-harm principle. As long as you don't coerce me, I won't coerce you and vice-versa. Let people make their own decisions so long as they don't coerce other people. We could call this an application of the Golden Rule.
But rather we should legislate something that is objective, such as the Bible or God's word, which is perfect.
The problem with this is that the interpretation of the bible is not perfect and the application by real people is also imperfect because people are not perfect. Your standard of law is perfection, but your legislative and enforcement mechanisms are not perfect. So who do you propose to hold the Office of Chief Interpreter? And what constraints and checks are placed on this office?
So did Luther, the Father of the Reformation.)
