So let's take a look at the Democratic and Republican parties to see where they stand.
If you go Democrat's website today, you'll see that their splash page is asking for visitors to stand with Barack Obama on the matter of same-sex marriage. Now if ever there was a social change proposed of profound proportions and historical magnitude, this is it. For all of humanity's history, there has never been until this generation -- and in America never until this president -- a serious proposal to include same sex couples in the definition of marriage. This is probably the most radical social proposal of all time.
The vast majority of Republicans are strenuously opposed to this redefinition of marriage. Here is a excerpt from the GOP website on same-sex marriage:
"Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional
understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that
fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges
cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a
national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various
states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.
Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a
mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best
environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character.
Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime,
drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal
drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral
problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to
provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation's
most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster
and adoptive families. Republicans have been at the forefront of
protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in
Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act,
affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages
licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now
pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every
state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing
the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its
Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from
imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in
Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their
marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage. As the family
is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental
rights."
This sounds like a traditional, right wing position to me, one of desiring to preserve traditional marriage. No transformation of society, no social experimentation. Simply trying to prevent what the left is doing.
You say that the Right prefers smaller gov't. What about the War on Drugs? It is a very expensive and expansive set of programs that grants dangerous powers to law enforcement, and it is supported exclusively by the Right.
ReplyDeleteThe right believe that government's role should be limited to protecting society from enemies domestic and foreign, and drugs have been perceived as harmful to individuals and society. So their attempt at a War on Drugs is quite consistent with their political philosophy. However, whether this particular war is or was well-advised is certainly debatable. One can always debate whether a particular war or battle is in the best interests of the country, and we have to pick our battles given the limited resources at our disposal. I'd say in this case the ends desired -- a drug free society -- are worthwhile goals, but the means to achieve it are questionable and open to debate.
DeleteSince the Right is willing to sacrifice Liberty to win this war (being waged for 30 years now with nothing to show for it), I'd say that the Right doesn't particularly value Liberty. Your description of Libertarians as being "to the far right" is incorrect.
DeleteHow does a constitutional amendment square with the idea of smaller gov't? Altering the constitution concerning marriage is a defense of Tradition, but it is most certainly not a defense of Liberty.
ReplyDeleteMy position is to shape the Law such that the most people have the most Liberty. Under that criteria, the best course of action is for the Feds to stay out of defining marriage; its none of their business. I would go further: the States have no reasonable legal basis to define marriage, either. The only reason the Law should be concerned about consensual adult relationships is in the execution of collecting taxes or determining inheritance; and civil unions between any two consenting adults serve that purpose perfectly well without violating anybody's Liberty. The entire concept of the "Marriage License" was invented so that States could prevent marriages between differing races. Now that same mechanism is being used to prevent marriages between couples that want to have a non-traditional family.
I say get all gov't out of the marriage business; the Law should only define civil unions for legal purposes, and that definition should be as open as is reasonable for legal purposes.
It seems to me that the Right is not about smaller gov't, but instead it is about preserving a particular idea of Tradition, even at the expense of Liberty.
Many of us see a constitutional amendment as the only way to protect society from the attack on marriage. Remember that the call for same-sex marriage is something very recent in history. There was no need to this amendment because the institution of marriage as understood by the vast majority of the human race was not under attack.
DeleteI am somewhat sympathetic to your view that perhaps the government should just get out of the marriage business altogether. As a Catholic I don't believe the state has any right confer that at all. However, to the extent that government policy encourages orderly relationships that at least have some semblance to what I deem to a legitimate marriage and discourages illicit relationships, I am in favor of that, because that is nothing more than the preservation of what most of humanity has (and still does) consider to be a natural foundation for society. I really truly believe that society will fall apart if same-sex marriage is allowed to gain politically and socially sanctioned legitimacy. To me it is a behavioral issue. Homosexual practices are -- according to my religion -- unnatural and immoral. If you legitimize these practices, you might as well legitimize every other moral violation, i.e., make it OK to steal, lie and cheat. I know some people -- especially on the left -- seem to think it is OK to lie anyway, especially when it comes to political expediency -- but can you imagine the consequences if the government came out and said that they are no longer going to prosecute anybody for theft? It would be chaos.
I think same-sex marriage is also going to lead to chaos, at least polarizing chaos of communities separating themselves and going to the barricades over the issue. You cannot force somebody to recognize what there conscience and their religion tells them is morally wrong.
Government has a legitimate interest in the stability of society and the family as the basic social unit. Protection of marriage is seen as protection of society from otherwise centrifugal forces that tend to weaken society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the rearing of children, most people recognize that having a father and mother, as nature clearly intends when you look at normal reproduction, is the natural marriage relationship and the best context in which to raise children. To tinker with how nature does it is to play with fire. The saying, "Don't try to fool Mother Nature" is a serious exhortation. There is no need to re-define marriage to include something that Mother Nature herself does not include. Gays can define their relationship any way they want and call it anything they want; but they should force the rest of us to change our understanding of natural marriage. The whole reason they are trying to do so is to force us to recognize their relationship as legitimate. But the arguments they advance are silly and can be used legitimize any sort of relationship, including bestiality, polygamy and incest. Society has to drawn the line somewhere and societies throughout history have drawn the line at natural, heterosexual marriage.
Sounds like you are saying that non-traditional families (those with gay/lesbian parents) are destructive to society. Do you have some proof of this? What does Science say about it? I am not much interested in what Tradition says about it, I don't trust Tradition. For a couple centuries in the US, people claimed that slavery was natural because it was Traditional. For many centuries in the UK, people lived in a rigid class society because it was Traditional.
ReplyDeleteIf Homosexuality is unnatural, I suspect we wouldn't find it much in non-humans. However, it is common in many monogamous species of birds. It is also well-attested in primates, specifically in the Bonobos, the closest genetic relatives to Humans.
Who defines what is best for the stability of society? I think that is a dangerous thing to put in the hands of gov't. I agree that there is no need to re-define marriage. In fact, I feel there is no need for gov't to define marriage at all. Gov't should define only the requirements for a legal civil union for tax purposes.
What are these "silly" arguments advanced by Homosexuals? The only one I have heard is that the relationship between two consenting adults is their own business and nobody else's. I don't see how that legitimizes the bestiality, polygamy, and incest.
The silly argument based on consenting adults can be applied to two, three, four, ..., n number of adults. Surely, you can appreciate that. And if a father and daughter are consenting, according to your position, who is the state to say otherwise?
ReplyDeleteI am not aware of the "facts" of science with regards supposed homosexuality in other animals and therefore cannot comment on this aspect. I do know that science is being twisted and bent in all kinds of ways these days to fit certain political agendas. That doesn't mean, of course, that it is being twisted and bent in this case. It just means that one needs to be more cautious because there is a greater propensity these days to sacrifice truth to agendas and power. It is very similar to the "Nazi science" that Germans pursued in the 1930s and 1940s. Similar to your healthy skepticism with regards to Tradition, I have a healthy skepticism with regards to Science.
Regarding slavery, some people -- not all -- claimed it was natural and traditional. And it was certainly tolerated during the early days of Christianity. Places where Calvinist beliefs in predestination seem to coincide with promotion and tolerance of slavery in particular and racism in general. But Calvinism was wrong and has been strongly opposed since its advent in the 1500s.
Society has learned to evolve and revise this attitude and that is true progress. But that doesn't mean that all change is to be accounted as progress. Nor does it mean that all tradition is therefore suspect. The fallacy in your reasoning is this: Some traditions were bad in the past, therefore, we should distrust all tradition. It doesn't follow. If some Nebraskans made mistakes in the past should I forever distrust all Nebraskans? It is good to have a healthy skepticism towards everything, but not a blanket distrust.
"The silly argument based on consenting adults can be applied to two, three, four, ..., n number of adults."
ReplyDeleteMy statement was "...between two consenting adults...", not "...n consenting adults...". Nevertheless, I don't have a problem with polygamy, as long as the state only extends tax benefits to couples. I think the Law has nothing to say to polygamists as long as they pay their taxes.
"And if a father and daughter are consenting, according to your position, who is the state to say otherwise?"
If the daughter is not a consenting adult, which is what most people are talking about when they mention incest, then that relationship doesn't fit my criteria (and the state must intervene). If there is a pattern of abuse established before the Daughter was an adult, the same logic applies. Otherwise, if a Father and Daughter want to establish a civil union in their household for tax reasons, I don't see a problem with that. What that Father and Daughter do in their privacy is not my business, nor is it the state's business.
I should be more specific: I don't trust SOCIAL Tradition when people use it to influence LEGAL matters. Social Tradition is too subjective and insular to use as a legal basis. There is no proof that allowing only monogamy and heterosexuality is inherently better for society; those just happen to be Social Tradition in the US. There are and have been a great many other societies that aren't (or weren't) exclusive to those ideas. Would you assert that allowing heterosexual monogamy is the one true correct way to run a society?
Limiting it to two adults is arbitrary. Who are you to impose that on three people who want to get married? Who are you to say that such relationships are destructive to society?
DeleteYou see the same arguments used against limiting marriage to a man and a woman can be used against limiting it to just two people.
Also, it is a social tradition (and also codified into law) that people don't steal from one another. Do you resent that social tradition as well? You and I just draw the line in different places.
How can you argue that something is merely subjective when the vast majority of mankind throughout the history of the earth has believed in it? Although I believe there is an objective basis to truth, near unanimous agreement among all people should count for something!