From Whence Cometh Gay Rights? Part 1

The whole “gay marriage” issue and homosexual agenda is troubling to those who believe that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is harmful and sinful. The pre-election debates and campaigning underway highlight the need for Conservatives to find the ground they should stand on and then unapologetically defend it. Where our country is today is the result of a long line of evolving law, which I’d like to review in a couple of posts, starting with this one.

When our nation was born, there was a clear understanding that the federal government was to be limited and the states and local governments would be free to act in a much more democratic—majority rules—way.  States could set rules for their own governance, and were not subject to, for instance, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, to make it clear that all

“powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, the Constitution was an agreement of the people (through the delegates they appointed to go and represent their states) to grant to the federal government only specified powers. The states were independent bodies, and they agreed to establish a federal government to create a stronger union—you might call them the “united states” (ok, someone already thought of that…).

When one looks at the text of the constitution you will find nothing that gives the federal government “powers” concerning what I will refer to here as “interpersonal relationships” or what some might call “morality.” By morality or interpersonal relationships I do not mean just marital or family relationships, but virtually all interaction between humans. Interpersonal relationships were left to the states to govern.  For instance, criminal law defines what is and is not acceptable behavior toward your fellow man and gives the state the power to enforce it. Tort law covers much the same topic, but from a private-enforcement perspective: if you harm someone, they can sue you and recover their losses, because it is immoral to harm another person without making it right. Family law deals with both the definition of marriage and the limits on dissolving such a union, and the obligations of parents to children. Contract law addresses what people can agree upon, and covers an incredibly wide range of issues: labor law, trust law, business organizations, principal and agency (such as giving someone power of attorney), finance and investment, and many more. These were all left to the states to decide for their own people.

Contract law deserves an extra note here. The Founders saw clearly the importance of people doing what they agree to do and in the Constitution the delegates agreed (you might say for the people and states that the delegates represented) that in order for the states to be in a union, all states should be prohibited from passing any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” The Founders knew that the freedom of people to associate with others by agreement would provide stability, economic and otherwise. They agreed that within the freedom of states to regulate personal relationships, one thing a state could not do is enact a law that let people off their contractual promises. And isn’t this fundamental? I believe most regulations could be erased from the books if we boiled it down to “don’t lie in making agreements, then do what you agree to do.” The Founders seemed to think so.

But historically it is indisputable: Washington did not get into interpersonal relationships (defining morality) except when they clearly involved the federal government.  Treason and espionage, for example, were crimes the feds had to deal with. But virtually all other criminal law—punishing people for violating accepted standards of interaction with your fellow men—was a state prerogative.  Washington governed interaction between the states and other nations, while interpersonal relations were left to the states.

The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution affirmed this. It was enacted to make sure that Washington stayed out of the interpersonal relations business.  That sacred First Amendment is a great example. It says “government shall make no law…” Wait, no, it does not say that! It says, in its entirety:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It was explicitly a limitation on Congress’ (that is, Washington, D.C., the feds)  power.  It placed no limit on the power of states and local government to set local rules of conduct for the citizens of their village, city, county or state.  Democracy was king (pardon the pun) at the local level, where the majority could set the standards of morality for their communities.  

Examples might be helpful here. Some of the early states actually had established churches; the US Constitution left states and localities free to establish religion. Some had religious tests for holding office, or required support of certain denominations. Many restrictions on speech and press existed in states and municipalities well into the twentieth century. Looking to the other end of the spectrum, Nevada has long been known for setting much lower standards for interpersonal relationships, allowing for gambling and prostitution when no other states did. So individuals could choose where they wanted to live, such as in a dry county, or a city free of pornography, or a township with a good school, or village of all Lutherans. You could live in a state that favored Catholics or another that supported Mormons.  You didn’t sue city hall because it collected tax revenue for the Presbyterian Church…you either accepted the fact that you lived in a Presbyterian community or you moved. The country was truly multi-cultural.

So what happened to change all of that? We entered a slippery slope as a result of that marvelous oxymoron, the “Civil War.” States’ rights to self-governance came sharply into question.

We’ll pick up there in my next post.

Pascal's Wager

Have you ever read any of Pascal’s Thoughts, sometimes referred to as his Pensées? I have been working my way through the nearly 500 page work, Pascal’s Thoughts and Minor Works and find it challenging.  Maybe because he was a brilliant mathematician and I’m not.  

Still, I could share many quotes that are crystal clear to all.  Like this one: “The feeble-minded are people who know the truth, but only affirm it so far as consistent with their own interests.”  Or how about the thought-provoking, “We owe a great debt to those who point out our faults…They prepare us for the exercise of correction and freedom from fault.”

One of the most famous topics of his Pensées is referred to as Pascal’s Wager.  Each of us must take a sort of gamble: do we trust God, particularly the God described in the Bible?  To believe in—trust—God will cost us something in this life; what if it is all a hoax?  On the other hand, if we do not believe in God, we live our life as we please; but what if the whole God thing is true, and there really is eternal life or death at stake?

Here are excerpts from Pensée #233 (as translated into English by W.F. Trotter) in which Pascal describes the wager:

‘God is or He is not.’  But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separates us.  A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up.  What will you wager?  According to reason, you can do neither the one nor the other; according to reason you can defend neither of the propositions….The true course is not to wager at all. Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. …

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is.  If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.  Wager then without hesitation that He is. …

[But you protest] ‘I may perhaps wager too much.’ …But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances [one] of loss, and what you stake [this life] is finite….Wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. …

[In a typical wager] every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing reason.  There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; [but in the case of this wager of the existence of God] that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss.  But the uncertainty of gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss.  Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them.  And so our proportion is of infinite force, where there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and loss, and the infinite to gain.

Now what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful.  Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others?  I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.

I just love that last sentence.  The longer we live, the clearer it becomes that we have given up nothing to gain everything!  If God is anything, and I believe He surely must be, He is profound and beyond our imagination. Making peace with Him before death seems like a pretty good idea to me.  Anyone who does not trust God will go to his death bed with a lot at stake. Just saying.

Fergy’s Fables: The Money Machine

Once upon a time there was a simple, law-abiding man named Bob.  He had a wife and two children and lived in Fair City.  Bob had a job.  Bob’s wages were enough to get by comfortably, take an occasional vacation, drive a late-model car, eat well and live in a modest house.

But one day a recession came through Fair City.  Bob’s neighbors variously blamed the weather, blamed God, blamed each other, blamed the media, blamed the right wing, blamed the left wing, blamed Wal-Mart, blamed the last President, blamed the current President, blamed the Congress past and present, blamed the rich, and blamed China.  But Bob was a simple, law-abiding man.  He didn’t care who got the blame.  What he cared about was his job.  Because he lost it.  The employer he worked for was not selling as many widgets as it had been, so it laid off a lot of workers.  Including Bob.

Poor Bob!  What should he do?  What could he do?  His unemployment insurance only paid him about 80% as much to do nothing as he had been making when he worked 40 hours a week.  And it would only last for a couple of years.  Bob was in a panic.

Bob had two neighbors who were part of his carpool, and who also lost their jobs.  Doug lived on Bob’s left, and Claude lived on his right.  Bob saw Doug one morning, sitting in his yard with a cold drink in hand, watching a ballgame on the flat screen he cleverly moved to his front porch.  Bob decided to ask Doug what he planned to do.

“What’s to worry about?” Doug retorted. “Our employer is such a creep.  Making money is his only goal in life, and when there’s a little downturn, he lays us all off.”

“But can you get by on your unemployment benefits?” asked Bob.

“Why not?” said Doug.  “I don’t have to drive to work, I still have health benefits, I save a few bucks by cutting back my cable to only seven thousand channels, and my wife still has her government job…and you know that will never be eliminated!” 

“But the unemployment runs out after awhile,” protested Bob.

“Quitcher worrying! Our buddy Durbin (D-IL) is fighting for us in Washington, and will keep extending our benefits indefinitely,” Doug shrugged. Then,  "Hey, d'you see that awesome play!" he yelled, pointing at the flat screen and nearly spilling his cold one.

Bob wasn’t totally satisfied.  His wife didn’t have a government job and he didn’t feel good about continuing to take money indefinitely without working for it.  He looked for an opportunity to ask Claude what he thought about the situation.  This was a bit challenging, because Claude seemed to be gone a lot.

One day Bob saw Claude pull into the driveway in his oldish pickup.  “Hey Claude, been looking for you!” he called out.  Claude hopped out and leaned over the fence. “Yeah?  What’s up?” he responded.

“This whole recession and unemployment thing has me worried.  What are you doing to deal with it?” Bob asked.

“I just use my Money Machine,” said Claude.  “I decided not to sign up for unemployment at all.  I had this Money Machine in the attic. I used it before I got the job down at the factory.  Figured it wouldn’t hurt to try ‘er out again!  It was a little rusty, but after a little grease and polish, fired right up and is cranking out good ol’ American dollars,” he said cheerily.

“Money Machine?” Bob was amazed.  “Is that legal?”  

“Oh yeah, most people aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of how they work, but I was raised on this kind of equipment.”

“How DOES it work?” asked Bob. “Does it create money…from paper, or …what?”

“Oh no, it takes it from other people,” said Claude matter-of-factly.  Bob’s look of shock and horror told Claude he should continue.

“It’s not what you're thinking!  I take my Money Machine to people’s homes and businesses and they give me some of their money!”  He realized immediately that this explanation didn’t help.  Claude tried again.

“OK, look.  The Money Machine makes money for other people, and they share some of it with me.  It has this list of tasks it will do to make other people’s homes and businesses worth more.  It is extremely versatile.  It will mow yards, trim hedges, scrape paint, roll or brush paint, deliver things, fetch things, rake stuff, drive nails, pull nails, clean out gutters, sweep sidewalks, pick up trash, haul out garbage, clean dishes, cook about any food imaginable.  It has very sophisticated artificial intelligence, puts every robot I ever heard of to shame.  If you take it to a business, it can turn things, push or pull things, load and unload things, stack stuff, sand stuff, bend stuff, haul stuff, drive, hook up, unhook, twist wires, pound or press stuff, run a power tool…oh, I could go on and on.  My Money Machine can do about any task a human can do.”

“Okaaay…” Bob wasn’t sure how this thing ended up making money.

Claude went on. “I take the Money Machine to homes and businesses, and ask the owners if there is any task they need done that would be worth money to them.  If they have something to do that my Money Machine is capable of, I ask how much of their money completion of this task will be worth to them.  If they want it done, they let me run the Money Machine and when the task is completed, they give me some of their money!”

“What if they don’t want to give you any of their money?” asked Bob thoughtfully, not quite convinced.

“Well, it’s my Money Machine.  I own it. I don’t run it for them unless they think what it can do is worth some money.”

“What if there is NO ONE who wants ANY task done that your Money Machine will do?” Bob asked.

“Are you serious? “ Claude retorted. “This baby will do just about any task anyone wants done.  I mean, do you know anyone who doesn’t want something done to increase their standard of living?”

“But if you don’t agree on the amount of money they will give you?  Or they just don’t want any money made,” Bob asked, realizing, too late, how lame that last one sounded as it left his lips.  He was starting to wonder whether he should look into one of these Money Machines.

“If they don’t agree to my amount, they don’t want it bad enough.  Or in some cases my Machine isn’t good enough at the task they want done.  I admit, sometimes I have to negotiate with them a little. But it manufactures money for us both, so why wouldn’t they?  For instance, a guy with a $100,000 house offered to give me $2,000 if my Money Machine could make his house worth $104,000.  My Money Machine painted the house and he gave me the $2,000.  He also paid $500 for paint, but who wouldn’t trade $2,500 for $4,000? I mean, it just wouldn’t be rational!” Claude finished with a flourish.

“That sounds, well, difficult.  Wouldn’t it be nicer if someone else just decided how much your Money Machine can make?” Bob mused aloud.

“Well, I suppose it would be easier.  But the ways people can increase their property values, or just enjoy their lives more, are too varied.  Besides, I wouldn’t have the freedom to use my Money Machine where it can create the most benefit to all.  I’ve found that the more it does certain things, the faster it can do those things.  That’s great, because then the more money it makes. For instance, some of the other Money Machines in the area mow faster and better than mine, so people seem to be willing to share more mowing money with them than me.  But I have noticed that when it comes to painting, my Money Machine is one of the fastest, and makes the homeowner more money when used on painting tasks.  So I seem to be getting more of the painting tasks.  I have a couple of months’ painting tasks lined up for my Money Machine right now.”

“So there are other Money Machines in Fair City?” Bob was interested. “This is astounding. Are all Money Machines as versatile as yours?”

“Well, I noticed some guys with real new ones.  They seem hesitant to negotiate, and their Money Machines are slower.  But they were able to take some real simple tasks down at that new business that opened up.  They are the sort of task ANY Money Machine could do about as well, so they aren’t making the business as much money to share.  Still, using their Money Machines is better than sitting around wondering about your future on unemployment!”

Bob sighed. “I always thought the way to get money to live on and enjoy was to…get a job…from an employer.  I think I am going to look into getting a Money Machine.  Can I take a look at yours?”

Claude smiled, brushed the front of his overalls and stood straight.  “You are looking at it,” he said.

The Moral

Every able bodied person is a Money Machine.  It is up to you whether you use yours. This story was inspired by a dear friend who lost her job and refused to sign up for unemployment.  After using her Money Machine the old fashioned way for a few months, her work ethic was so obvious that a stable and growing employer—for whom her Money Machine did some painting—offered her a much less physically demanding, full-time position more like the one she had before being laid off. 

But she could have been like Doug.  Blaming everyone else for how tough life is, while he sits watching TV, drinking cold beverages and ruining his health.

If you are keeping score, this post is about: (1) liberty: freedom to freely use your Money Machine to help others and agree upon the value of your time, (2) morality: doing more for others than you demand of them, and not taking money from your neighbors (via government programs) when you have the capacity to carry your own weight, and (3) faith: see 1 Tim 5:8 and Gal. 6:5.