From Whence Cometh Gay Rights? Part 11

As I begin this post I see that in my numbered series I skipped Part 9!  If you are wondering where it went...it never was.  (I haven't retracted anything!) The series got a bit deep as we explored the wider issue of decentralized government, and how as government power gets consolidated into fewer, more powerful hands, the will of the people is easier to disregard, and is more commonly over-ridden.

The point I hope to have made, especially with posts #8 and #10, is that humans are designed for heterosexual marriage--where two people of the opposite sex are committed to each other for life and care about their spouse and the offspring that naturally, though not always, result. When we are designed a certain way and don't fight it, life works! We are designed to procreate, obviously.  Less obviously but just as importantly, the natural differences (strength, demeanor, sexual drive and more) between man and woman help shape each of us into a better person. (Those ideas further developed here.)  The societal interest in (1) procreation and (2) all of us being better people, gives the state a reason to speak to the issue of marriage, and to provide it with protection and encouragement (such as tax benefits). 

There have always been aberrations. The masculine woman or the effeminate man are aberrations. Some people born with disabilities, such as infertility or mental retardation.  Aberrations are not the basis for societal norms, nor should societal norms--or what we might think of as ideals--be revised in an attempt to call an aberration "normal."  I have not taken a position on whether homosexuality is an aberration with which someone is born and "can't help" or whether it is the result of abuse, neglect or other nurture events in a person's life.  In my view, answering that question is not terribly important to setting government policy on marriage. If a person is "gay" because they were born that way or because they were turned that way by forces in their life, they remain an aberration.  Life is that way. Each of us has physical, mental, or emotional baggage we have to deal with!

As a matter of fact, one of the natural inclinations that everyone I know deals with is selfishness.  "Easy divorce" laws have accommodated selfishness and wreaked untold damage on the "accommodated"  individuals and their children.  I am just as strongly opposed to easy divorce laws--which I view as a horrific "redefinition of marriage"--as I am to homosexual marriage--another horrific redefinition of marriage. Both of these are harmful to the participants and to any children involved.  If the same factors existed in "blue houses" and "gray houses" we would clearly outlaw houses of those colors...for the children!

As I worked on this series, I found many resources that provide support for traditional, committed, man-woman marriage.  Many of the reasons require no adherence to religious beliefs.  You can find them, and many have been researched very thoroughly.  I may revisit this topic from time to time.  But I also realize that "Men willingly believe what they wish." (Julius Caesar)  The following from Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby highlights that fact, and reminds me...well, I will conclude with that. 

From Jacoby:

"Do kids raised by same-sex couples turn out as well as those raised by parents of the opposite sex? ... 'Not a single study,' the American Psychological Association categorically declared in a 2005 brief, 'has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.'

But was that conclusion ... warranted?

Loren Marks, a scholar at Louisiana State University, recently went back and reviewed the 59 studies on which the APA had relied. None of them, he writes in the July issue of the academic journal Social Science Research, 'compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.' ...

In the same issue of Social Science Research, University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus publishes the results of a large national study, based on interviews with a random sample of 15,000 young adults (aged 18 to 39) about their families, upbringing, and life experiences. Regnerus's bottom line: Children raised by their biological mother and father in stable families tended to turn out better than those whose parents had been in same-sex relationships. ... Children raised by one or more gay parents, Regnerus wrote in an essay on Slate, 'were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed.' They were also more likely to have experienced infidelity, trouble with the law, and sexual victimization."    [My emhasis added: complete column here. Similar studies supported my "Part 10" post]

Jacoby's column reminds me that who we elect and what power we give them is incredibly important.  When we elect people to represent us in our increasingly-undemocratic (as a result of more centralized power) form of government, we must remember that if they “wish” to change the norms of society—even against the will of the majority as shown in every state-wide referenda to date!—they will find the “research” to support their policy.  Contrary to the liberals' "we just want equal rights and it won't affect you" mantra, such changes do affect everyone.  If, as research shows, this change in marriage policy results in increased pathologies, greater harm to children, more health costs, and the like—we all will bear the costs.  The liberty we hold dear has been infringed upon.

On the other hand, if we elect people who respect millennia-long understandings of what is safe, wholesome and good, they likewise can find the research to support their "conservative"--conserve what is safe, wholesome and good--stance.  May it be so!

From Whence Cometh Gay Rights: Part 8

[Another reminder to those just joining me: welcome…and this series would be best understood if you read them in order.]

For anyone who thinks that the federal government must step in and stop state and local governments from placing restrictions on homosexual behavior, like the federal government had to in the matter of slavery, I trust we laid that fallacy to rest last week.  Homosexuals have never been denied access to the democratic process.  They have always had an equal say at the lawmaking table of democracy, something that was denied people of color in southern states until the federal government stepped in and overruled their “states rights” on the matter.

“So if discrimination (and slavery) based on skin color was wrong, why is discrimination (legally imposed restriction on activities of a group of people) on the basis of sexual orientation justifiable?” someone asks.  Homosexual behavior, unlike skin color, is not a benign trait.  It does affect the person who is choosing that lifestyle.  It does limit them.  It exposes them to risks that those not engaging in such behavior are free from. It affects people around them.

We could start from the Bible, and ask, “what does God say about homosexual behavior.” Others have documented the biblical position. It would appear that God declares it sinful, and prescribed punishment of stoning in the Old Testament.  I believe the Bible calls homosexual behavior wrong, something to be abstained from…like a long list of other “sins.” I am not going to make the case here.  Nor should any politician.

If the only basis for your political position is your religious beliefs, whether based on the Bible or otherwise, you will lose the political debate. In public policy—politics and lawmaking—we need to be able to make our case for or against law without using the Bible as a primary source.  (Unless you want to impose a theocracy, something that should frighten us, since there would still be humans determining what God supposedly permits and proscribes.)  In public policy matters, it might be framed this way: “God might say homosexual behavior is wrong, but can you prove it by any other means?”

A Christian might balk: “Shouldn’t God’s word be enough?” One can look at God’s word and say, “Since God said it, it must be true and right.” But some of us like to understand further, so we ask with an open heart and mind, “Why do you suppose God said that? Is He simply arbitrary in what He demands…or is what He said based on what He knows about how we are made?  If He knows how we are made, then He knows what works and doesn’t given the nature of mankind.”  Just like the designer of a complex machine knows its capabilities, and knows what should not be attempted. Reminds me of the crazy guys who try to run snowmobiles as far across an unfrozen pond as possible. Despite their best efforts and intentions, the snowmobiles always sink. Duh! Snowmobiles are not made for water and attempts to use them that way inevitably fail.

So when thinking about imposing public policy that happens to coincide with your Christian beliefs, ask, “if I had not read it in the Bible first, might observation of the world around me have led to the same conclusion?” I find that when I try to understand God’s viewpoint, the world around me makes more sense.  Put another way, what I observe in the world around me seems to confirm what I read in the Bible.  So let’s see what simple observation and social studies might suggest about homosexual behavior. It would take a book instead of a blog post to fully develop this issue, but here is my summary version!

Marriage—one man to one woman, lifelong commitment—is a unique human relationship and has always been held in esteem, and should continue to be.  Why?

First, marriage is by design a procreative union.  There is no natural means of perpetuating the human species except by man and woman intimately joining their bodies. But for this intimate sharing, there would be no more humans.  We are physically designed for this. This is an obvious difference from homosexual behavior, no matter whether such behavior is called marriage, civil unions, shacking up, sin or a felony.

Second, men and women are different. (Earth-shattering revelation there, I know.) Neither is superior or more valuable or more important. Neither can continue the species without the other.  We can argue about exceptional men who can be womanly, and exceptional women who can be manly, but the fact that they are exceptions solidifies the fact that there is a general rule. And our differences complement each other.

Men are bigger and stronger, more one-track-minded, do not live as long, are more callous (less emotional/empathetic/sensitive), have a more powerful sexual drive. They are better suited for heavier manual labor and for the protective role. Women are more petite, better at multi-tasking, live longer, are more sensitive and empathetic, tuned in to relationships and feelings of themselves and others, more intuitive, and less impulsive. They are better suited for nurturing, caring for children, teaching, and are exclusively designed for feeding their baby.  They make better homemakers. Which reminds me what C.S. Lewis said: “The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only - and that is to support the ultimate career.” After all, the home is where children are born, nurtured, taught how to live, and prepared to eventually replace their parents in civilization.

The fact that we are so different creates the possibility of a very special relationship. Among many more profound things, it has been said that a wife civilizes a husband, and that a husband strengthens a wife. Together we each become something that we cannot be alone, and something we cannot be with another person of the same gender.

People become better people when we do not allow our physical instincts to master us, but rather control those appetites and look out for the interests of others. Read the scripture—start with the Golden Rule—or look at yourself and those around you for the source on that statement! We know it is true. Laws are made with this in mind, such as laws against drug use. We know that some substances obviously tend to overwhelm a person’s better judgment and cause them to degenerate to their lowest animal instincts. Some activities are against the law not just because you can hurt others, but because you can hurt yourself. Such laws recognize that the physical desire for a rush of adrenalin or hormones overpowers sound judgment.

In old-fashioned marriage—wherein each spouse is vowing from their heart of hearts, “for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part, I am going to give myself to you and be everything I can be to you, and for you, to be all you could hope for in a life companion”—we publicly commit ourselves to the well-being of another person, and particularly, to one human who is biologically our complimentary opposite.  We also commit to a relationship from which creation of new people is a natural result, and to the responsibility that goes with bringing babies into the world. If you go into marriage with this selfless commitment pre-eminent and you choose your spouse from among people with similar core values, you can reasonably expect that your spouse has the same intentions toward you.

My wife says marriage is perhaps the factor in life that has most helped her become more Christ-like: dying to self, getting along with others, serving.  At first that didn’t seem flattering, but on reflection, I have to say the same thing.  Of, course each of us is thinking of very different ways we had to change. But lest this be misconstrued, our marriage also provides greatest satisfaction and happiness on earth of anything I can imagine or have ever tried. (Oh, she says to say the same thing for her!)  And to the extent it has called upon me to be selfless and giving, it has been exceedingly worth it!  Not unlike giving ourselves to God, who repays a hundredfold.

One aspect of this is the differences between men and women in the sexual drive.  I hope this doesn't get too personal. In the Old Testament it is recorded that God told various ones to “be fruitful and multiply.” Whether those commands were literal or figurative, the natural sexual desires placed in men could be interpreted as God’s “command” to procreate: “I want more people to be born!” Following that drive without discipline turns men into animals.  But a man is shaped into a better creature when his love and consideration of the wife to whose care and happiness he is committed confines and restrains these potent instincts. He becomes a more noble person, a more Christ-like human, more understanding of others. On the other side, the wife who loves her husband will give up her own preferences at times, too, and is shaped into a more loving, selfless, sacrificial human being.  Interestingly, the female hormones tend to guide sexual intimacy toward the time of greatest fertility. Hmmm, seems like our Designer really had something in mind here! 

This sexual tension, particularly that compromising nature of it that forces each party to frequently die to their desires and truly love their spouse will not work this way in a same-sex relationship.  Not that two selfish men or two selfish women won’t still disagree about details, because they will, especially if each is in it for what he or she can get.  But the inherent difference between men (microwaves) and women (crock pots) just won’t be there to shape our respective natures!

I can’t leave this topic without agreeing in part with the most critical comment I got as I started this series.  Today’s marriages—heterosexual variety—seem to rarely have the necessary foundation of selflessness.  I hear that some marriage vows now commit to the relationship, “so long as you make me happy.” That sort of vow shouldn’t even qualify as marriage.  This attitude toward marriage has denigrated it to something it never was or should be: a government-sponsored pleasure trip which, when it no longer pleases, you trade in for the next available ticket.  Heterosexual marriage should not be so cheap, and public policy that permits it should be changed. 

Laws cheapening marriage to accommodate the selfish desires of uncommitted heterosexuals has paved the way for ‘gay marriage.’ Easy divorce and ‘it’s all about my happiness’ thinking in marriage policy provides the basis for the arguments the homosexuals are making.  It’s their turn to demand what they want: their own government sponsorship of roughly this same cheapened, disposable, pleasure-trip called ‘marriage.’

Out of time again, so let me conclude with this. Marriage—the traditional, uncompromising, no-fingers crossed, for better or worse commitment to the well-being of a person of the opposite gender—provides two very important benefits to the state:

1. The state benefits if more people are born.  We will tackle that one a bit more in a future post.
2. The state benefits if we become better people: better citizens, better soldiers, better workers, better neighbors, better parents.

Marriage has been an asset to the state, so the state gave it honor.  Next time I will be looking at some of the negative social implications of non-marriage, including homosexual relationships and broken marriages.

From Whence Cometh Gay Rights: Part 7

I promised to compare and contrast homosexual rights to slavery in this post, and I will below.  The following is too pertinent to pass up, and it is relevant to all we have been blogging about.

As all readers know, the Supreme Court is now deciding the constitutionality of ObamaCare, the most current and glaring example of Congress legislating morality, something our Founders clearly believed, and said in the Constitution, it should never do. If you think that the current politicians—at least liberals—think the Constitution limits the legislative power of Congress, you are dreaming. They don’t! They think the Constitution is no longer relevant to their job. When asked over the past couple of years whether ObamaCare just might be unconstitutional, here is a sampling of their responses:

"[T]he federal government can do most anything in this country." - Rep. Pete Stark (CA)

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?" - Rep. James Clyburn (SC)

"I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest. ... It doesn't matter to me." - Rep. Phil Hare (IL)

"Are you serious? Are you serious?" - then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) acted simply incredulous that there could even be any question raised!

"Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no, there's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you." - SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagan, cheerleading ObamaCare from her rather conspicuous seat on the bench

This sort of politician has no comprehension of the central issue I have been blogging about, that is, that the Founders of this nation enshrined in our Constitution the principle that morality—how we treat one another—should never be legislated by the Federal government, and that such matters, if to be legislated at all, were reserved for local and state governments. ObamaCare is clearly an attempt to legislate morality: how individuals must interact with others.

OK, moving on as promised. How might one compare the treatment of homosexuality to the issue of slavery? My critic would suggest that despite the constitutional limitation on the Federal government in favor of states’ rights, the Federal government essentially rode into southern towns and overruled them on this issue. You might argue, and I would actually agree, that it was probably the right thing to do, to over-ride states' rights on the issue of slavery.  So why not on gay rights, too?

Restricting homosexual behavior is nothing like slavery. Let’s compare and contrast the two topics.

The essential wrong in slavery was denial of access to the democratic process. Even though in some areas blacks out-numbered whites, the rules for all people were made by the minority. That minority—whites who had made the rules—held the power structure of the communities and denied an entire group of people—blacks—any say in those rules. The 14^th Amendment redefined the rules in this way: every state in the union must acknowledge that all people are citizens and must be given a voice in the law-making process.  They must be given a seat at the table of democracy.

By contrast, those who want to engage in homosexual behavior have full access to the democratic process.  They happen to be a very small minority of the population by any measurement I know of, and therefore through the democratic process have generally been unable to enact policies favoring their behavior.  If this small minority is able to turn the laws to favor their ‘lifestyle’ and burden the rest of the people with all the consequences thereof, it would actually be closer to imposing slavery than to abolishing slavery.

In sections of our nation, slavery was lawful.  In other areas of the country it was not.  So if you were a free person, you could move to the part of the country that shared your moral values, i.e., presumably (since today we all see the evil of slavery!) where slavery was against the law. But the very nature of slavery kept some humans from being able to choose where they would live! Slavery prevented slaves leaving a community that infringed upon their liberty and moving to one that shared their values. Because a whole segment of society was being forced to remain where they had to work for nothing, even though in other parts of the country those same humans could enjoy freedom, the federal government (a higher authority than the states) had to intervene in order to free people to choose where they want to live.

By contrast, those who want to engage in homosexual behavior have full freedom of movement, freedom to travel, and freedom to associate with others who shared their views. If they do not like the values of the community in which they live—say they are in a state or county that still criminalizes their desired behavior—they can move.  That is (was) the beauty of Federalism: the federal government was to stay out of these issues and let ‘birds of a feather flock together’ so they could regulate interpersonal behavior for their own community. 

Admittedly, until 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state in the union.  I would suggest that this was a result of just how universal was the understanding that homosexual behavior was detrimental. Still, unlike slaves who were physically restrained from leaving, anyone who wants to engage in homosexual behavior is completely free to find another place of abode where community standards agree that it is acceptable.  They are also free to petition their government for change, speak their views, and associate with people of their choice.  As a result, they have created places like San Francisco.  Slaves had no such freedom to relocate to a community where they could be free.

Slavery was permitted in some states, but enough people within the democratic process had seen the evil thereof and outlawed it in many states.  Still, there was no universal, nationwide consensus in favor of nor against slavery. By contrast, when the democratic process was permitted to work, homosexual behavior was criminalized everywhere.  Everywhere.  No exceptions. So do you think that 100% of the country was comprised of unreasonable people on this issue?

Slavery was a total dehumanization of a group of people based on what Colin Powell (before he wimped out and bowed to political correctness in more recent years) referred to as a “benign” characteristic: the color of your skin. The color of your skin has no affect on other people, is not a determinate of IQ, does not make you better or worse at specific things. A person can be a great homemaker, statesmen, doctor, engineer, orator, leader, tradesman, truck-driver, astronaut, soldier, pilot or whatever else they choose to be, and their skin color is irrelevant.  Benign.  Of no effect.

Homosexual behavior is, on the other hand, action. Specifically, interaction with other people. It does affect other people.  It does affect you.  It does limit you.  It exposes you to risks that those not engaging in such behavior are free from.

Before I start working on answering the, ‘Oh yeah, how?’ to all of those, let’s dispense with a red herring.  We could get into a whole debate here about whether a person is ‘born gay’ or chooses that lifestyle.  For this post that does not matter.  No one can or should be sent to jail for their feelings or inclinations.  I don’t think anyone ever has been in this country, and if so it was a terrible injustice.  I have friends who seem, for men, rather effeminate.  Some remain unmarried.  But even if this is a characteristic with which they were born, they still choose whether to embrace the idea of homosexuality and act upon it; they choose whether to engage in homosexual sex.  Just like I, as a heterosexual male, had to choose whether to remain a virgin until marriage…and have to choose to maintain mastery of those desires even within marriage. 

Everyone is born with natural forces on our bodies that must be resisted.  The Apostle Paul wrote at length about the forces of the ‘flesh’—the physical body—and how we all face them, but yet have the choice whether to follow them or resist.  If we do not resist, we become enslaved by those forces, literally becoming mere animals. It can be the natural desire to eat, play video-games, thrill-seek, watch TV, surf the web, or just sleep in late. It can also be the natural sexual desire. These are natural forces that, but for a vigilant resistance, will enslave us.

Out of writing time for this week.  We’ll pick up here next time!

From Whence Cometh Gay Rights: Part 5

If you have not read parts 1 thru 4 of this topic, posted on January 30, February 3, February 11, and February 18, I encourage you to do so before reading this post.

When our nation began, our Founders knew that personal liberty would be most threatened if the centralized government had power to regulate personal conduct: interpersonal relationships, or morality—how we ought to behave around and with one another. The federal government was empowered by the constitution only to do the things that simply were not possible for a state or local government to do, such as enter treaties with foreign nations, defend the nation against foreign enemies, and oversee the interaction of states (act as the judge in disagreements between two or more states).

But, as Alexander Hamilton said, "A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." As we described in earlier segments, man is naturally self-centered and wants to arrange the world around himself to suit himself. This involves imposing his will on others when and where he has the ability to do so. Recognizing this, our Founders attempted to chain the federal politicians down with the limitations of the constitution, leaving the power to regulate morality with the states and local governments. State and local politicians could be much more easily controlled by the voters, and would be far less capable of oppressing the people. As James Madison put it,

Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.

But, through creative interpretations of the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, limitations on the power of the federal government were essentially shattered.

The Supreme Court opening the door to Congress to regulate private commerce—our economic pursuits—amounted to letting the whole camel into the tent. That decision, so long as it stands, allows the world’s most powerful politicians to legislate every aspect of life, for as Nobel laureate economist Friedrich August von Hayek pointed out,

To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything.

This week I started trying to compile examples of the ridiculous implications of this. Where do I begin? Where would I end? Ask yourself what part of your life does the federal government not have its finger in? Every product you purchase, every investment you make, every bite you take, every hour of your day is now regulated by the federal government in some way. Every time the federal government dictates that something must be done a certain way, or a product must have certain characteristics, or an activity must be or cannot be engaged in, it is imposing some powerful politician’s morality—his or her opinion about what someone ought or ought not do—on you and me.

How can elected politicians get away with this in a democracy? At the local level, they can’t. It might only take a dozen informed voters to throw the bums out. But when the federal government acts, it can get away with murder…practically. In every situation where the federal government tells us what to do, they buy off votes with a corresponding handout. As discussed in earlier posts, this immense power allows the politicians to secure their re-election even as they become ever more heavy-handed.

The more centralized the government, the more they can use the sheer power to insulate the elected officials from accountability. The number of unelected government employees and regulators is now breathtaking. The Congress passes a law that interferes with your or my activities. The Congress explains that it is “for the children” or “for public safety” or “for the good of society” or to make things “fair.” The law has, oh, let’s say 3,000 pages, just for kicks. You would think that a law with 3,000 pages would not need to be interpreted. You would think every detail must surely be spelled out already, wouldn’t you? But according to US News and World Report, regarding just six pages of the Obamacare law, federal regulators have written 429 pages of new regulations! Why didn’t the Congress just write what the law requires and prohibits, establish the penalties, and be done with it? Because the detailed implications of a law like Obamacare are so tedious, so intrusive, so objectionable, so offensive that no Member of Congress would want his or her name on it. So they write the outline—nearly 3,000 pages, yes, but still just an outline—as something they can sell to the voters as “fair” or “just” or even fiscally necessary…and then empower unelected employees fill in the oppressive details.

The current hot button issue is Obamacare’s disregard for freedom to exercise one’s religious convictions. But this is only a symptom. The bigger issue is how the federal government now holds so much power that its standard way of doing business is to enact a sweeping new law claiming control over a whole sector of the economy, and then appointing a bunch of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats to work within the broad framework of the law. From a recent piece by Matthew Spalding:

“It turns out that under Obamacare ... all insurance plans must cover, at no charge, abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, sterilization, and patient education and counseling for women of reproductive age. ... This is not a one-time exception to the rule of Obamacare; it is the es­tablishment of the rule itself. One can only imagine what life will be like when the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) begins rationing health benefits to reduce Medicare spending. It is not the details in Obamacare that are the real problem but the form of governance it establishes, by which unelected experts are empowered to make the rules as they go along. What is happening has little to do with health care or even public policy and everything to do with the role of government in the most immediate and intimate matters of our lives. All is subject to government control, regulatory dictate, and administrative whim. ... It is what happens when a model of government focused on determining outcomes, despite good intentions, finally acquires the unlimited authority to reshape society to its bureaucratic blueprint.” (emphasis added)

When the lawmakers have power “to reshape society to its bureaucratic blueprint”—just another way of saying impose their moral judgments on all of us—who or what will keep the lawmakers moral? In the days of limited government, with a constitution that was enforced by judges who understood that it meant the big (federal) government had to stay out of issues of interpersonal behavior, the people could keep the lawmakers moral. But voters don’t and won’t do it when their votes can be bought and sold with an extension of unemployment benefits here, and a food stamp there, tax deduction here, and a waiver there, and a favorable regulation (one that hurts your competition more than it does you) here, and on and on and on. Less powerful local governments can’t pull that off. A big one can.

An acquaintance last week said he thought anyone who is getting welfare of any kind should not be permitted to vote until they get off such subsidies. I felt strong impulse to agree with him, but where could that line be drawn? The more I thought about it, the fewer people I could come up with who do not get some direct or indirect government subsidy. It is incredible when you think about how far the tentacles of government inducements actually extend.  

I started thinking of the most obvious welfare, like food stamps, subsidized housing and the like, followed by business subsidies, green energy, farm programs, and government schools. But the most obvious example is health care. Roughly 50% of all health care is now paid for by tax dollars. I don’t mean dollars that are merely mandated by law, I mean actual taxes paid, handled by the government, and paid out to the doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. This is before Obamacare has even started! You could argue that health care ought—uh oh, there we go, dictating morals!—to be provided to all, the cost spread among all. I disagree, but hey, that makes it my moral judgment against yours, so who gets to impose his morals on whom?

Even if it were the role of the federal government to tell us that it is immoral not to share the cost of others’ health care, what would that mean? The definition of health care is no longer treatment for accident and sickness. Obama can pontificate all he wants about “part of the American dream” being not fearing going bankrupt if you get sick. But that is just the sales pitch to get us on board. Now his real position on morality kicks in. He doesn’t just want everyone to pay for your broken arm or your cancer treatment. No, remember what he said back in 2001:

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted," Obama said in the recording.

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that," he is recorded saying.

When the Supreme Court says you have a constitutional right to contraception, it only meant no government can keep you from buying it for yourself; a negative liberty, meaning government cannot stop you. When the Court says you have a right to an abortion, it only meant government cannot outlaw abortion; another negative liberty. Government cannot stop you from doing it. When government says free speech means pornographic material, that means government cannot outlaw making and distribution of such material. Negative liberties are what government cannot do or interfere with you doing.

But where are we headed? In the provisions of Obamacare we are seeing what he meant. We are seeing where a liberal who wants to shape the world into his image will go. He said the court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society” and that the court only “says what the ...government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the ...government must do on your behalf.” Obamacare is a major effort on the part of the political organizer to use coalitions of power to bring about redistributive change...to move to a world where civil rights are not just what the government must allow you to do, but are what the government—through its power to collect tax dollars and dole them back out, or its power to mandate personal purchases—“must do on your behalf…”

The idea—the goal of liberals with power to impose their morals on the rest of us—is not merely to say we can’t stop people from acting perversely, immorally, or in violation of community standards of decency, but that we must share the costs, whatever those costs are, to enable the perversity. First it is contraception. Next it is abortion. In some areas we are hearing that completely elective, plastic surgery is now provided to public employees at taxpayer expense. Whose morality is it that says someone who believes in the sanctity of the marriage bed must provide those who do not with tools for violating it? Who gets to tell me that I must help you pay to deform your body from the shape God gave you into something that Hollywood says will get you more attention?

When we allow the federal government to legislate any “commerce” they deem appropriate, we have opened the door to this sort of thing.  When liberals like this President say they just want to be left alone to “love” as they choose to love, and that it doesn’t affect those who disagree with their choices, they are simply lying. That is just the sales pitch to get us to open the door to them.

And where are we going next? Quite frankly, this freaks me out even as I am writing it.

From Whence Cometh Gay Rights? Part 2

If you have not read part 1 of this topic, posted on January 30, I encourage you to do so before going on.  You should see the historical perspective and know how I defined “morality” and “interpersonal relationships.”

Before the Civil War, our country was truly multi-cultural.  States and local governments were allowed wide latitude to democratically establish the standards of morality for their own jurisdictions. With the Civil War states’ rights to self-governance came sharply into question. In a way the issue was slavery, of course, but in another way it was this broader issue of state autonomy to regulate interpersonal relationships. The north won (despite Granny Clampett’s denials) and as part of the resolution of the matter the 14^th Amendment was enacted.  It’s opening paragraph states:

 “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

What did this mean? Given the context, the meaning was clear. Negroes were declared citizens of the United States, and states could not treat them differently than other citizens.  A state could no longer deny them “equal protection of the laws.” By the 14^th Amendment, the U.S. Constitution added a new limit on the states to go along with the “don’t nullify people’s contracts” one. Now each state had “agreed” (via an amendment to the same constitution wherein they agreed to delegate limited powers to the federal government) as a condition of being part of the union to treat all “persons” equally and give them “equal protection.”

This was a great historical step forward, of course. Slavery was such a fundamental evil against humanity that even if a majority of people in a community or state saw slavery as acceptable, the majority should be barred from legislating it. The 14^th amendment was an agreement by the states that the regulation of interpersonal relationships—morality, which might also be defined as what people “ought” and “ought not” do—could not include permitting slavery.

People are naturally self-interested. (I am not digressing here, I promise.) We naturally want our own comfort, our own pleasure, and the world around us arranged in the way that suits us. It also makes us feel better about ourselves if we can get the rest of society to agree with us and affirm our choices. This is part of being human, and is what causes us to interfere with the lives of those around us. Some people are pushier about it than others, but we are all so inclined. Without some outside force to hold us in check, we naturally attempt to impose our will on others.

Remember what Pascal said? Liberty is not possible without morality, nor morality without faith.  To turn the formula around and state it personally: faith is my belief in a supernatural force or consequence that motivates me to restrain my natural desire to impose my will upon others, that is, keeps me moral; and so long as I am moral—don’t force my will on those around me—I won’t need outside forces like laws and policemen to check that natural inclination, thus government can afford me liberty.

No matter what G.K. Chesterton said about them, politicians are people, too. And that is no compliment.  They are fallen like those they purport to govern. Laws are to make people act morally when faith doesn’t accomplish it…but here’s the million dollar question: who or what will keep the lawmakers moral? This is the problem Thomas Jefferson foresaw, of course, when he said:

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of con­fidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Mischief. That puts it lightly, when we are speaking of the power to dictate the lives of over three hundred million people! The constitution had fairly effectively kept the federal government out of the interpersonal relations business for about a hundred years, but the 14^th Amendment became the chain’s weakest link. It’s perfectly proper purpose and clear language—“all persons” shall be treated as citizens and given equal treatment under the laws—was soon twisted into a door through which monstrous mischief would invade.

We often hear that smaller government is better. It is sort of a cliché and the focus is on “waste” or bureaucracy in what is truly a gargantuan government. But waste and inefficiency are not the most important point.  Think of smaller government this way. Democracy at the lowest level of government is the best sort. As Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute stated it, our founders “had a broad allegiance to…the principle of subsidiarity” that is, “that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do.” For good reason, I would submit.

If a township trustee is the swing vote to make a rule that 10 people don’t like, there may well be a new trustee in that seat after the next election, and reversal of the undesirable rule. If a city council enacts an ordinance that offends 100 people, they are likely to be voted out and the ordinance changed by new council members. But the U.S. Senate has to do something that angers millions of people spread statistically among the right states before anyone’s re-election is in jeopardy.

When small government bodies like villages and townships get to set the behavior rules—define morality—for their small jurisdiction, they have to be responsive to their constituents, and if they are not, a relatively small effort of organized constituents will elect more responsive officials. The people will prevent the imposition of the will of government upon them, when even a small number of people feel wrongly imposed upon. In our own community we have seen this first hand with respect to matters like curfews, alcohol licensing, and zoning regulations. You could say that the higher an elected official climbs, say to the U.S. Senate, the more unaccountable he or she is to the will of the people.

This problem is further aggravated by the sheer power wielded in higher office, and the blurring of the connection between causes and effects. The Senate can approve a five hundred million dollar loan to one badly-run company in one township that employs 2,000 people or less, and spread the cost of that loan over the entire country when the badly-run company’s executives disappear with huge severance pay while the company goes belly-up and defaults on the loan.  No Senator gets blamed…but they personally benefit from campaign contributions from those executives. How many voters were harmed? All taxpayers except a select few who were inside the company. How many voters will have to agree on the issue in order to make the Senate regret it? Millions of them. By contrast, what if the money for that loan had been raised at the local level, by City or County officials? They would promptly be ejected for their poor judgment, and their replacements would be much more responsible about how they doled out money!

Next look at the other side of the sheer power. The same Senate that can allocate half a billion dollars to one company (where their friends and supporters will be sure to make it worth the Senators’ while) can also distribute tax credits to half of the population, extend unemployment benefits to millions, and press food stamps into the palms of fifty million Americans. Strategically placed, these benefits can offset the wrath of voters who disapprove of the half billion dollars squandered, and protect the Senators at the next election. (G.K. Chesterton: “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.”)

What if all welfare spending in a township (redistribution of wealth) were directly tied to taxes raised in that township? The elected Township trustees would be held closely accountable for whether the welfare was well-spent or wasted.  If such redistribution were done at the local level, either it is a truly good idea with which a majority of the population will agree, or the Township trustees will be tossed out. Democracy at work. You say that in such a small arena a majority would never support that idea? Then why presume that Federal politicians should do on a large scale what real people looking at the needs of their real neighbors would not support as the right moral judgment?

There is another aspect of local welfare that should be considered. If the money was all raised and redistributed locally, the recipients of the help would feel accountable to their neighbors. A recipient who is slothful will feel societal pressure to find work; a recipient who is truly needy beyond their control will feel appreciative to the neighbors who are sacrificing to support them. Contrast that with the feelings the 18,000,000 new-under-the-current-administration food stamp recipients have toward the taxpayers…can’t you just feel them oozing with motivation and gratitude?

So let’s summarize what we’ve been seeing. The more people you can affect by your decisions, the less accountable you become and therefore the more careless, both with money and other tools of power. The legislator is more prone to impose his or her will on others. Aside from how taxes are collected and then doled out, as compared to a Member of Congress, the township trustee is going to be more responsive to the people in setting rules for acceptable ways to treat your fellow man—legislating morality. If most people in the township want to be free to shoot firearms, drive loud cars, drink beer, stay out late at night, sleep around, leave junk cars in their yard, or abandon their children—the township rule-makers will be obliged to listen to the very close and loud voice of democracy. If most people want to enforce marriage vows strictly, punish child abusers, throw public drunks in jail, require clean cars, prohibit pornography, and support their local school system with increased tax dollars, again the local officials in charge had better listen up. By contrast again, you don’t get that feeling from a Senator with a multimillion dollar campaign fund, or a President with a billion dollar one. When rules of morality are set by the smallest possible government bodies, if most people in your community find something perfectly fine that you don’t like, either you are an oddball or you live among oddballs, and in the latter case you would not have to move far to find a place where most people are normal like you.

Which brings me back to my early question: “who or what will keep the lawmakers moral?”  The answer was the people, of course. Our Founders’ commitment to the smallest level of government wielding the greatest power in governing was part of their brilliance. Jefferson, one of the strongest proponents of democracy, was right. Put no confidence in man, but chain them down. We’ve all heard that power corrupts, or as Edmund Burke said, "The greater the power the more dangerous the abuse."

In case you are wondering, yes, we are heading back to the 14^th Amendment. We’ll get right to it in my next post.

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.

I've got an idea!  Let's...

It was a great conversation involving several good friends.  Creative people with drive, skills, ambition and determination to serve God.  Some are involved in business, some homemaking, some in school.  Interesting projects were proposed, ways of disseminating truth through music and art, of pointing people to their need of God and to consider the question of their eternal destiny.  The ideas were laudable: all ultimately motivated by a desire to help people live better lives and experience peace, satisfaction and hope.

It struck me.  "What do all these great ideas have in common?" With technology and tools available these days, and in our current state of freedom of expression in our country, we were free to pursue any of the projects that were being discussed.

They require money.  Some simply would require human effort and time, which could be supplied by the people present.  But even the people supplying their time and effort have to eat and sleep.  Other aspects of such projects would be beyond our capability without travel, more tools, and more expertise or training.  But whether we focused on simply feeding the persons present while they contributed their time and effort, or we consider the traveling, acquiring additional tools, or hiring additional expertise, everything requires money.

Money isn't really anything, yet it sort of represents everything else.  With money, you can create all of what was being considered.  Even the most creative person--musically, visually, etc.--requires food, clothing and shelter.   Money gives each person freedom to choose what food, what clothing, and what shelter.  More money gives us a wider range of freedom.  Less money limits our freedom of choice. 

So where does money come from?  The bank?  The government?  In a free society, everyone has the ability to get money.  You get money from other people.  How?  By offering them something they want in exchange for money they have.  The most common illustration of this is to go to someone who is trying to accomplish something that requires human effort.  This someone needs help polishing, carrying, sanding, turning, carrying, stacking, loading, unloading, driving, bending, shoveling,--you get the point.  They need something you can give them: your physical coordination and effort, also known as labor.  How badly do they need your labor?  They propose that it is worth $12 for every hour of labor you give them.  If you think it is a fair exchange, you agree to take their money by giving them something they want.

Another way of getting money is improving something for someone.  You pay $10 to acquire several boards.  You add some of your time, energy and creativity to it with some basic tools, and change it into a beautiful fireplace mantel, and find someone who is willing to pay $100 for the mantel.  You turned your time, energy and creativity into $90.  In this instance there is now $90 worth of valuable goods in existence that did not exist before.  You literally created wealth.  Another way of thinking about it is: your time, energy and creativity are a resource convertible into money.

To do the things we want to do, even good things like spreading the Good News, we are limited in our capacity to do so by the amount of resources--money and the things that money can acquire--at our disposal.  So the conversation turns to ways to generate the necessary resources. 

One challenge that life always poses to us is: what must I do to acquire the money I need to do the things I choose?  What could be fairer than that?  I get whatever I want, by finding ways I can give (from my time, energy and creativity) other people what they want.  The more needs or desires I satisfy for others, the more money I will have available.  The more money I have, the more freedom I have to choose what to eat, where to sleep, what to wear, and even what to enjoy.

The essence of liberty is to let each person choose what to do with his or her own resources. 

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." (Thomas Jefferson)

As government taxes your resources away, it deprives citizens of liberty.  "We do not commonly see in a tax a diminution of freedom, and yet it clearly is one."  (Herbert Spencer)