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 4

If you have not read parts 1, 2 and 3 of this topic, posted on January 30, February 3, and February 11, I encourage you to do so before reading this post.  You should be aware of: (a) how I define “morality” and “interpersonal relationships” for these posts; (b) my proposition that our Founders rightly believed the power to “legislate morality” should be reserved to smaller governmental units, as the most effective form of democracy supporting greater personal liberty; and (c) the attack on democracy (restricting small-government legislative authority) that entered through interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

For a century or so the rules of morality—how people ought and ought not behave toward and around one another—were established by local governments. Rules varied widely from one community to another. If you wanted to live among Methodists, you could select a town of mostly Methodists and the local government catered to Methodism. If you wanted to live in a pornography-free community, you moved to one, or you organized enough people in your community to elect people who would ban it.

This freedom of local governments to set the rules of morality was not always something to be proud of. The poster-child example of this, of course, was slavery. The freedom of local governments to set rules, coupled with the physical power of arms to enforce those allowed one group of people who had power to enact laws that made the other people “property” instead of human. The one group “legally” denied the others a place at the democratic “table.” This was the ultimate perversion of democracy, of course, and the 14th Amendment attempted to bring all people back to an equal place in the rule-making.

It has been pointed out that even after the 14th Amendment was passed, declaring all people to be citizens and entitled to privileges and immunities, to life, liberty, and property, and the full benefit of due process and equal protection, attempts were still made to deny blacks a place at the democratic table. From the obvious example of a poll tax to prevent poorer former slaves voting, to bizarre and obviously contrived requirements (like, you can vote only if your grandpa could vote prior to the date of the Emancipation Proclamation!) those in power attempted to retain it. Federal laws were enacted to give teeth to the purposes of the 14th Amendment. In today’s environment, those denied access to the polls would file suit asserting that the state or local government was denying them a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. In the late 1800s it seems that the solution was to enact federal legislation to enforce compliance upon the local officials. But the crux of the issue (the proper role of the bigger government imposing on the little ones) was assuring that all humans had equal access to the law-making process.

But let’s go back to the two prongs of “power grab” by powerful politicians in Washington D.C.  First, when powerful politicians did not agree with the rules of morality set by local governments they could impose their own standards through the 14th Amendment. They appointed Federal judges who would overrule the local majority opinion and “protect” the individual who wanted to deviate from community standards. They did this by interpreting the 14th Amendment as extending the Bill of Rights’ limitations on Congress’ power to become limitations on all government power (explained further in Part 3 of this series). As such, local rules of morality were now extinguished, and a new national morality—or “national immorality” if you please—was imposed on everyone, everywhere.

For the most part this approach was, and still is, seen as rights derived by negating government power. By the extension of the Bill of Rights against all government bodies, you have a right to do things that a majority of your peers, and all state and local elected officials, might think you should not do…so long as you can get a federal judge to define what you want to do as a right under the Bill of Rights.

This gave the powerful politicians part one of their power to impose their morality on us all. We can no longer choose for ourselves and our communities through the free democratic process to post the ten commandments in schools, to place a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, to ban abortion, to prohibit fornication, or to punish those who would corrupt their minds and others through pornography. (If you doubt that the Founders believed states and local governments should be able to set their own limits on licentiousness of speech, press, etc., read Thomas Jefferson’s “Kentucky Resolution.” It’s an eye-opener for those of us born and raised since the 1960s!)

But how will the powerful politicians go the next step and start writing their own rules of morality for us all? Remember that the Constitution was an agreement by the states to delegate limited authority to the federal government. The federal government could not write rules for interpersonal relationships. According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, Congress could “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” What do those three phrases mean?

The first is easy. States could not negotiate treaties, impose tariffs, etc., with foreign countries. That would be the job of the feds. The third clause…well, not as obvious today as it was in the 1790s, but “Indian tribes” were almost like another country. The feds were to make rules for and deal with the Native American, which involved everything from war, to treaties, to reservations. (When you think of the correlation between more powerful politicians and liberal social policies vs. lower levels of government and conservative social policies, notice the fact that gambling and casinos have been permitted on “Indian reservations” more than where state and local governments set the rules of morality. Coincidental? Hmmm… oops, I digressed.)

But what about the second type: “commerce… among the several States”? For the first 140 years or so this clause, linked with the 10th Amendment, was interpreted narrowly. Navigable waters that crossed state lines was a rare example of Congress having the power, approved by the Supreme Court, to regulate commerce among states. In order for Congress to act, it had to be regulating the activities of states. The feds would act when the matter was beyond what states could independently address, i.e., where states had competing interests and a higher authority was needed to arbitrate.  Remember the principal of subsidiarity? (see Post 2.)

So what did these three clauses not mean? They did not mean writing laws for how businesses would be run, how families would be defined, or otherwise what people ought and ought not do with or to each other. Morality and interpersonal relationships were none of the feds’ constitutional business.

This limitation on the ability to regulate people was simply not acceptable to the type of people who want to impose their morality on everyone else. Like our current President, for example, who wants to dictate what is “fair” and the “right direction” for everyone. But President Franklin D. Roosevelt came long before Obama.

FDR was very aggressive about imposing his will on everyone. He simply was not going to let the 10th Amendment get in his way. Under FDR’s leadership, Congress passed a series of laws attempting to regulate interpersonal—rather than just interstate—relationships. But in the decades leading up to 1936, the Supreme Court had struck down a laundry list of federal legislation attempting to regulate morality: minimum-wage laws, child labor laws, agricultural relief laws, and virtually every element of FDR’s New Deal legislation that had come before it.  The 10th Amendment meant what it said. Wikipedia provides this snapshot of history, which gives insights as to how manipulative a President can be:

“In 1936, Roosevelt and Congress were implementing New Deal policies and the Supreme Court, in Carter v. Carter Coal Company,[10] struck down a key element of the New Deal's regulation of the mining industry, on the grounds that mining was not "commerce". After the Presidential and Congressional elections of 1936, Roosevelt began an assault on what he regarded as the Court's anti-democratic decisions. …”

Pause. Hear the spin? FDR said the court, by limiting the power of the federal government to regulate interpersonal relationships, was “anti-democratic.” How subtle. But democracy at the federal level is the least democratic form, democracy at the local level is the most democratic. We typically hear “legislating from the bench” is improper and “activist judges” are bad. I agree. But in stopping the federal attempts to regulate, the courts were preserving the ability of the local democracy to do what it does best: listen to the people most affected. The court was being pro-democracy! Back to Wiki…

 “After winning the United States presidential election, 1936, Roosevelt proposed a plan to appoint an additional Justice for each sitting Justice over age 70. Given the age of the current Justices, this allowed a Supreme Court size of up to 15 Justices. Roosevelt claimed that this was not to change the rulings of the Court,

[…I can hear your sigh of relief to learn that…]

but to lessen the load on the older Justices, who he said were slowing the Court down.

“There was widespread opposition to this court packing plan

[…gives me a sense of nostalgia to know sane people still had influence back then…]

and in the end Roosevelt abandoned it. In what became known as "the switch in time that saved nine", Justice Owen Josephus Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes switched sides in 1937 and, in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), upheld the National Labor Relations Act, which gave the National Labor Relations Board extensive power over labor relations across the United States.”

So FDR got his way. The nature of man (see Post 2) is to impose our will on those around us, and those who are most aggressive about doing so seek the highest offices. FDR pushed his agenda, pushed justices around, pushed his morality on the nation…and most significantly, he fundamentally altered the relationship between state and federal governments.  

This is not just a matter of which government will enact the best policy. When the federal government regulates a matter, it trumps any contrary state and local regulation on the same subject. The lower government is simply overruled. Worker protections or pro-business policies that are democratically enacted at a local level are nullified by federal legislation on the same topic. Thus morality is dictated by the most powerful politicians who take it upon themselves to speak on the subject.

One last quote from Wikipedia, which illustrates the common failure to perceive the fact that greater freedom of self-governance is provided by local democracy compared to its federal counterpart:

 “The "New Deal Court" drastically changed the focus of the Court's inquiry in determining whether legislation fell within the scope of the Commerce Clause … Central to [the Court’s] theory was the belief that the democratic process was sufficient to confine the legislative power. Thus one of the central issues was whether the judiciary or the elected representatives of the people should decide what commerce is. The Court began to defer to the Congress on the theory that determining whether legislation impacted commerce appropriately was a legislative, not a judicial decision. The debate over Commerce Clause jurisprudence thus includes philosophic differences over whether Congressional abuse of the Commerce Clause is best redressed at the ballot box or in the Federal courts.”

Wiki, along with a huge segment of our population, has swallowed FDR’s arguments whole.

The question was not one of whether the courts or “elected representatives of the people should decide what commerce is.” The state and locally elected representatives of the people had total authority to regulate commerce, and were doing as much of it as their electorate demanded. The question presented to the New Deal Court was whether the federal government had power to regulate private commerce or only commerce among the several States… as that pesky Constitution says.  In other words, the court simply abrogated its constitutional duty to be a check on the federal administrative and legislative branches. If the democratic process was and is sufficient to stop abuse by legislative bodies then there is no reason for a constitution at all except, perhaps, to require that legislators be elected.

Any of our Founders who weren’t by this time spinning in their graves, must certainly have started. “In questions of power, then” the final link of Jefferson’s “chains of the Constitution” had been broken. We are not better off as a result. The self-centered nature of mankind, acknowledged by our Founders and long restrained by the Constitution, is on a rampage. Next time we will explore current results of this unleashed power.

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.

Foundation for Liberty

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."  Alexis de Tocqueville's statement embodies three inter-related issues that are of interest to me, topics we will explore on this blog. 

Liberty is the state in which humans are free to act without imposition of legal (governmentally-imposed) restraints.  Your liberty is inversely proportionate to the number of laws restraining your choices.  However, until you are moral, you cannot be permitted extensive liberty. 

The word moral has been hijacked.  Most people think of it only in the context of sexual propriety.  But the essence of morality is to voluntarily treat others as you would like to be treated; to interact with others to the best of your understanding consistent with their well-being.  But what will cause you to consistently act morally? 

Nothing but faith, a firmly held conviction that what you do and how you treat others has eternal consequences for you.  Faith is a genuine belief that God is watching and holding you accountable in some way. 

Without such conviction, you...no, without such conviction I will not consistently choose to act in the best interests of my fellow man, and if I will not, I must be forced to do so by some external, temporal authority. 

The systematic severing of such convictions has led to the proliferation of tens of thousands of pages of laws and regulations in our nation.