Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Family as the paradigm of unalienable right [Alan Keyes: Part 11 of 'The Crisis of the Republic'] ^ | August 20, 2007 | Alan Keyes

Posted on 08/20/2007 7:20:58 AM PDT by EternalVigilance

The Crisis of the Republic -- Alan Keyes on the 2008 election

Family as the paradigm of unalienable right
Part 11 of 'The Crisis of the Republic'

Alan Keyes
August 20, 2007

If the family is the conceptual basis of economics, the premier economic issue we face in our politics today is the push to secure legal recognition for so-called marriages between people of the same sex. Why? Because we can't preserve and strengthen the family without a clear idea of what it is.

At its heart, the debate over "same-sex marriage" involves a profound disagreement about the nature of the family. Indeed, the very idea of the natural family is under assault. In a 2005 ruling later upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in favor of the City of Oakland when it threatened two city employees with immediate removal for posting a bulletin board notice that referred to "respect for the Natural Family."

Because it is camouflaged as a disagreement over sexual behavior, most people fail to appreciate the true implications of this effort to banish the idea that the family is a natural institution that involves fundamental rights that all legitimate government must respect. Of course, this failure in turn arises from the fact that we no longer see the necessary connection between the rights we have by nature and the obligations that define our nature. The latter are the seeds from which the former arise.

The laws of Nature and of Nature's God

According to the Declaration principles from which we derive our Constitution and laws, we are created beings. The way we are (our nature) reflects the will of the Creator, whose will has also determined the nature (way of being) of all things, predisposing them to accord with the possibility of our existence. This predisposition defines what is right for us (i.e., what preserves our existence).

The concept of right therefore reflects the consonance between our existence and that of the whole — between what we are and what the world must be in order for us to exist.

Because, by the Creator's will, the nature of things respects our existence, in our existence we must respect the nature of things. Otherwise, what we do contradicts the possibility of existing as we do. Our existence is therefore governed by concepts of right that reflect the nature of the universe. The Declaration refers to these concepts as "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

We must carefully note and reflect on the fact that these laws are nothing more than the limitations necessary to secure the possibility of our existence. Like the interplay of light and shadow that marks the outline of an object in space, these laws represent the boundaries without which our distinctive being cannot appear against the background of being as a whole. In this sense, just as its outline allows us to perceive a freestanding object, the boundaries imposed by the laws of nature set free the possibility of our distinctive being.

Because these laws make our freedom possible, in this way we are bound, for the sake of freedom, to respect them. This requires that our exercise of freedom respect the limitations that make it possible. When our exercise of freedom thus reflects the requirements of natural laws, we do what is right (that is, what respects the Creator's predisposition to make our existence possible). Each such lawful exercise of freedom is therefore an exercise of right. Natural rights thus arise from the obligations imposed by the laws of nature, as the inseparable (unalienable) prerogatives that serve and preserve the distinctive existence (nature) those laws make possible.

Procreation and family

From the perspective of humanity as a whole, procreation is an obligation imposed by the laws of nature, since without it humanity as such would cease to exist. When children are first conceived, they depend entirely on their mother for their physical survival. The mother's body, which is naturally disposed to prepare for and accept this task, obliges her to care for their needs. From the perspective of humanity as a whole, the mother's physical obligation epitomizes the operation of natural law. The body, which is the form of her appearance as a freestanding individual, is constrained to act in ways that serve the species, which in nature as a whole represents and preserves the distinctive existence of humanity as such.

Of course, the children physically represent and are products of an association of two distinct forms of human existence, male and female, a fact that our scientific methods now allow us to confirm from the first moment of physical conception. But it was clear to common sense long before that. Though when the child first appears, its physical preservation depends on the mother, the child itself physically preserves characteristics derived from both male and female ancestors. It preserves these characteristics in its own unique way, perpetuating at one and the same time the distinctive qualities that define humanity as such, and the distinct individuality that defines humanity as a whole.

Through the child, therefore, we preserve both humanity in nature, and the nature of humanity. We realize this, however, only if and when we respect the unique bond or union of distinctive human forms which constitutes the child's existence. In the literal sense, it represents the obligation that preserves humankind.

Through the child, the natural obligation that the mother experiences directly through her physical form appears as a physical concept. It is an association of male and female predisposed to act in ways that contribute to the child's existence, just as nature as a whole is predisposed to contribute to the existence of humanity.

In the first instance, this predisposition refers to physical facts about the mother and the child (their physical nature), but the child would not exist without the involvement of the father as well. In the course of things, the father acts on this natural obligation much as the mother does, directly through his physical form. But unlike the mother, his physical form does not require that he accept the obligation as and when he acts on it. The father's acknowledgement of his obligation to the child must come about as the result of a conscious act of recognition, an act that fulfills the aspect of human nature that transcends its physical form.

Human freedom and the obligations of family

Human beings are not simply physical objects. The concept of human freedom goes beyond the possibility of our freestanding existence as physical things. It extends into the complex realm of thought, passion, and will that constitutes our nature in a moral sense.

The full discussion of this concept has its proper place elsewhere. But without some sense of its meaning, we cannot properly understand the appearance of the family under "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

In one sense, the family simply reflects the operation of physical laws, the way the fall of a stone dropped from a great height reflects the operation of the law of gravity. But the possibilities arising from our self-conscious awareness of existence affect our responses to physical reality.

We are stones, but with attitude. There are times when we have to fall, but there's never a time when we have to like it. As we have increased our knowledge of the way things work, we have increased our ability to translate our attitudes into actions that nullify or even contradict physical appearances.

But however much we delude ourselves with the belief that our knowledge makes the very idea of nature obsolete, this ability to defy nature — and reject the very rules that make us possible — is itself an aspect of our nature. We have always been free to say yes when simply physical things must say no.

We are not the only species where males are physically free to forget their children. But thanks to the capacity for recognition and choice that human self-consciousness makes possible, men who can see the bonds of identity with their children may freely choose to acknowledge and act upon them. They may affirm and build upon what by nature they are free to neglect. The law that is for objects a mere fact of nature becomes, through this affirmation, a manifestation of the distinctively human freedom that is the image of the "being beyond nature," the being of the Creator, God.

Foundation of the family

This exercise of distinctively human freedom is the primordial foundation of the human family. As the father chooses to accept his natural obligation to care for his children, humanity — acting through him — affirms the community the children represent, the community of one human being with another in accordance with the laws of Nature and of Nature's God; the community that preserves humankind as individuals and as a species.

This community exists by nature, made manifest in the physical disposition of the woman. But it also exists by choice in accordance with human nature, as it appears in the father's exercise of distinctively human freedom.

The child represents the preservation and perpetuation of the distinctively human being that results when man and woman come together (covenant) in the fulfillment of the obligation implied by their natural predisposition. It embodies the promise of humanity's future, a promise God makes to humanity when he creates human nature, and which humanity reciprocates when the man and woman covenant to fulfill their role in human procreation. This covenant between God and humankind, which appears in the union of man and woman, in accordance with their distinctive forms of humanity, and for the sake of human procreation, is marriage.

Understood in this way, marriage is the freely accepted consequence of the natural obligation to preserve humanity. By accepting this consequence, the man and the woman do what is right. Marriage and the family produced by it are therefore inseparable prerogatives of our nature, unalienable rights that serve and preserve the distinctive existence made possible by its (our nature's) laws.

Indeed, this concept of marriage, derived as we have done it, from Declaration principles, is the paradigm of all such unalienable rights. It represents the union of human choice and natural obligation — of physical necessity and moral self-determination, of freedom and submission to law — that constitutes and sustains true liberty. It is essential to the physical preservation of the people (what in our day we too narrowly construe as their "economic well-being"), and their moral strength. As we shall see, we cannot abandon it without fatally damaging them both.

© 2007 Alan Keyes

Part 10: Economics, rightly understood
In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I remember frequent talking-head discussions on the news and commentary shows that focused on what sacrifice of rights and liberties would be required . . . [Click for more]

Part 9: 'Abortion rights' and the moral threat to freedom
When I was working in the State Department, someone described one of my superiors as the sort of person who would always be persuaded by the last person who talked to him . . . [Click for more]

Part 8: Moral legislation
In a republic such as the United States is supposed to be, the sovereignty of the people derives from and reflects the personal sovereignty of the individuals who comprise it . . . [Click for more]

Part 7: Personal sovereignty
Of all the articles in the "Crisis of the Republic" series, this one is the most important. It deals with the relationship between the sovereignty and democratic self-government of our nation as a whole and the personal sovereignty and self-control of individual citizens . . . [Click for more]

Part 6: Sovereignty or submission?
Many Americans are deeply outraged about the federal government's failure to secure our southern border and enforce our immigration laws . . . [Click for more]

Part 5: The key to American statesmanship
When poor policy produces bad results, it's often painfully easy to recognize inadequate leadership. Unfortunately, when this standard becomes the main criterion for assessing the quality of our leaders, we end up losing ground . . . [Click for more]

Part 4: The moral basis for the war on terror
Thanks to the entertainment imperative that drives media coverage of our political affairs, it would come as no surprise if Americans treated elections for political office about as seriously as voting for "American Idol" contenders . . . [Click for more]

Part 3: Elections, media, and money
Abraham Lincoln described the American Constitution as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." He recognized the sovereignty of the people as the essential characteristic of republican self-government . . . [Click for more]

Part 2: Electoral politics?
Because our understanding of politics has been corrupted, we cannot discuss what threatens our political sovereignty until we free ourselves from the effects of that corruption . . . [Click for more]

Part 1: An introduction
The 2008 presidential election cycle is well under way, hurried along by decisions of more populous states like New York and California to move their primaries to February 5, 2008 . . . [Click for more]

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: crisis; family; keyes

1 posted on 08/20/2007 7:21:02 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture; outlawcam; joanie-f; Delphinium; Ladycalif; Gelato; Waywardson; Broadside; ..


2 posted on 08/20/2007 7:22:50 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (States' rights don't trump God-given, unalienable the Reagan pro-life platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I don’t understand why folks don’t stand behind Alan Keyes more. I have never seen him waver on these issues. A MORAL person makes the best leader because morales are transcendant from God. “Morals” based on our own self-created standards are not true morals, they may be ethical in some regard but even “ethics” if not based on morals are hollow, as we have seen so often from our “leaders”. Does this makes sense to fellow FReepers?

3 posted on 08/20/2007 7:33:31 AM PDT by brushcop (B-Co. 2/69 3rd Infantry Div., "Sledgehammer!" ...and keep hammering 'em boys!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brushcop

It sure does to me. I’ve stood behind Alan every step of the way.

4 posted on 08/20/2007 7:34:27 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (States' rights don't trump God-given, unalienable the Reagan pro-life platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: brushcop
Poll: Family Ties Key to Youth Happiness
5 posted on 08/20/2007 7:36:42 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (States' rights don't trump God-given, unalienable the Reagan pro-life platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: brushcop

This is one of those pieces that grows on me greatly the more I think on it.

Family is truly our most basic human institution, and the foundation for everything else that matters.

That’s why the Left is working so hard to destroy it.

6 posted on 08/20/2007 7:39:24 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (States' rights don't trump God-given, unalienable the Reagan pro-life platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A kid with a brain

Excellent explanation of the basic natural law principle of hetero-sexual marriage.

I wish he had been appointed to the Supreme Court.

7 posted on 08/20/2007 7:51:29 AM PDT by Valpal1 ("I know the fittest have not survived when I watch Congress on CSPAN.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Our Founders prayed to God before writing the Constitution, so, of course, they believed in natural law.

Killing the preborn is obviously against natural law.

8 posted on 08/20/2007 3:33:12 PM PDT by Sun (Duncan Hunter: pro-life/borders, understands Red China threat!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To:; Coleus; wagglebee; narses; Salvation; Pinkbell; MHGinTN; Mr. Silverback

and BTTT

9 posted on 08/20/2007 7:40:51 PM PDT by MountainFlower (There but by the grace of God go I.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


10 posted on 08/20/2007 10:32:24 PM PDT by Coleus (Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Alan's a true statesman. There are few like him. In fact, I can't think of one, at the moment.


11 posted on 08/21/2007 5:06:09 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Me neither.

12 posted on 08/21/2007 7:18:50 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (States' rights don't trump God-given, unalienable the Reagan pro-life platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson