Posted on 03/14/2013 7:41:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This isn't news because it's novel for a Paul to be saying such things --- his dad once called for getting the government out of marriage on a GOP presidential primary debate stage --- but because of Rand Paul's growing prominence in the GOP. If he could rally a hawkish party to oppose the president's power to use drones against terrorists in certain circumstances, can he rally a socially conservative party to find an accommodation on gay marriage?
Paul says foreign policy is an instrumental way to expand the GOP, but it’s not the only way. Social issues are another area where he thinks Republicans can make a better argument to independents and centrists without departing from their principles. Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”
I assume that’s part of a broader ambition to make marriage a wholly private function, which is vintage Paul insofar as it’s a clever attempt to sell libertarian wine in conservative bottles. He does the same thing vis-a-vis foreign aid to Israel: Cutting aid will actually lead to more robust Israeli self-defense because Israel will no longer feel obliged to seek American approval when responding to Hamas. I’ve seen other libertarians and paleocons argue for cutting aid to Tel Aviv and, needless to say, the idea that it might make Israel more aggressive towards its enemies was … not a key factor in their reasoning, to put it mildly. Likewise here, most libertarians support making marriage a matter of private contract not because they feel angst about “redefining marriage” — the ones I know are all perfectly fine with, if not enthusiastic about, states legalizing SSM — but because it’s a move towards smaller government, especially on moral issues. Paul, however, is pitching this as a sort of escape hatch for social conservatives who don’t want to see blue states or the Supreme Court lend the imprimatur of American government to gays marrying. He supports traditional marriage; he doesn’t want to see marriage redefined. So … why not eliminate state sanction from marriage entirely? Indeed, why not, says Jen Rubin:
If we were starting a system from scratch, I suspect that would be an easier sell. But getting the federal government out of the marriage business, deferring to the states and allowing individuals to, as he says, enter into contracts with one another, can be the way out of the gay marriage thicket for the GOP, I would argue.
The Supreme Court, depending on its ruling in the same-sex marriage cases, may assist this process by striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, the biggest aggrandizement of federal power on marriage in my lifetime (maybe ever).
Conservatives understand that there is a realm of conduct left to churches, synagogues, families, localities and individuals. The essence of Burkean conservatism is a healthy regard for and respect for those realms and for the customs, habits and beliefs that flow from those free associations. Whatever the methodology, conservatives at the national level need to extract themselves from a losing battle that should not be within the purview of the federal government.
That bit at the end is another reason this is newsworthy: The timing is propitious. Ten years ago, social cons laughed at libertarians for suggesting that marriage go completely private. Ten years later, with several states having legalized gay marriage, poll trends among young voters promising more legalization, and the Supreme Court poised to extend marriage rights to gays as a matter of equal protection, maybe they’ll consider it the lesser of two evils. See, e.g., Frank Fleming’s piece at PJM arguing that marriage is, after all, a religious custom and the state has no business trying to reconfigure religious customs. Better to leave marriage entirely within the private realm so that churches can protect their traditions. The timing’s propitious too in that the GOP’s desperate for ways to build goodwill with younger voters and Paul’s ploy is one likely way of doing it. It’s similar to what Mitch Daniels said about pot a few months ago: The GOP doesn’t need to endorse legalization, all it needs to do is let the power to decide devolve to a more local level of government. In the case of marijuana, Daniels pushed federalism as a solution. In the case of marriage, Paul’s pushing private contract, i.e. self-government at the individual level, as the answer. In both cases, the GOP gets to punt on a hot-button issue in a way that, maybe hopefully, won’t alienate social conservatives. They’re not backing weed and SSM; they’re merely striking a blow for limited government by letting people decide for themselves.
All that said, and as someone who supports legalizing gay marriage, I’ve never understood why social cons would go for this. At the core of the anti-SSM argument, as I understand it, is the belief that man/woman marriage is qualitatively different from gay unions; barring gays from marrying under state law is a way to recognize that difference. It’s not that state sanction operates as some sort of “benediction” for straights, it’s that it a mechanism of differentiation with all other types of unions. If you move to Paul’s paradigm where everything’s a matter of contract, there’s no longer any such mechanism. Every couple with a private agreement is effectively equal; the state will enforce an agreement between gays just as it will an agreement between straights. How does that satisfy the social-con objection to SSM? Likewise, some conservatives support state sanction of marriage because they believe the state has a role in promoting marriage as a social good and domesticating force. I’ve always thought that was a good argument for gay marriage too, but we needn’t argue about that; the point is, if the state gets out the marriage business it’s no longer officially promoting anything. And finally, if you’re worried about gay marriage for fear that it’s another step down the cultural slippery slope towards polygamy, why on earth would you favor a paradigm of private contract? A multi-party contract would place polygamous groups on the same legal footing as couples. If polygamy’s your chief concern, you’re probably much better off sticking with state-sanctioned marriage and taking your chances with the Supreme Court. Exit question: What am I missing here? Any social conservatives want to make the case for why Paul’s right?
That second sentence may be true under some strained and highly unusual definition of "public" - but that definition clearly has no legitimate bearing on privacy rights.
There is no legal right to privacy. The Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade invented what it said was one in the Constitution—but it couldn't find the word "privacy" in the USC. So it identified what it called a "penumbra" (shadow) of a right to privacy—which it then claimed made laws against abortion unconstitutional. This decision was nonsensical, and itself unconstitutional on a number of grounds.
Privacy is real and important, even a sacred thing. But it is a general effect of our explicit rights—freedom of speech, association, due process, search and seizure, etc. And legitimately, it will always be a matter of degree. Because we live together, we have some legitimate concern about the effect of other people's actions, even if the effect on us is indirect. Such as drug-dealing, to use an example from trade. To a (much) smaller degree, our legitimate concern also applies to trade in things that are legal: People in business selling stuff legally to strangers on the street or behind storefronts have a more reasonable expectation of scrutiny or curiosity than folks regularly employed at the same company, sitting in an office, working together all day.
The same prudential idea of privacy applies to social relationships involving marriage and sexual behavior—which have much more impact, positive or negative, on the surrounding society.
If "conservative" is defined as the strict adherence to the constitution, then Paul is conservative. If you define it as adhering to traditional societal norms, he still is. But if you define it as state enforcement of societal norms not enumerated in the constitution, then he's not conservative.
The bill of rights didn't enumerate and codify all of the natural laws for a specific reason - it would be tantamount to granting them by government, not given from God. In order to preserve them, the most important aspect of protecting them is to bar the federal government from regulating them. The states through the 10th amendment may have a right to regulate morality, but not the fed. We can see the natural progression of statism is to take over every aspect of living - from the union of adults, to raising a family, and eventual death.
I'm not arguing that SSM should be allowed, but this leviathan of a federal government is like Skynet with Terminators - it won't stop until everyone is under complete subjugation. We have $150+ TRILLION in debt and unfunded liabilities. If we don't stand up for constitutional limits on legislation, we have no right to complain about SCOTUS decisions like Roe v Wade. There are far better ways to address morality then social engineering by big brother.
Now tell me that Hispanics believe that, because I have yet to meet one that did.
I think most of them have been living under the radar and feel immune to theses kind of abuses. Perhaps we should make an effort to show them that they are no more immune than we are?
How does unmarried sex behind closed doors "impact" "society" any more than married sex or unmarried Parcheesi?
And, to return to the original topic, how do certain unmarried sex acts "impact" "society" more than others?
I've always thought that non-issue social issues are a great way to guarantee that the public pays not attention to things that really matter.
"Gay marriage" is relevant to the interests of a tiny fraction of the population. The Patriot Act infringes upon all of our liberties. Guess which one gets more debate on the House/Senate floor and more coverage from MSM?
Well said.
And, to return to the original topic, how do certain unmarried sex acts "impact" "society" more than others?
Answer to question 1:
a) Bastard children, and hence, pathological narcissism, misery, poverty, crime, and Democrat votes.
b) Bastard adults. Perfectly performing contraception and abortion "beget" adults who believe that sex can be extracted from the general intention of faithful marriage and bearing the next generation, and exists—like one's disposable girlfriend—for the pleasure of wonderful moi. And more Democrat votes.
Answer to question 2:
More bastard adults. As with the answer to question 1, the more distantly you try to abstract sex from the possibility of procreation, the more energy you must expend in trying to convince yourself that the purpose of the world is your personal pleasure, pursued for its own sake. Since that is not the purpose of the world, anatomically impractical uses of the sex organs produce adults who are frustrated, self-centered, needy, short-tempered, and puzzled. Who mostly vote Democrat, if we're keeping score.
See Charles Murray's book, Coming Apart. Statistically, the people who most commonly describe themselves as "happy" are self-sacrificing, religious people who are married to their first spouse, and have children.
The term you're looking for is Socio-biological Fitness.
Big mistake to take the family out of this. The nation needs that important fabric to hold us together. Once we get rid of that, we are done and will become an infested sick society. If he wants to do something, push the fair or flat tax..which solves many issues. Don’t cave nor settle to find detours on wishy washy ideas... be strong on your faith to the word of God.
He’s giving the left what they want-remove the family out-no tax credits for children nothing- it’s a trap and he is being set up like he is with this amnesty reform. he could have made it/but someone said he had to be hurt and he has took the bait (and it didn’t take long)
And, to return to the original topic, how do certain unmarried sex acts "impact" "society" more than others?
Answer to question 1:
a) Bastard children, and hence
False premise - false conclusions deleted. Only poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex leads to bastard children - no justifation there for invading the privacy of people who don't engage in poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex.
b) Bastard adults. Perfectly performing contraception and abortion "beget" adults who believe that sex can be extracted from the general intention of faithful marriage and bearing the next generation
I see no reason to think they'll believe that any less if government invades their privacy in an attempt to prevent unmarried sex. Can you provide such a reason?
Answer to question 2:
More bastard adults. As with the answer to question 1, the more distantly you try to abstract sex from the possibility of procreation
So the concept of foreplay is foreign to you? My condolences to your wife. ;-)
See Charles Murray's book, Coming Apart. Statistically, the people who most commonly describe themselves as "happy" are self-sacrificing, religious people who are married to their first spouse, and have children.
It is not the proper function of government to control people's actions to enhance their happiness.
You're right about that. It was just an interesting indicator about the moral life that I'd blundered across in Murray's book. It wasn't my point, but I didn't want to go on forever, so I stopped there.
The real point—and up to now, it's been hard for us as a post-1960s society to grasp—is that what kind of neighbors we have is a matter of life or death. The common understanding since the Greeks has been that the virtues are all connected. On the everyday level, it's not too surprising when we find out that someone who is a shyster in public life was also cheating on his wife with multiple mistresses. I'm reminded of the aristocratic socialist Mitterand, with families in both England and France. And Clintons.
But how about this: Does is make sense that you can be arrested for sending pictures of child pornography around, or, I think, even having them on your hard drive? Certainly seems like police-state stuff. But whereas not all child-porn addicts murder children, it seems that all murderous molesters of children collect child porn. What do we do about the fact that the child-porn "culture" shapes them in their public criminality? Is anything that could be defined as "speech" subject to restriction because of the way it shapes public discourse and behavior? People won't tolerate predators molesting and murdering their children. Most of them feel like drawing the line at protecting "predator speech." Are they wrong?
This wasn't much of a dilemma for the Founders. They did not envision a society without obscenity laws, any more than they opposed laws against libel, loitering, blasphemy, or incitement to riot. Adultery, sodomy, and so on were illegal, without a peep from the Federalist Papers. They just wanted Congress out of it. As I understand it, the reasoning is that any action taken from D.C. to control life on the microcosmic level could only be ill-informed, ham-handed, and potentially tyrannical. (Like the French Revolution two years later.) So there are any number of rules about moral behavior the USC left "to the States and the People" that today's libertarians would not be comfortable with, but which were common sense to the Framers. It was recognized that mores shape the kind of people we are, and that a Republic only works if people have an independently operating sense of integrity—if they act as if they are answerable to God. And if you don't like the way the Quakers or Congregationalists or Methodists run their town, you can move to a better town.
Left-wing outfits like the ACLU have gotten many of these local laws struck down at the Federal level as "unconstitutional"—which is unconstitutional itself, according to the 10th Amendment. The net effect is that, in the name of freeing some parties from various kinds of local restraint, we have micro-regulation of everyday life at the Federal level aimed at everyone else in town. This leaves ordinary people unprotected against criminals with too many rights, job applicants with bad hair and too few skills, illegal aliens with no means of support, toilets that don't work, and abortionists who collect Federal money to solicit business from our minor daughters.
We can talk about what constitutes depravity. But the idea that something called moral depravity exists, and it privately shapes people's behavior in public in ways that become the public's business—this is not a novel idea. Nor is the idea that a free society's first priority is not unrestricted freedom. It has to survive as a society first. Whether we believe that, for instance, pleasure is more important than duty, shapes how we behave, not just at home, but everywhere. I believe it's a matter best pondered locally, not Federally.
False premise - false conclusions deleted. Only poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex leads to bastard children - no justifation there for invading the privacy of people who don't engage in poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex.
Contraception can't handle human nature. What followed from the legalization of contraception was . . . an explosive increase in illegitimate births, which continues. Forcibly legalized contraception has weakened people's respect for the institution that protected children—marriage. Besides divorcing more, people have children without getting married. Even if the father lives with his girlfriend and children, the children become criminals, indigents, suicides, and so on, at exactly the classic rates that have always been associated with illegitimate children.
In short, sex isn't really private. We don't own it; it was given to us. We take part in it. It has ramifications across the generations.
On the foreplay thing, I'm afraid you have it backwards. For a Catholic, it's a sacrifice toward a greater good, and we're all about sacrifice. . .
And, to return to the original topic, how do certain unmarried sex acts "impact" "society" more than others?
Answer to question 1:
a) Bastard children, and hence
False premise - false conclusions deleted. Only poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex leads to bastard children - no justification there for invading the privacy of people who don't engage in poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex.
Contraception can't handle human nature. What followed from the legalization of contraception was . . . an explosive increase in illegitimate births, which continues. Forcibly legalized contraception has weakened people's respect for the institution that protected children—marriage. Besides divorcing more, people have children without getting married. Even if the father lives with his girlfriend and children, the children become criminals, indigents, suicides, and so on, at exactly the classic rates that have always been associated with illegitimate children.
The only thing here even relevant to a justification for invading the privacy of people who don't engage in poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex is, "What followed from the legalization of contraception was . . . an explosive increase in illegitimate births, which continues." And that falls well short of a justification, since even if legalization of contraception indirectly caused, rather than being merely correlated with, the increase in illegitimate births, it remains the case that today invading the privacy of people who don't engage in poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex won't do squat to reduce illegitimate births.
b) Bastard adults. Perfectly performing contraception and abortion "beget" adults who believe that sex can be extracted from the general intention of faithful marriage and bearing the next generation
I see no reason to think they'll believe that any less if government invades their privacy in an attempt to prevent unmarried sex. Can you provide such a reason?
So that's a "no"?
Answer to question 2:
More bastard adults. As with the answer to question 1, the more distantly you try to abstract sex from the possibility of procreation
So the concept of foreplay is foreign to you? My condolences to your wife. ;-)
On the foreplay thing, I'm afraid you have it backwards. For a Catholic, it's a sacrifice toward a greater good, and we're all about sacrifice. . .
But foreplay involves acts (such as the ones originally under discussion) that are not in and of themselves potentially procreative - at least if you're doing it right. So your suggestion that those acts "abstract sex from the possibility of procreation" strongly implied that foreplay was not in the picture.
Does is make sense that you can be arrested for sending pictures of child pornography around, or, I think, even having them on your hard drive? Certainly seems like police-state stuff.
No, seems like acting against accessories after the fact to child abuse.
Adultery, sodomy, and so on were illegal, without a peep from the Federalist Papers. They just wanted Congress out of it.
I don't recall saying or implying otherwise.
Illegitimacy is only one of the (many) reasons to put sanctions on fornication. The worst of it is not that it produces illegitimate children. It's that it morally degrades even those who don't have children in the process. It makes them colder, more antiseptic people, more inclined to use other people, more disrespectful of ethics of all kinds—not just the sexual kind. It encourages in them a superficial and childish point of view: that the most important thing in this mortal existence is whether I get my jollies just now, in the way I want.
Real freedom is when your government doesn't forbid you to do the right thing. On the other hand, libertine ideas of freedom create so much chaos that they end in the destruction of both kinds of freedom.
b) Bastard adults. Perfectly performing contraception and abortion "beget" adults who believe that sex can be extracted from the general intention of faithful marriage and bearing the next generation
I see no reason to think they'll believe that any less if government invades their privacy in an attempt to prevent unmarried sex. Can you provide such a reason?
So that's a "no"?
Um, no. I just didn't understand your syntax and moved on. I figured whatever you meant would be covered in another (long) answer of mine. But trying again, if I understand you correctly: People who fornicate have been known to arrive at a new understanding of the purpose of sexuality if they hit a lot of roadblocks to fornication—especially fathers, mothers, brothers, the woman's existing children or the man's, clergy, landlords, innkeepers, local bureaucrats, and so on—that offered clues that there is a lot more at stake here than a current passion. Those roadblocks certainly began to wake me up, eventually.
Adultery, sodomy, and so on were illegal, without a peep from the Federalist Papers. They just wanted Congress out of it.
I don't recall saying or implying otherwise.
No, I don't either. I haven't seen you offer philosophical, ethical, or legal justification for any of your opinions. A few claims of cause and effect. But basically, you've just repeated your assertion that you don't want government interfering with you. It's an expression of feeling, rather than reasoning, argument, or persuasion. It doesn't deal with the civilized possibility that someone might reasonably have a different view. It's characteristic of the solipsism of fornication itself, and certainly of contraception. They both embody a denial of the reality that our actions have unseen consequences, and so, especially, do the ideas behind our actions. I think you can do better, and I pray that you do.
With government determining what "the right thing" is and isn't. You see any potential problems there? What does President 0bama, or NY Gov. Cuomo, think "the right thing" is and isn't?
Perfectly performing contraception and abortion "beget" adults who believe that sex can be extracted from the general intention of faithful marriage and bearing the next generation
I see no reason to think they'll believe that any less if government invades their privacy in an attempt to prevent unmarried sex. Can you provide such a reason?
People who fornicate have been known to arrive at a new understanding of the purpose of sexuality if they hit a lot of roadblocks to fornication—especially fathers, mothers, brothers, the woman's existing children or the man's, clergy, landlords, innkeepers, local bureaucrats, and so on—that offered clues that there is a lot more at stake here than a current passion. Those roadblocks certainly began to wake me up, eventually.
I agree that noncoercive societal roadblocks can wake one up - because one has a personal connection with the blockers. I don't believe the same applies to local bureaucrats; I'd be interested to know what roadblocks local bureaucrats raised for you, and how much of your awakening was honestly due to those local bureaucrats.
basically, you've just repeated your assertion that you don't want government interfering with you.
Actually, I can't find where I said that once. But since you bring it up, I don't want government interfering with me, or you, or anybody else to any greater degree than is necessary to prevent violations of individual rights. Human adults are by nature reasoning, free-willed beings, and are thus able to formulate and pursue their own ends, so it is contrary to their natures to be unwillingly used as means to others' ends - even if those ends include a genuine concern for their well-being.
It's all you have said. You're obviously intelligent, but you write as if you have very little worldly experience, and little experience of being responsible for anything besides yourself. And you don't seem to have absorbed any philosophy anywhere—other people's thought and reasoning. I'm sorry, this is unproductive. You haven't yet learned to think.
It's all you have said.
Then surely you can easily quote a single instance.
You're obviously intelligent, but you write as if you have very little worldly experience, and little experience of being responsible for anything besides yourself.
And here come the ad hominems. Since you have nothing more to say on the issues: I'm 49 years old, employed since I graduated, married 26 years, 2 kids ages 19 and 23.
And you don't seem to have absorbed any philosophy anywhere—other people's thought and reasoning.
Because I have the temerity to disagree with you?
I'm sorry, this is unproductive. You haven't yet learned to think.
Said the person who responded to 9 words of my previous post - and that with ad hominems and unsupported assertions.
It's been productive as yet another illustration of the factual, logical, philosophical, and moral poverty of the statist position.
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.
