Quote of the Day
Be wiser than other people if you can, but do not tell them so.
Lord Chesterfield
It's the Economy, Stupid:
Let's Avoid the Culture Wars This Election
One of the more unfortunate things about Rick Santorum's near victory in Iowa is that it reopened the cultural wars and divisive wars on issues like gay "marriage" and abortion. I've made it very clear where I stand on the issue of marriage and family: these are fundamental constructs that have evolved over thousands of years and are not arbitrary in nature, and I believe that there are unintended consequences to fundamental change.
The difference I have from a more libertarian perspective is that I think that the government should be pragmatic in terms of restricting a citizen's liberties so long as he respects the lives, liberties and properties of others. We cannot compel virtue, and certain laws are difficult to enforce. (For example, we may not even realize that a young woman is pregnant during the early stages, and certain abortifacients exist.)
From a pragmatic standpoint, I think the state has a compelling interest to protect an unborn child with functional basic organs (e.g., heart and brain), the same kind of marker indicators we might use to determine whether a born human being is still alive. This doesn't change the scientific fact that a child is biologically distinct from his or her mother from the moment of conception. I also believe that a state should be prudent in judgment when a mother's own life is threatened (her unalienable right to life) or when she did not consent to sex (her unalienable right of liberty). I am less tolerant of the intentional (versus incidental) destruction of human life (e.g., embryo farming).
As for gay relationships,if a state does not want to consider certain committed relationships within the definition of marriage, it should provide an applicable domestic partnership mechanism guaranteeing certain marital rights, including hospital visitation and inheritance, for state reciprocity agreements.
So what does to do with the White House? I think first of all, Santorum and others need to distinguish the circumstances of federal action. As a matter of principle, Santorum, Bachmann and others should realize that marriage had traditionally been regulated at the state vs. federal level. I do think an argument can be made that federal law has presumed and enforces the traditional definition of marriage: consider, for instance, that the US government initially refused the admission of Utah into the union because of its tolerance of polygamy. Would Utah have been able to revert policy after admission to the union? In my judgment, no.
Is gender an arbitrary restriction in the definition of marriage, just like race? No. The state cannot discriminate on the basis of individual characteristics incidental to procreation, the foundation of natural family, e.g., one's race, religion, height, weight, etc. (Age is a different question, but it can be handled in a manner comparable to voting privileges, driving, etc. Certainly the state has an interest in promoting the stability of marriage and an individual's readiness to accept adult responsibilities.)
And I think one can argue that from the standpoint of equal protection, other states also cannot change the fundamental definition of marriage and impose it on the other states or the US government; the Defense of Marriage Act reflects that reality. However, I do not think that federal law can prohibit states from giving legal standing to other types of committed relationships, and I would argue that states can use those policies to attract residents from other states or countries, just like they can use tax policy (e.g., state income taxes).
I do think there's a ninth amendment argument involving consensual, relationships between of-age persons that the state cannot restrict. I don't accept the equal protection argument in this context: for example, I don't consider marriages and extramarital relationships to be equal.
I don't think it is right for a conservative to try to define away individual liberties at the federal level or to impose a centralized authority versus a traditional tenth-amendment responsibility. Santorum needs to provide a consistent political philosophy: you can't be for Big Defense if you are against Big Domestic Policy, and you can't be Decentralize Education on one hand and Centralize Marriage on the other. (As for progressives, the flip side also applies.)
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Styx, "Blue Collar Man (Long Nights)"
