Why not go out on a limb?
That's where the fruit is.
Will Rogers
More Reflections on the Post-DOMA Era
My pageviews have taken a bit of a hit since the SCOTUS rulings; I don't write my posts to get pageviews (although any author appreciates attention to his work): when I served on university committees, I had no problem being the sole dissenting vote. I'm not an iconoclast by nature--if I was, I would have been for gay "marriage" before it became the latest Hollywood fad. I think, to a large extent, part of it comes from being rigorously consistent, like Ron Paul was in Congress, whom stood principled against Big Government--including Big Defense.
Just one example which I may have discussed in an earlier post to make the point: at UWM, I was on the qualifying MIS PhD program comprehensive exam committee for one student. Students usually had 2 shots to pass the exam. One particular student had failed his first attempt, before I qualified to serve on the committee, which at the time required a publication record, etc. (I was one of the last whom had to qualify; the program later weakened the requirement to let junior faculty serve after one year of residency.) This candidate, a CPA, was well-liked by all the faculty; especially the lead two MIS faculty (the business school was not departmentalized), the junior of which served as chair to the business school PhD program committee. There was a second pair of senior faculty, whom were allied against lead pair, and I was the "lucky" tie-breaking vote at the time, the "Justice Kennedy" as it were. The candidate had failed his first try and decided, against the advice of senior faculty, to retake the exam the next semester. We had a weighted scoring system (e.g., tossing out the high/low scores and averaging the rest); the student failed miserably, even with upwardly biased scoring, e.g., pair #1 giving inflated scores to poor responses. Then came what I considered a blatant violation of professional ethics and due process. Pair #1 said that pair #2 would need to deliver the bad news, pointing out they had already decided on the student's dissertation topic/committee. Pair #2 refused (nobody asked me, probably because junior faculty were to be seen and not heard). Over my heated objections, the 4 faculty members suspended formal judgment; the PhD Committee chair called the committee into session and revised the rules to allow conditional passes with remedial work, then called the student's exam committee back into session and conditionally passed the student, over my explicit dissent. My dissent had nothing to do with disliking the student, but he was responsible for his poor performance,he had been warned, and he knew the consequences. The decision was blatantly corrupt. My office was bordered by pair #2's offices, and I had a follow-up conversation with the older male professor. I half-jokingly asked him what the result would have been if John Doe had my personal style, and he candidly admitted that John Doe would have been done.
So it's very easy to see how Ron Paul had issues winning friends and influencing other legislators, because, for instance, no fellow Republican wanted to hear himself called a hypocrite. But just as I in the UWM incident wasn't looking for a conflict with my senior colleagues, operating on principle comes at a personal cost. Just as I explained about the Asian student plagiarism case, my two fellow junior faculty members refused to pursue the matter over fears of senior faculty reprisals (the senior business faculty decided on distribution of compensation increases, contract renewals, and, of course, tenure) In a similar fashion, it's not hard to see how idealistic Congressmen get captured, having to go along with leadership on certain votes if they want to advance to leadership, plumb committee assignments and/or chairs. It reminds me of the old saw that you learn to bide your time, work hard, and one day you'll be in the position to change things for the better. But being in the job changes you; you don't really change the status quo.
Some additional reflections:
- My position on gay "marriage" is more nuanced than it may appear. For instance, ironic as it might sound, if I with my current perspective went back to 1996, I probably would oppose DOMA. Why? First, I think there was already a de facto federal definition of marriage; marital status was entrenched in tax law, naturalization processes, etc. Second, I'm not convinced a state could unilaterally impose material changes in reciprocity agreements. Third, I oppose government meddling in personal relationships: mandates, manipulations (government benefits), etc. Fourth,, DOMA unduly constrained changes in state policies under the tenth amendment, violating the principles of federalism.
So why would I oppose the SCOTUS decision? Several reasons, including the opening of Pandora's box. It creates an unsustainable status quo with related uncertainty. It deepens the federal footprint in personal relationships, it may exacerbate government liabilities, tax expenditures and outlays. Plus, as I've previously mentioned, I'm worried about moral hazard and unintended consequences of meddling with society bedrock constructs of marriage and family.
- Cato Institute Flags Concerns Over Executive Abuse of Power. Make no mistake about it: Cato Institute is giddy over the SCOTUS decisions. I have deliberately not promoted their views on this topic because I don't like the way they have been hyping public opinion polls which I find extraordinarily un-libertarian, and I find it peculiar they are advocating a positive right and more government meddling in personal relationships. Okay, the interesting thing in this commentary is after the necessary disclaimer about being for gay "marriage", Shapiro is concerned about how the Prop 8 decision sets a corrupt precedent of state or federal executives arbitrarily refusing to defend existing law they disagree with. The legal standing issue in conjunction with judicial activism fundamentally alters the balance of powers. [7/2 edit: last night when I looked at the published post in Chrome, the embedded Google audio reader was working; if it's not showing below, the Shapiro podcast is available here.]
- I Believe That the Public Polls on the Issue Are Overstated. SCOTUS seems to be under the impression that universal acceptance of gay "marriage" is inevitable. There are so many counterexamples one hardly knows where to start. Recall California Proposition 8 was widely expected to go down in defeat. Arizona turned down a traditional marriage measure in 2006, just to enact one in 2008. Of the 3 deep-blue states to approve "gay" marriage in 2012 (ME, MD, WA), the first by public ballot, the highest winning percentage was 53% (ME). And just months earlier, a traditional marriage measure passed in NC, over 60%. I was in Maryland, and I know for a fact that the pro-gay marriage side heavily outspent traditionalists, and I believe in all 3 states where it passed, Obama's winning reelection measure was higher. One could argue the pro-gay "marriage" vote was boosted by Obama's reelection. Now I do think the SCOTUS decision probably gave the pro-gay "marriage" side a little boost, but the low-hanging fruit has already been picked, and I suspect, just as in the case of Roe v Wade, we may see the tide shift back towards a more conservative perspective.
- Justice Kennedy's Decision Is Fundamentally an Unsatisfactory Half-Measure. It's very difficult to see if gay "marriage" is the intrinsically worthy, morally superior construct Kennedy suggests, how it squares to support depriving citizens of other states the same privileges. This seems like an equal protection/Article IV argument waiting to happen. I do think Kennedy is vested in the federalism argument and so long as the current court presides we'll see a nuanced balance, and I think even the court liberal wing may not want to set another Roe v Wade-like culture war. I think the justices are hoping to see reversals in the over half the states with traditional marriage initiatives passing. As in the above discussion, I seriously doubt that's going to happen. I think what is most likely to happen is you'll see some game playing like in the California case where they may sidestep the substantive issue and look for technicalities to achieve the desired results.
- Most Other Libertarians Don't Share My Perspective. Two of my favorite popular libertarians, John Stossel and Andrew Napolitano, support gay "marriage". Ron and Rand Paul want to see the federal government out of the marriage business, and I did hear a reluctant Ron Paul admit he would vote for a state traditional marriage measure. I would not say I've done a comprehensive search for other libertarians also opposing gay "marriage", but I did find a very interesting opinion from an openly gay libertarian, Justin Raimondo. He sees gay "marriage" as being a case of being really careful of what you wish for, because you just might get it; he has an interesting account of the gay community's history of a comparable marriage concept and doesn't think it's a great idea for gays to surrender control of their own relationships to the state. Some key extracts (I think he's spot on):
Marriage evolved because of the existence of children: without them, the institution loses its biological, economic, and historical basis, its very reason for being. This is not to say childless couples—including gay couples—are any less worthy (or less married) than others. It means only that they are not bound by necessity to a mutual commitment involving the ongoing investment of considerable resources.
The modern gay-rights movement is all about securing the symbols of societal acceptance. It is a defensive strategy, one that attempts to define homosexuals as an officially sanctioned victim group afflicted with an inherent disability, a disadvantage that must be compensated for legislatively. But if “gay pride” means anything, it means not wanting, needing, or seeking any sort of acceptance but self-acceptance. Marriage is a social institution designed by heterosexuals for heterosexuals: why should gay people settle for their cast-off hand-me-downs?Texas Secession Movement?
HT to Libertarian Republican. Eric Dondero, the key website editor, is a Houston resident and mentioned seeing the ads frequently on local airwaves. Lord,how I miss Texas, some BBQ or Tex-Mex, iced tea or a longneck, some nice old-time country music....
Political Cartoon
This has to be my favorite Bob Gorrell cartoon: Barack "Sisyphus" Obama. Note to Bob: the same concept works for 'Helicopter Ben' Bernanke.
 |
| Courtesy of Bob Gorrell and Townhall |
The Beatles, "If I Fell".
