A NOTE TO REPUBLICANS (AND CONSERVATIVES)
It is rather common to think, even among Republicans, that gay marriage has little to do with anything important. All kinds of people sigh that there seem to be more important things to worry about than gay marriage, and they may be right. But it should be noted that if ANYONE were to suggest that all Americans should set aside gay marriage for now so the MORE IMPORTANT things can be addressed, pro-gay marriage activists would scream to high heaven. It is a lie that gay marriage isn't important; it is THE most important thing, at least to gay activists who constantly ask Americans to worry about all those other MORE IMPORTANT things.
If you are a Republican solely because you would like to see government wastefulness and services reduced; if you are a Republican solely because you want lower taxes, a more vibrant free-market economy, and less government intrusion on your personal (and your business's) income, then you need to consider two things.
First, if the extent of your political activism is solely about money, spending, taxes, economics; if this is your constant concern, you appear, at least to your opponents, as a person fixated on yourself. In other words, you come across as greedy, avaricious, materialistic, selfish. And if economics, private and public, are your sole political concern, you MIGHT deserve to be called a heartless materialist.
Second, if you as a fiscally-minded Republican could broaden your mind to things beyond the fiscal, you would see that gay marriage IS a threat to your wealth, your good fortune or the rewards you've enjoyed as a result of your hard work. Why? Because the spirit of egalitarianism that is behind gay marriage is the same spirit behind higher taxation and expanding distributive government. Gay marriage is about what YOU have that "they" don't have -- unfair! unjust! unequal! -- just like the death or estate tax is about what YOU have that "they" don't have. It's unfair that you can send your kids to a school of your choice. It's unjust that you can leave your estate to your children in order to give them an advantage. It's unfair that you can afford health care when others can't (or that you can afford "better" health care). It's a gross inequality that you can have a bigger share and not be forced to "give back" your "fair share." (Even abortion rights are of the same spirit: it is not fair that a woman should be forced to bear the result of the sex act when the man does not.)
Alas, if you as a Republican neither see nor care to see this connection, then you should rethink your allegiance to the Republican Party. Sorry. For the GOP is really not about egalitarianism for the sake of egalitarianism: the GOP really believes that there are ontological differences between people, things, circumstances. The GOP really believes that FORCING charity, beneficence and equality, all by law, is to deny freedom. The GOP really believes that competition is OK, that not everyone deserves a blue ribbon. The GOP really believes in the possibility and the reality of gaining a just advantage over others and passing that advantage -- in accord with EVOLUTION -- to one's offspring. The GOP really believes that envy politics as embodied in legislative "reforms" such as reparations, or gay marriage, or increased taxation on the rich or corporations, is detrimental to the health not only of the individual but the collective as well.
In short, the GOP recognizes that where egalitarianism reigns, freedom MUST DIE. What are the most egalitarian systems in the world? Prisons, gulags, concentration camps -- where all men are equal.
Let me put it this way. When the founders of our country (I note Thomas Jefferson in the following clause) wrote that "All men are created equal," what was NOT written is that "All men ARE EQUAL." Nor was it written that "All men must be MADE EQUAL." No, the brilliance of Jefferson is that he saw that all are CREATED equal, by "nature's God." Naked each of is us born, and naked we shall die (from dust to dust). But nature, society, circumstance, God: all of these combine to make dynamic inequalities (some no doubt sad and unjust) that make each human -- and humanity -- stronger, better, more adaptable. SAMENESS and EQUALITY are anathema to survival; natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is only possible where there are inequalities.
In closing I note that Republicans fixated solely on moral issues are vulnerable to accusations that they only care about controlling what occurs in America's bedrooms. Fair enough; some people are overly fixated on minding others' private lives. But the fact is that the morality of egalitarianism, so to speak, does not stop in the bedroom or the boardroom. It is a pervasive morality. Once Americans allow egalitarians to codify the irrational assertion that two gay men in matrimony EQUALS a man and a woman; once Americans allow egalitarians to insist that it is unfair that 1+1 is NOT equal to 2+2, America has allowed envy and the irrational to gain a foothold. If the irrational is allowed to redefine what the demonstrable building block of all society is; if the envious are allowed to define marriage (and equality and fairness), then the irrational will rule throughout society, culture and government.
Stand against envy and the irrational. Please.
©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
If you are a Republican solely because you would like to see government wastefulness and services reduced; if you are a Republican solely because you want lower taxes, a more vibrant free-market economy, and less government intrusion on your personal (and your business's) income, then you need to consider two things.
First, if the extent of your political activism is solely about money, spending, taxes, economics; if this is your constant concern, you appear, at least to your opponents, as a person fixated on yourself. In other words, you come across as greedy, avaricious, materialistic, selfish. And if economics, private and public, are your sole political concern, you MIGHT deserve to be called a heartless materialist.
Second, if you as a fiscally-minded Republican could broaden your mind to things beyond the fiscal, you would see that gay marriage IS a threat to your wealth, your good fortune or the rewards you've enjoyed as a result of your hard work. Why? Because the spirit of egalitarianism that is behind gay marriage is the same spirit behind higher taxation and expanding distributive government. Gay marriage is about what YOU have that "they" don't have -- unfair! unjust! unequal! -- just like the death or estate tax is about what YOU have that "they" don't have. It's unfair that you can send your kids to a school of your choice. It's unjust that you can leave your estate to your children in order to give them an advantage. It's unfair that you can afford health care when others can't (or that you can afford "better" health care). It's a gross inequality that you can have a bigger share and not be forced to "give back" your "fair share." (Even abortion rights are of the same spirit: it is not fair that a woman should be forced to bear the result of the sex act when the man does not.)
Alas, if you as a Republican neither see nor care to see this connection, then you should rethink your allegiance to the Republican Party. Sorry. For the GOP is really not about egalitarianism for the sake of egalitarianism: the GOP really believes that there are ontological differences between people, things, circumstances. The GOP really believes that FORCING charity, beneficence and equality, all by law, is to deny freedom. The GOP really believes that competition is OK, that not everyone deserves a blue ribbon. The GOP really believes in the possibility and the reality of gaining a just advantage over others and passing that advantage -- in accord with EVOLUTION -- to one's offspring. The GOP really believes that envy politics as embodied in legislative "reforms" such as reparations, or gay marriage, or increased taxation on the rich or corporations, is detrimental to the health not only of the individual but the collective as well.
In short, the GOP recognizes that where egalitarianism reigns, freedom MUST DIE. What are the most egalitarian systems in the world? Prisons, gulags, concentration camps -- where all men are equal.
Let me put it this way. When the founders of our country (I note Thomas Jefferson in the following clause) wrote that "All men are created equal," what was NOT written is that "All men ARE EQUAL." Nor was it written that "All men must be MADE EQUAL." No, the brilliance of Jefferson is that he saw that all are CREATED equal, by "nature's God." Naked each of is us born, and naked we shall die (from dust to dust). But nature, society, circumstance, God: all of these combine to make dynamic inequalities (some no doubt sad and unjust) that make each human -- and humanity -- stronger, better, more adaptable. SAMENESS and EQUALITY are anathema to survival; natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is only possible where there are inequalities.
In closing I note that Republicans fixated solely on moral issues are vulnerable to accusations that they only care about controlling what occurs in America's bedrooms. Fair enough; some people are overly fixated on minding others' private lives. But the fact is that the morality of egalitarianism, so to speak, does not stop in the bedroom or the boardroom. It is a pervasive morality. Once Americans allow egalitarians to codify the irrational assertion that two gay men in matrimony EQUALS a man and a woman; once Americans allow egalitarians to insist that it is unfair that 1+1 is NOT equal to 2+2, America has allowed envy and the irrational to gain a foothold. If the irrational is allowed to redefine what the demonstrable building block of all society is; if the envious are allowed to define marriage (and equality and fairness), then the irrational will rule throughout society, culture and government.
Stand against envy and the irrational. Please.
©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Posts
5 comments:
You're right that social conservatives have been so concerned with the aggressively irresponsible fiscal workings of the current administration that homosexual marriage has more or less fallen off the radar. This is by far the best explanation of why all true conservatives should care about the issue. You've made points I've never thought about before about the connection between traditional marriage and fiscal conservatism. Your essay makes me wish I had a blog on politics, because I would definitely link to this one.
Peace,
Milton
Your essay makes me wish I had a blog on politics, because I would definitely link to this one.
Milton, why not start one?
Dear Bill,
A very interesting post and I have a couple of follow-up questions for your consideration.
1. If you freely admit that some of the inequalities of mankind are "sad and unjust," do we not have a duty to correct that which can be corrected? Is not the real tragedy to sit idly by while the crime is being committed?
2. You choose to interpret Thomas Jefferson's famous quote "all men are created equal," with the emphasis on created. Are we to assume that Jefferson intentionally chose not to include women in this statement? If not, would you conclude the quote is, in fact, open to interpretation?
Bill, thanks for your consideration. I've started following your blog since I discovered you on NH Insider. I've noticed you've left that blog and I applaud you for that decision.
Dear "Live Free or Die,"
Blessings. May all be well with you.
____________
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION
Your question is an interesting one, though it seems it might be built on a misunderstanding. Your question is based on this passage:
"...nature, society, circumstance, God: all of these combine to make dynamic inequalities (some no doubt sad and unjust) that make each human -- and humanity -- stronger, better, more adaptable."
It is important to ask what is meant by "no doubt sad and unjust", for "unjust" need not imply anything legal. It should be perfectly obvious that all kinds of things are sad and unjust that have nothing to do with rights, legislation or discrimination; your question seems to imply sad and unjust inequalities are only of the legal sort. But birth defects -- some even man-caused -- are sad and unjust; these are profound inequalities. The child in-utero exposed to high levels of mercury is not likely to be equal to the fetus who is not exposed to such toxins. The child mangled during birth by an obstetrician's incompetence is not equal to the child born without brain injury. The anencephalic child is not equal to the child whose brain is intact; the hemophiliac is not equal to the child whose blood coagulates properly; the child born with no limbs is not equal to the child destined to be a gymnast or rock-climber. You get the picture.
As a corollary to these inequalities, religion, science and medicine, including innumerable charities, are devoted to eradicating these inequalities NOT by making the world limbless, eyeless, brainless, paralyzed and so on, but by eradicating the diseases and deformities, the toxins and the malfeasance. In other words, no one is righting the wrong of Down Syndrome by suggesting that Down Syndrome is equal to normal chromosomal outcomes.
_____________
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION
Any statement is -- often unfortunately -- "open to interpretation." One doubts, however, that Jefferson's verb -- created -- could be in doubt: He is clearly referring to something other than "should be" or "will be." Moreover, he did not say that all men ARE equal; he said that they were created equal, which implies a lot of things, not least of which is that there is a Creator.
But you imply too much if you think there is some question about "men." That noun was not exclusively male-specific; it was an obvious shorthand for all humanity. Indeed, Jefferson could have said that all people are created equal; it would perhaps have been more helpful if he had. But even if he had meant ONLY men, the use of created remains definitive; there is no doubt that his verb implies origins: a common genesis of all humanity. Hence, it seems obvious that Jefferson, who surely could have said that all humans are equal, chose instead to embrace realism, namely that humans are in fact unequal in a whole bunch of ways.
There a people who have all sorts of genetic advantages over others; it is unlikely that a person with pituitary dwarfism is going to be an NBA star. Is this an injustice that law can make just? Can talk of "rights" correct such apparent wrongs?
__________
REGARDING NH INSIDER
Hopefully the post at this link will be sufficiently explanatory.
There is much more to say, particularly about the hate so prevalent in the blogosphere, but silence affords the most complete explanation.
Peace to you,
BG
My apologies: I had some formatting problems that were not evident in PREVIEW. There seems to be a bug in Blogger; I've not had this problem before.
Post a Comment