Posted by
The Hermit Crab on Monday, July 11, 2011 5:13:46 PM
I read an article recently about the re-segregation of Chicago, IL. Apparently racial separation and racial tension and violence are on the rise, and have been for may years. Wow -- I guess the only fully integrated part of Chicago during the last decade or so was Obama himself.
One reason I would like to see Chris Christie run for President is that the next Republican President will have to be strong enough to wield a bloody ax on the federal government. The federal budget and the federal payroll need to be cut at least 50%, and the coverage of any Republican President who were courageous enough to propose it would make George W. Bush's media treatment look like Baby Barry's.
Tony the Libertarian would say that the way to go would be to restrict the federal government to the functions allowed by the Constitution. He's right, of course, and wouldn't you love to see a Presidential candidate say that? One who isn't a 78-year-old loon, anyway...
Speaking of libertarians, I received a response to a posting a short time ago that revealed one of the exasperating weaknesses of modern libertarianism. My respondent, who seems a decent sort, said that
"There is no-nil-nada-zero-zip-zilch
legitimate reason or justification for either the U.S. federal government or any state or local government to deal with, much less speak of "marriage". Those governments having done so, however -- e.g. with tax laws, with privileges and immunities, with blood tests, with licensing -- it behooves those of right mind to try to correct infringements by government on individual liberty, which is, after all, Crab, unalienable.
If two men or two women or three women and two men and a goat wish to "marry", it is the role of no American government to approve, disapprove, condone or illegitimate said. You may continue to assume, however, that God will have her say at the time of his choosing."
Seemingly reasonable, there are flaws in the argument when examined closely.
Ann Coulter points out several of them in one of her best columns, written in the wake of the Republican Presidential Candidate Debate held in June. There are a few other points I'd like to make, as well.
I see that my correspondent invoked the doctrine of inalienable rights. As so unforgettably described by Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson, our inalienable rights come from our Creator. Can someone find me the scripture or other holy text in which God grants the right to marriage to "two men or two women or three women and two men and a goat"?
Our Ann did not point out this fact, but I will. Homosexuals commit pedophiliac acts at a far higher rate than heterosexuals, according to the surveys that are actually willing to publish their data with their conclusions. In fact, the dirty secret of the Catholic Church's priest-pedophilia scandal is that it is just as much a homosexual scandal as it is a pedophilia scandal. A very clear majority of the offenses committed by priests against children were homosexual offenses. It is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless, that recognizing a legal right to homosexual marriage will lead to a no-longer-legally-resistible demand for homosexual adoption. In fact, I am sure that legalizing homosexual marriage will lead inevitably to an increase in pedophiliac crimes against children.
A weakness in modern American libertarianism is that they never seem to see the inevitable results of their so-very-principled positions when put into practice. My correspondent so-reasonable position, calculated to protect the rights of the 1-2% of the population who are homosexual, will lead inevitably to the diminution of the rights, both inalienable and Constitutional of the rest of the American people. It is not difficult to imagine why.
Let us consider the case of the Catholic adoption services in Massachusetts who were forced to stop arranging adoptions because it would not arrange them for homosexual couples. (Maggie Gallagher discusses this situation
here.) The Catholic Church, in accordance with the Bible, does not condone homosexuality. (Some Catholic leaders do, but that's another church scandal that I will not address here, or at least now.) Can some libertarian explain to me why the Catholic Church does not have the right to make adoption arrangements for heterosexual couples who are willing to abide by the church's adoption agency's rules? Is this not a violation of the church members 1st Amendment freedom of worship? And what of the couples' rights? Should they not have the right to choose an adoption agency which agrees with their religious beliefs? Actually, if I recall, the Massachusetts Catholic adoption agency did not even insist that the couple be Catholic.
Not good enough for the homosexual lobby and their supporters. They insist that everyone else give up their liberties in deference to their sexual orientation. Lawsuits have been filed and won against such people as Christian photographers who did not want to be hired to take photos of a homosexual wedding. I didn't make that up. The homosexual couple sued the photographers for declining to violate their own beliefs. Appallingly, the verdict was in favor of the plaintiffs, and a district court
upheld the ruling.
(Just a thought. The photographers tried to refuse to work for someone, and the courts decreed that they did not have the right to refuse. Didn't we get rid of this sort of thing in 1865?)
What next? Will churches and other Christian organizations be forced to hire homosexuals? Will they even be allowed to decline to hire one? Will the courts force them to grant benefits to homosexual "spouses"? Given verdicts like the above, I wouldn't bet largely against it.
Libertarians need to remember something about American leftists. Every time you help them expand their so-called "rights" (most of which are privileges, not rights), you are helping to diminish everyone else's liberties -- including your own.
This post is getting a bit long, and time is doing the reverse. More later, and thanks to anyone still reading.