The White House recently told the press there couldn’t be more difference between my position on gay marriage and President Obama’s.

On reflection, I agree.

President Obama’s position on marriage is constantly “evolving,” as he so often says.  He’s not sure what marriage is, or what it should become, and no doubt right now he’s consulting highly-paid polling experts to determine how his position – and marriage itself – should morph next.  This should come as no surprise given the President’s musings about the other great moral issue of our time, the protection of human life.

In a 2008 campaign forum, Pastor Rick Warren asked, “at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"  Obama answered, “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a science perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” But as an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama articulated a very clear view of when a baby was granted rights.  He was the only senator to vote against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in committee; legislation that protected babies who survived an abortion and were born alive. He was the only senator to speak against it on the senate floor. 

At the time, the constitutional law professor boldly asserted, that “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a–a child, a 9 month old–child that was delivered to term.” He says children only have rights who are 9-months old and delivered at term. So, does that mean any child born before 9 months is not entitled to rights?

By contrast, millions of Americans, including myself, know what we think about human life and marriage. We know not only what we think but why we believe what we believe.  We know that some truths are bigger than the next election and should not shift with political consultants’ advice. And among those great, enduring, and foundational truths, I believe, are life and marriage.

An unborn child is not just a clump of cells.  He or she is a human life, as worthy of basic dignity and respect as any one of us.  Each precious, irreplaceable human life is too infinitely valuable to permit courts to redefine its meaning away. I fought against Partial Birth Abortion, a horrific procedure supported by President Obama, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. When the highest court found the law banning the practice unconstitutional, I sent it back to the justices a second time so they could get it right.

Marriage is, and has always been through human history, a union of a man and woman – and for a reason. These unions are special because they are the ones we all depend on to make new life and to connect those new lives to their mom and dad.

A husband is a man who commits to a woman, to her and any children she may give him. He commits to his wife without any reservations, to share with her all his worldly goods and to exclude all others from this intimate communion of life.  From this vow of marriage comes a wonderful and unique good: any children their union creates will have a mom and a dad united in love, in one family.

That’s the special work of marriage in law – to connect things that otherwise fray and fragment: love, life, money, moms, and dads.

A man who does not seek to do this – who doesn’t choose to give himself to a woman and any children they may have together in this unique and special way – may well be a very good man and have wonderful other kinds of relationships, but he isn’t seeking to be a husband. We can’t redefine reality to accommodate politically fashionable wishes.  Words matter because they capture enduring and timeless truths about human nature and about the common good.

Lawyers cannot create life and did not create marriage. And lawyers (whether on the bench or in politics) have no business redefining either to suit the shifting winds of fashion, or worse, for political expediency.

I know so many single moms who work so hard and do such a great job raising children. We need to applaud every heroic parent working hard to raise good kids regardless of whether or not they are married; just as we need to protect all our children, born and unborn, those lucky enough to have the gift of a married mom and dad and those who do not.

We can do this without cravenly surrendering timeless truths about marriage and human life.  We don’t want liberal media-approved lawyers and politicians massaging the meaning of words, or judges implementing vast social changes without the consent of the governed, or, frankly, politicians like President Obama who cannot even tell you what marriage will be next week.

In positions of power, we need men and women of character, willing to stand up and defend what they think is right and to level with the American people.  America is hungry for leadership.  I have found everywhere I go across this great land that people appreciate it if they know you’re the kind of man they can trust to tell the truth on important issues even if they do not agree with you on every issue.

Marriage is a society’s life blood.  Not everybody can or will marry, but all of us (married or not) depend on marriage in a unique way.  Marriage is foundational: it creates and sustains not only children but civilization itself.  This is an institution which protects our liberty.

A president who, after thousands of years of human history, a Harvard law degree, and four years in the White House, cannot tell us with certainty what he thinks marriage or life is, is not worthy of the trust of the American people or a second term in office.  It is time for leadership in America.  It is time again to stand for self-evident foundational truths.

As you can see, I'm slowly dipping my toes back into Ricochet, but as you can probably also see, my mind is troubled. The Middle East is still roiling, but I feel far apart from the ordinary world, still--it all seems to be taking place in a galaxy far, far away. My mind is still back in an apartment in Washington where nothing seemed real but one elderly woman's final days. And those final days were slow indeed, a time out of time. It was one of those weeks--or maybe two weeks, I lost track--that drew back the curtain of denial we all place over reality in our efforts to stay sane. The plain fact is just staring at me now, impossible to forget: We age--we really age--then we die--we really die--and then somehow we disappear. We're just gone. 

Somehow in our culture the iron wall between religion and state has been transmogrified into a wall between religion and society. We never discuss religion in much depth in mixed company. Someone who comes up to you at  cocktail party and discusses his relationship with God--or his lack thereof--is considered maladroit, a violator of an unspoken taboo. The conversation feels awkward and one instinctively changes the subject. (This is not so in Turkey, where it is not uncommon, within minutes of meeting someone, to be asked what you believe about God and challenged to a debate about your beliefs.) 

Well, enough of that. It's on my mind, and this is an interesting group of people.

What do you believe about God? What is God? How did you arrive at your beliefs? How do you defend them against competing claims, and why? What standards of evidence do you use? How strong is your faith? When has it been challenged? What restored it?

Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, what is its nature? Why is it so hard to communicate with the dead? 

My father so enjoyed last week's contest that he suggested another one. He'll be adjudicating again. 

Proposition: The problem of evil is as great for atheists as it is for believers.

This week's prize is a handsome 1953 Buick Skylark in matador red or one of two handsome Ricochet glory badges. There are three doors, behind one of which is the Skylark. Say you pick Door 1. I open Door 2 to reveal a Glory Badge. Do you want to switch your pick? 

For the past few years, Sarah Palin has been making a movie about herself.  Actually, she hasn't been making it, but she initiated the project. From Real Clear Politics:

Shortly after Republicans swept last November to a historic victory in which Sarah Palin was credited with playing a central role, the former Alaska governor pulled aside her close aide, Rebecca Mansour, to discuss a hush-hush assignment: Reach out to conservative filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon with a request. Ask him if he would make a series of videos extolling Palin's governorship and laying to rest lingering questions about her controversial decision to resign from office with a year-and-a-half left in her first term. It was this abdication, Palin knew, that had made her damaged goods in the eyes of some Republicans who once were eager to get behind her potential 2012 presidential campaign.

The response was more positive than Palin could have hoped for. He'd make a feature-length movie, Bannon told Mansour, and he insisted upon taking complete control and financing it himself -- to the tune of $1 million.

To anyone who thinks she's a lightweight, or not-so-bright, think again.  This is some gutsy, long-term thinking.  With an emphasis on gutsy:

Though she did not have any editorial role in the project, Palin facilitated access for Bannon and his film crew to key Alaskan defenders who were involved with the major achievements of her administration, and the filmmaker spent several weeks in the 49th state gathering archival film and conducting research and interviews for the project. He and his team took extraordinary measures to keep their endeavor secret.

The movie, according to many sources, is done.  And it's impressive.  It's a large-lens look at Palin's life, time in office, and genuine accomplishments.

It's also a fairly complete look at the controversial governor.  Again, from RCP:

To convey Bannon's view of the pathology behind Palin-hatred, the film begins with a fast-paced sequence of clips showing some of the prominent celebrities who have used sexist, derogatory and generally vicious language to describe her.

Rosie O'Donnell, Matt Damon, Bill Maher, David Letterman, and Howard Stern all have brief cameos before comedian Louis C.K. goes off on a particularly ugly anti-Palin riff.

"I hate her more than anybody," C.K. says at the end of his tirade, the rest of which is unfit to print here.

Bannon intends to release two versions of the film. An unrated edition will contain some obscene anti-Palin language and imagery, while the other is targeted to a general audience and will seek a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association of America.

Again, this is a canny move, both from the perspective of the filmmaker -- more controversy = more ticket sales -- and from the point of view of Palin.  The unhinged hatred people have for her makes her even more popular with some people.  Even people like me, who have reservations about her presidential run.

And she is running for president.

How do I know?

When's the premiere of the movie, you ask?  Next month.

Where's the premiere of the movie, you ask?  Iowa.

Sarah Palin is running for president.  And this film is her opening shot.  From all reports, it's a big one.  Despite my misgivings, I have to say: I wish her well, and I'm rooting for her.  I just haven't figured out exactly what I'm rooting for her to do. 

By now most of you know that I live in Istanbul, but it occurred to me this morning that I'm not sure where most of our members live. Are there other expatriates among us? Outstripp, you're in Japan, right? I know we have a lot of Californians. Where do the rest of you live? Did you grow up there? If you moved there, why? Do you like it there? 

Local flora and fauna? Favorite local pastime? Are your neighbors friendly? Do you think you'll stay there? 

Is there some place you'd rather live? Where?

The photos are places I've lived. I don't think I've written about either place. Does anyone recognize them?

Ann Coulter headlined last week's CPAC when she said that if Chris Christie doesn't run for president in 2012, Mitt Romney will get the GOP nomination--and lose to Obama. "By the way," she concludes, "I warned you about McCain." 

Only a few short days later--and just a day after Obama unveiled his laughable $3.7 trillion budget--Politico is reporting that the New Jersey governor is heading to Washington to deliver a speech about fiscal responsibility: 

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is bringing his blunt talk about fiscal responsibility to Washington this week in a speech sure to stoke speculation about his national prospects – which have intensified in recent weeks as some Republicans openly fret about the strength of their 2012 field.

Like Christie himself, the message he’ll deliver Wednesday at the conservative American Enterprise Institute is unorthodox and straightforward: he accuses both parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, of “timidity” in the face of the coming fiscal calamity.

“It’s hard, but it can be dealt with,” Christie said of his speech, previewed for POLITICO, which will focus on his battles with the state’s teachers unions. “I’m a little mystified as to why they’re not doing it, on either side. Because what we’ve shown in New Jersey is that the public is hungry for this.”

“I don’t think anybody’s ever accused me of being ambiguous. So I think when I get done, they’ll have a good idea of what I’m talking about,” he said.

Christie is candid about his willingness to consider national office in the future but insists he’ll be sitting out 2012, saying he is “challenged and content and excited to be the governor of New Jersey, and I got a lot of work to do here – we are far from being fixed.”

“I’m not running for president,” Christie, 48, said by phone from his desk in Trenton Monday. “And I don’t know anybody who would want somebody like me as their vice president.”

We shall see about that. Will Christie take Coulter's words to heart? 

In his forthcoming book, Coming Apart, The State of White America, 1960–2010, Charles Murray writes about the perils of the upper-class elite setting policy that affects regular Americans, with whom these elites have little to nothing in common.  Because their bubble is so thick, the elites are vulnerable to making huge policy mistakes, despite their best intentions.

To help you determine how thick your bubble is, Murray has produced a quiz whose score will place you into one of the following categories:

• A lifelong resident of a working-class neighborhood with average television and moviegoing habits. Range: 48–99. Typical: 77.
• A first-generation middle-class person with working-class parents and  average television and moviegoing habits. Range: 42–100. Typical: 66.
• A first-generation upper-middle-class person with middle-class parents. Range: 11–80. Typical: 33.
• A second- generation (or more) upper-middle-class person who has made a point of getting out a lot. Range: 0–43. Typical: 9.
• A second- generation (or more) upper-middle-class person with the tele- vision and moviegoing habits of the upper middle class. Range: 0–20.Typical: 2.

Three of the Young Guns crew have thus far taken the quiz, and I was shocked to discover that with my score of 26, I have the biggest bubble.  When I protested to the group that Californians need a separate quiz, Meghan Clyne responded, "No, I think that's the point--to live in California (at least, northern California) is to have separated oneself from the mainstream of the rest of the country."  Touché.

Take the quiz here (questions begin on page 103), and report back with your score.
 

Update:

For those of you joining late who don’t wish to wade through the 125 comments, the post below was a thought experiment to test a hypothesis, not a serious condemnation of Safe Haven Laws.

On several anti-gay marriage threads, it is posited that gays shouldn’t qualify for marriage recognition because they cannot breed.  Some claim it may actually affect the social norm of heterosexuals to marry and have children, and there is a government interest in maintaining procreation.

Yet no one can describe the mechanism – exactly how government recognition of those who cannot breed will affect the behavior of those who can.  I suspected it is an excuse to get to a desired result; that the proponents of the idea don’t actually believe government has such power of persuasion over the second group by the simple act of recognizing the first group.

To test their commitment to that theory, I posted below and adopted their claim: That government recognition of one group (those who are abandoning their babies) will cause another group (those who are not) to be affected on the decision to abandon their babies too.

In this thread, the idea that others would have their attitude affected about child rearing based upon government recognition of those who are abandoning their children was denied.  The almost mystical power of persuasion the government can have over one group by recognizing another disappeared.

When stopping gays marrying was the desired result, government power of persuasion was claimed.  When the desired result was saving children, government power of persuasion to cause child abandonment (by assisting in the abandonment!) was at one end of the spectrum denied and at the other end ignored.

______________________________________________________________________

That country would be America.   Do you even recognize her anymore?

All 50 states have adopted a form of the Safe Haven Infant Protection Act.

Under the law, within 30 days after birth, you can drop your child off at any police station or hospital and walk out.     

In fact, the law has a slogan:  “No shame.  No blame.  No names.”

No names?

If no parent comes back to claim the child for 21 days, the State will move in Court to terminate the parental rights of the parents and allow for adoption. That means there will be no child support responsibility of the birth parents, either.

I suppose we can call it the pro-orgy law, because there seems to no longer be any government disapproval of reckless sex.  One can imagine some sympathetic people this might help, but isn’t this also an easy out for the prostitute, the philandering man and shameless tart?

I recalled this law when discussing gay marriage with member KC Mulville. 

KC, like many of our members, had made the point that gay marriage is unwarranted because marriage is inexplicably tied to birthing children, and it is an accepted truth that “society demands biological parents raise their children.”

Not anymore.  Now that every state allows you to rid yourself of parental responsibility with the ease of dropping off your child like she were a pizza, the once accepted truth that society demands we care for our children is now an untruth. Demand it?  Society is no longer even suggesting it.

If the case against Gay Marriage is that government acceptance of a behavior is an encouragement of the behavior, then what behavior is this law encouraging?

I will concede a couple of points.   We’ve always allowed people to give up their children for adoption.  This just makes it easier, and perhaps the ease is exactly what gives me pause.  Once we remove any consequence to birthing a child, haven’t we devalued human life? Haven't we accepted hedonism?

Also, this law has obvious cross-over to the abortion debate.   I can see a pro-life position in this, by telling women if they feel emotionally unready to be a parent, or to cite the Supreme Court, not financially ready (as vulgar as I find that excuse, it is part of the basis for the Court’s opinion), then all they need to do is let the child live, and society will care for the child.

Of course, this has to be like poison to anyone who has a sliver of traditionalism or social conservatism (not to mention parental instinct).   Nothing in this law stops a rich and ready person from transferring their child-rearing responsibility to the State, even if the excuse is they are too lazy or simply can’t be bothered.  Or they wanted a boy, not a girl.   Or this child is too sick and inconvenient.

If our culture of family values is spiraling downward, the state promoting a no cost, no shame abandonment of children has to be the latest point on the continuum toward the destruction of nuclear families that has at the other end no fault divorce and the repealing of alienation of affections as a tort.

So I again turn to the Ricochet political and cultural noosphere for answers.  What do we think of these state sanctioned and supported child abandonment laws?   Net positive or net negative?

The prize: Signed copies of The Devil's Delusion. 

The proposition, from Christopher Hitchens:

 What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Prizes for the best argument in favor, or against.

My father will be judging the contest.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at point-blank range today outside a Tucson, Ariz., grocery store where she was holding a campaign event. At least 12 others were also shot.

I'm stunned. 

Last week, firefighters in rural Tennessee stood by and let a man’s house burn to the ground because the homeowner had neglected to pay the $75 fee for opt-in fire emergency service.

Homeowner Gene Cranick and his family lost all their possessions as well as their three pets in the blaze. Though firefighters were at the scene to battle the fire on neighboring property, they refused to put out the fire on the Cranicks' property. The mayor of the South Fulton (which is the closest city to the Cranick’s rural home) cited moral hazard as the reason why firefighters could not help the man once the fire had already begun:

"Anybody that's not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it's a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don't," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker….[He] said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

Daniel Foster has a great discussion about the story over at The Corner. “This is bad for the libertarians,” Foster says.

I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?

…I’m a conservative with fairly libertarian leanings, but this is a kind of government for which I would not sign up.

The pressing questions: What should the firefighters have done in this scenario? Is this story evidence of the inherent failures of libertarianism? And lastly, for which type of services is opt-in government appropriate?

(h/t Kenneth and Trace)