We Hold These Truths
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.
- Comment (435)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (10)
Comments:
Re: We Hold These Truths
KC Mulville
Tommy De Seno
Treated by whom separately? · Jan 14 at 7:33pm
Well, for the sake of discussion, first, by government. Then by society in general.
I infer from past posts (correct if I'm wrong) that you argue the state should be involved in child-raising, but not in marriage. Let me offer some provocative comments, and let you answer as you see fit.
Should government protect and promote Family?
Does a child have a right to a family?
Does marriage have anything to do with family?
How can you promote the permanence of a family if you don't promote the permanence of a marriage? But then, why promote the permanence of a marriage if there are no children?
I don't need the government to promote anything. That's for churches. And people.
I need the government to enforce contracts and obligations when someone is in breach and won't voluntarily cure the breach.
Edited on January 15, 2012 at 4:58amJan '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
KC Mulville
Anon: As I said, there are some really good arguments here, and as far as I'm concerned, all of them to great effect, but I can't escape the feeling that this colloquy has gone the inevitable route of all insoluble questions: It's gotten down to picking the fly-poo out of pepper (metaphorically, of course).
We're all friends here, aren't we?
Part of the fabric of an intellectual life is the willingness to defend your positions with reason. Even if you can't persuade someone, the desire to explain your reasoning is worth the conversation.
I don't mind hearing other points of view, because you know ... they just might have a point. · Jan 14 at 11:08am
You mistake me, I think. I would guess that most here have read in or through Mill's On Liberty, and I would suppose that all who have would agree with his thinking on exploring for truth. But such explorations, particularly if they are undisciplined, can dwindle to trivialities and personal assertions, and they become insoluble. I got a whiff of that in some of the arguments, such as they were. That's all.
Jun '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Nero fiddles.
Rome burns.
Jan '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno I don't need the government to promote anything. That's for churches. And people.
I need the government to enforce contracts and obligations when someone is in breach and won't voluntarily cure the breach.
And marriage can mean different things to different churches, and different people?
Jan '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Understood. Argument (rhetoric) is hardly an exact science. We learn by doing, I guess.
Sep '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
The Rick Santorum's of the nation will, in time, be regarded as anachronisms, like George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door
Anachronisms who have 7 children have an odd way of keeping schoolhouse doors open for several generations more.
Re: We Hold These Truths
KC Mulville
Tommy De Seno I don't need the government to promote anything. That's for churches. And people.
I need the government to enforce contracts and obligations when someone is in breach and won't voluntarily cure the breach.
And marriage can mean different things to different churches, and different people? · Jan 14 at 8:14pm
That's been the state of affairs for a very long time.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Conflating a traditional view of marriage with racism in debate is just as hurtful and unproductive as the bestiality argument against SSM.
Jan '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
And marriage can mean different things to different churches, and different people? · Jan 14 at 8:14pm
That's been the state of affairs for a very long time. · Jan 14 at 9:30pm
Then what difference does it make for the law to recognize gay marriage?
Oct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
KC Mulville
Tommy De Seno
I don't need the government to promote anything. That's for churches. And people.
I need the government to enforce contracts and obligations when someone is in breach and won't voluntarily cure the breach.
Would you be willing to give up the Social Security benefits you paid into all your working life, just to keep the government out of marriage? Because as a practical matter, that is what it would mean for the government to be neutral on procreation.
Wealthy societies tend to have trouble maintaining their population. That is why it's necassary for the government to intervene to encourage child rearing. If you're willing to give up your social security benefits then fine, maybe we could get by with less workers. Otherwise, some favoring of child-rearing couples is called for.
Dec '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Conflating a traditional view of marriage with racism in debate is just as hurtful and unproductive as the bestiality argument against SSM.
No one is talking about racism. We're talking about equal rights for all people, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.
91 years ago, you wouldn't have the right to vote. That was traditional.
Oct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
In fact, I sometimes wonder if we should reserve civil unions for non-child-bearing relationships (this would apply to heterosexuals too), and people who adopt or bear children would have their unions upgraded to marriage status and qualify for extra benefits.
That might be a bit to extreme. I admit, I tend to panic over demographic decline--have you seen what's happening in Europe? Plus, I come from a culture that pressures people to have kids, so perhaps I'm naturally inclined in that direction.
Nov '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
KC Mulville
Then what difference does it make for the law to recognize gay marriage? · Jan 14 at 10:52pm
You're kidding, right? Treating gay marriage and straight marriage the same has a significant impact in the ways in which gays interact with the state, and state regulated enterprises (like insurance), and it's been well documented over the last decade. For example, CNN ran an article the other week on the biased tax treatment with respect to gay versus straight couples; Suze Orman - a fairly respected financial advisor - noted that her partner would lose 50% of her estate should she die because they cannot be married. On a more personal level, one of the major stories that brought the whole issue to public attention several years ago was the fact that a gay man was refused visitation rights to his dying partner in hospital because they weren't married.
Oct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Nobody's Perfect: Conflating a traditional view of marriage with racism in debate is just as hurtful and unproductive as the bestiality argument against SSM.
No one is talking about racism. We're talking about equal rights for all people, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.
91 years ago, you wouldn't have--
Oh come on. The equality argument is nothing more than "it doesn't matter if it's nihilistic--we have to do it anyway!" or "human rights trumps solving social breakdown!" You do not win arguments by saying "well, if society collapses and we all go to hell, it's OK, since at least we would have respected peoples' human rights."
It's much better to say "Okay, that version might be bad, what about this version? What if we did this? That might reduce negative effects on society." I keep saying this, but it's important that libertarians understand: Gay people don't want a broken nihilized social institution. Why would we want gay marriage if the act of getting it destroyed it?
There are reasons why many gay people don't want marriage rights at all, you know.
Oct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
[edit snark out] Think of it this way: If the only way to end Jim Crow had been to burn Southern towns to the ground, that would have been OK given the arguments many libertarians make.
That's actually a good analogy. Jim Crow still ended, but it ended peacefully. Gay marriage should be legalized in a way that makes sense, that doesn't burn the town down, so to speak.
Edited on January 15, 2012 at 9:25amOct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Anyway (sorry for the triple post), I just wanted to explain why I'm so socially-conservative-from-a-bisexual-point-of-view on the topic of gay marriage. I'm a bit sick of the conversation being dominated by anti-family NYT intellectuals (columns on the undesirability of monogamy are regularly featured), and (no offense) clueless libertarians.
Socially conservative gay and bisexual people do exist, and we expect a lot more out of gay marriage than nihilists/lefties and libertarians do. If that means opposing versions of it crafted by leftists, than so be it--I'm not a big fan of solidarity anyway. We don't really view marriage as a human right, we see it as the same social institution and pillar of society heterosexual socons do, and that informs our approach to legalizing SSM.
Nov '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Nobody's Perfect:
rights for all people, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.
· Jan 15 at 12:09am
Your presupposition is that this class of beings -- the homo-erotically inclined -- have been hitherto debilitated. They've been debilitated because denied same-sex marriage. In other words, what you're in fact saying, is that you think that to be free is to be free from all constraints, including those of nature. So you imagine marriage can be anything we want it to be. But your attempt to secure freedom may well undermine it. We always find ourselves in a political context. Someone or some group always rules. The liberal-libertarian denial of natural right -- a concrete standard of right and wrong external to the human will that can guide the will itself -- means we have no reasonable claim against those who may rule us in ways not to our liking. The rulers may not listen to us in any case, but there is no reason for them to accede to us if our claims merely reflect our idiosyncratic preferences. Might would then make right.
1/2
Nov '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
2/2
In this sense, the denial of natural standards is a greater threat to freedom than the affirmation of such standards. Similarly, the campaign for SSM, rather than heralding the advent of a new civil right, could actually signal the end of a reasoned basis for civil rights.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Robert Lux: 2/2
In this sense, the denial of natural standards is a greater threat to freedom than the affirmation of such standards. Similarly, the campaign for SSM, rather than heralding the advent of a new civil right, could actually signal the end of a reasoned basis for civil rights. · Jan 15 at 12:38am
Still waiting for the identification of those those alleged strawman arguments I made. Examples???
Edited on January 15, 2012 at 9:51amDec '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
In this sense, the denial of natural standards is a greater threat to freedom than the affirmation of such standards. Similarly, the campaign for SSM, rather than heralding the advent of a new civil right, could actually signal the end of a reasoned basis for civil rights
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
What I do know is that our founding documents say that all men have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Now show me anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution where the phrase "natural standards" exists.