Citizen Tom

I suppose it probably appears to some that I think I have all the answers, but I do not think that highly of myself.  In fact, my political philosophy is such that that I think government should let people find their own answers.

One of the reasons I enjoy blogging is that I am searching for answers, and on-line discussions provide food for thought.  So it is that some of my most interesting posts find themselves on other peoples blogs.

This one started when Vivian J. Paige argued for civil unions.

Tom - I know I’ll never convince you of this but marriage really isn’t about sex or about procreation. If it were, we would outlaw sex outside of marriage and not allow folks who can’t have children to marry. Religion can impose these restrictions on what relationships they will recognize but the government - which supposedly represents all - should not be in the marriage business.

And, truth be told, the government isn’t in the marriage business. The government is in the civil union business. One can be married without a license issued by the government and yes, some people chose that route, just as others chose the civil union route, ie, no religious ceremony and only a license. So let’s call it what it is: the government sanctions civil unions and in doing so, creates a situation whereby one class of citizens is treated differently from the other. And that’s what the CA decision essentially says. (from here)

Here is how I countered.

vjp - I sympathize with your point of view, but I think it ignores quite a bit of history. In addition, the CA decision is immoral. It is an open secret that the CA court overstepped its authority. The CA court knows that it did so, but it will never admit it. Advocates for homosexual rights know that it did so, but they never admit it. Instead, the court and the advocates want to talk about the righteous of the decision. The irony of that is so strange and yet so typical of our day.

Mankind is an experiment. American society is an experiment. Since our creation human beings have been trying to figure what it means to be an intelligent, self-aware life form. Why do we exist? What is good? What is bad? In the frenzy of our experiments, we sometimes discard the wisdom of the past. We sometimes advocate things our forebears would have thought plainly foolish. We arrogantly perceive that what those in the past believed was simply foolish and ignorant. We sometimes even forget the world did not begin at the date of our birth.

Consider the past. Marriage was not consumated without sex. Before birth control, people had large families. People did outlaw sex outside of marriage. People of the same sex, who cannot even conceive children, were not allowed to marry. Because morality is based upon religion, government and religion have alway been interwined in Law. In fact, most of what I just said is still true in large portions of the world.

But to the average American, the “real world” ceases to exist at our borders. What makes us unique? The success of our Republic only partly based on the fact that our government represents us all. What has made our nation truly successful is how restrained our government tends to be. Our government focuses on protecting the right of individuals to make their own decisions. This right of decision includes most of the relationships we form. Where we each work, where we live, what we buy and sell, who we spend our time with…, these are decisions we make for ourselves. With relatively few exceptions, our government does not intervene in much of anything we do. Those exceptions largely occur when the perception exists that someone’s rights need to be protected. Unlike so many governments in the past, our govenment rarely permits one group to impose its beliefs on the rest of us.

Children are the weakest amongst us. Parents are their greatest advocates and protection. Marriage is the institution whereby parents afford children their protection. Marriage is not an institution that exists to certify and protect various types of sexual relationships.

What is the threat to children? There are those interested in shaping the future. For these people children are the most valuable commodity in the world. What some people will do to control impressionable young minds is an abomination. Have you ever heard of the Janissaries, for example? Read about how the Janissaries were first recruited (here). Yet compared to modern child soldiers (here), especially those sad recruits in some parts of Africa, the Sultans treated their Janissaries quite well.

The cornerstone of our nation is the family. We recognize that Mothers and Fathers love their children far more than anyone else is likely to. Because we protect the family, that is why most adults in our nation cherish the memory of the people who raised them. For the sake of future generations, we must protect the rights of parents and the institution of marriage from foolish experimentation. (from here)

The debate continued, of course.  In one respect vjp is surely right, she probably will not change my mind, and I probably will not change hers.  The changing of minds, however, is not what is important.  What is important is what is in people’s hearts.

We must not forget why families are important.  The place where we each first learned how to love is in our first home.  We learned from the example of the people who cared for us.  We learned from our parents and family something government is incapable of teaching us.  We learned how to love each other.

Somehow we must resolve these debates without destroying the very thing we are trying to protect.