Supporters of gay marriage were handed a broad and sweeping victory in California earlier this month when Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 – a voter-initiated state constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage. While many on the right immediately reacted in protest, the ruling gives much reason for conservatives to reevaluate their stance and ultimately their politics in a fashion that is more consistent with their professed principles.
Much of conservative thought is grounded in the conception of individual liberty. Individuals have the natural right to be free from oppressive arbitrary coercion. While such liberty may result in some individuals choosing to live lifestyles that others may find objectionable, ultimately a principled conservative realizes that using the tools of government to force compliance with one particular way of life or discriminate against those who do not conform is unjust.
While most conservatives rightly uphold this principle, it far too often falls to the wayside when certain lifestyle choices come to the fore – in this instance gay marriage. Regardless of how one perceives a homosexual lifestyle, the concept of individual liberty cannot condone interference in such personal choices. Every individual should have the right to choose their life-partner and be treated equally under the law.
At the same time as ignoring this fundamental principle of conservative thought, many conservatives rely on the “family values” argument to bolster their position. However, anti-gay policies miss the true importance of family values. Not only does this distort what is truly worthwhile about family values, but it helps foster a counterculture that is unnecessarily opposed to such meaningful values.
The object is to recognize what “family values” are. The simplistic construct that family values represent a husband, wife, 2.4 kids, a picket fence, and a dog is meaningless. True family values are about a small social group – the family – that is built around the ideals of commitment, mutual support, responsibility, duty, and a number of other important attributes. In this sense, it is obvious that a family is much more than a husband and wife. In reality it has no relationship with the identities of the family members but has everything to do with the values the family members share and their treatment of each other.
A good family – which serves as the basis of American society – needs to possess these qualities regardless of its member’s genders or sexual orientation. Conservatives, far too often, seem to miss this simple, yet significant point. The GOP’s focus should be on building strong family values, not on bashing gays. By developing initiatives that teach the worth of commitment, communication, and responsibility, conservatives will be able to strengthen the family unit and help Americans learn how more successfully engage their loved ones.
There are many gays who would and do accept such values as their own (some in much better fashions than their heterosexual counterparts); however, the insistence of the right on linking “family values” with anti-gay policies not only tarnishes the associated values but breeds a guilt-by-association phenomenon. As a result, the baby is tossed out with the bathwater, as many dismiss everything that is good with family values in favor of a hedonistic counterculture that is destructive to the American way. While such a libidinous lifestyle is often associated with homosexuality, this needn’t be the case. Such a life is built in the rejection of family values, not the sexuality of the individual (after all there are many heterosexuals who live a counterculture lifestyle and many homosexuals that don’t). Smart conservatives should focus on separating the issues of individual sexuality from family values.
While conservative intolerance towards gays certainly does not compel every homosexual into an alternative lifestyle, it does repel a large majority from a political party that would otherwise be a natural fit. These imprudent policies unnecessarily shrink the base and handicap Republican efforts at bring about meaningful policy changes. The GOP needs to drop its foolish and losing anti-homosexual policy stance and embrace the fundamental principle of liberty that is so appealing to America. This will not only draw those that are ideologically similar back into the fold but reaffirm the commitment to true individual liberty and family values.
Showing posts with label homosexual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexual. Show all posts
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Weaponization of Free Speech
The Westboro Baptist Church (“WBC”) has a date with the Supreme Court. The Church – better identified as a hate group – is known for its vitriolic protests at funerals of US servicemen and various institutions across the country. The small group, mostly relatives of its founder and pastor, Fred Phelps, preaches a vicious anti-homosexual message. They claim that America’s supposed depravity is continually punished by an angry god – hence their frequent presence at the funerals of servicemen killed in action. They applaud these deaths as evidence of America’s wayward nature.
In the past, the majority of their targets have chosen to ignore the protestors, who have always been in compliance with the proper regulations for assembling. Even so, a few years ago a group of bikers, The Patriot Guard Riders, – many of whom were veterans themselves – coalesced and began showing up at protests to drown out the hatred with their motorcycle engines.
But one father, Albert Snyder has fought back. After the WBC picketed outside of his son’s, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, funeral in 2006, Snyder launched a lawsuit against the Church. The case is now on the docket to be heard before the Supreme Court this fall.
The case, which Snyder originally won before it was overturned by a Federal Appeals Court, pits Snyder’s privacy against WBC’s claim to First Amendment freedoms. Some legal scholars argue, that as heinous as WBC’s behavior is it nevertheless should be protected as free speech.
This argument, however, is rife with flaws. The right of free speech is predominantly to prevent oppression by the government. It is necessary not to allow sounds to come from individuals’ mouths, but to allow ideas to flourish and prevent those with power from silencing the minority. As has been argued on ANR before, free speech is not a concept that is synonymous with talking but one of expression of ideas.
In this regard, every spoken word is not deemed allowable. Certain speech, such as the classic “fire in a movie theater,” is deemed harmful and thus prevented. The logic behind such restrictions is that by yelling “fire” in a public place physical harm may be caused. However, harm need not be limited to the physical. WBC’s actions indubitably create harm, albeit often of the emotional kind.
The proper role of the government, when overseeing the interactions between individuals, is to serve as a referee to prevent unjust harm, or encroachment by one party on another. Whenever the desires of individuals come into inevitable conflict, the government should have well defined rules as to whose actions have un-righteously harmed the other. In all other instances, individuals should be left to their own devices. American’s possess the right to free speech to limit the government’s ability to encroach on their private domain – to prevent tyranny of the government. But that does not mean the concept of free speech should be weaponized to inflict harm on others. The WBC should be entitled to preach their dastardly views to those who wish to be party. They should not be prevented from having or expressing their opinions. But there is a time and place for any act. When such expression moves into the public sphere and causes intolerable harm, it has crossed a line. Free speech must be coupled with freedom to avoid speech.
If the Supreme Court allows WBC’s actions to stand, it will greatly miss the mark on how America should be structured. To disavow the direct harm that comes from a misappropriation of this right in no way diminishes the concept of free speech, but rather strengthens it. This is not an issue of establishing a slippery slope, as some claim, but one of clearly defining the concept. Without such definition, the concept of free speech becomes a mockery, where any individual can cloak himself in its guise – not to speak but to cause damage. If preventing such damage is not the responsibility of government, then there is little for it to do.
In the past, the majority of their targets have chosen to ignore the protestors, who have always been in compliance with the proper regulations for assembling. Even so, a few years ago a group of bikers, The Patriot Guard Riders, – many of whom were veterans themselves – coalesced and began showing up at protests to drown out the hatred with their motorcycle engines.But one father, Albert Snyder has fought back. After the WBC picketed outside of his son’s, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, funeral in 2006, Snyder launched a lawsuit against the Church. The case is now on the docket to be heard before the Supreme Court this fall.
The case, which Snyder originally won before it was overturned by a Federal Appeals Court, pits Snyder’s privacy against WBC’s claim to First Amendment freedoms. Some legal scholars argue, that as heinous as WBC’s behavior is it nevertheless should be protected as free speech.
This argument, however, is rife with flaws. The right of free speech is predominantly to prevent oppression by the government. It is necessary not to allow sounds to come from individuals’ mouths, but to allow ideas to flourish and prevent those with power from silencing the minority. As has been argued on ANR before, free speech is not a concept that is synonymous with talking but one of expression of ideas.
In this regard, every spoken word is not deemed allowable. Certain speech, such as the classic “fire in a movie theater,” is deemed harmful and thus prevented. The logic behind such restrictions is that by yelling “fire” in a public place physical harm may be caused. However, harm need not be limited to the physical. WBC’s actions indubitably create harm, albeit often of the emotional kind.
The proper role of the government, when overseeing the interactions between individuals, is to serve as a referee to prevent unjust harm, or encroachment by one party on another. Whenever the desires of individuals come into inevitable conflict, the government should have well defined rules as to whose actions have un-righteously harmed the other. In all other instances, individuals should be left to their own devices. American’s possess the right to free speech to limit the government’s ability to encroach on their private domain – to prevent tyranny of the government. But that does not mean the concept of free speech should be weaponized to inflict harm on others. The WBC should be entitled to preach their dastardly views to those who wish to be party. They should not be prevented from having or expressing their opinions. But there is a time and place for any act. When such expression moves into the public sphere and causes intolerable harm, it has crossed a line. Free speech must be coupled with freedom to avoid speech.
If the Supreme Court allows WBC’s actions to stand, it will greatly miss the mark on how America should be structured. To disavow the direct harm that comes from a misappropriation of this right in no way diminishes the concept of free speech, but rather strengthens it. This is not an issue of establishing a slippery slope, as some claim, but one of clearly defining the concept. Without such definition, the concept of free speech becomes a mockery, where any individual can cloak himself in its guise – not to speak but to cause damage. If preventing such damage is not the responsibility of government, then there is little for it to do.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
A Civil Union Between Gay Marriage and Republicans
One social area where the Republican Party needs to reevaluate its stance is the issue of gay marriage. For two major reasons, the GOP is facing a losing battle. For the sake of electoral success, the party needs to reevaluate its current position.
First and foremost, the party is fighting a losing battle. It is inevitable that the rights of gays will grow over time. Currently this is occurring across many states. The inevitability is easy to see if one studies American history. Over time, all minority groups have gained more rights and equal treatment. Even if at one point or another there have been set backs, the overall trend of history is constant. The simple logic behind this is that a minority has a lot to gain by fighting for his or her rights; while relatively speaking the majority does not have a lot to lose by granting those rights. The minority will be able to fight indefinitely; while the majority will eventually tire. Ultimately, the minority will win this war of attrition.
Because of this inevitability it is fruitless for the GOP to waste its time and energy. Not only does it divert resources from other issues and causes, but it puts the party on the losing side of history. This is a cost that is too high to pay. Despite the fact the fact that it was the Republicans that freed African-Americans from slavery, the party is portrayed as the loser in the culture wars and thus, at least for the foreseeable future, precluded from the African-American vote. By fighting gay marriage, the party only provides fodder to the left to incorrectly portray the Republicans as intolerant.
Secondly, the current party stance is inconsistent with the intellectual basis of American conservatism. Conservatives call for a limited government role in the individual’s life. The government should be small and efficient, staying out of the private lives of its citizens. Unlike liberals, conservatives argue that in regards to the vast majority of issues individuals are capable of making their own decisions and leading their own lives as they see fit. However, the current gay marriage platform flies in the face of this. It calls for immense government control over a major part of many American’s lives.
Social conservatives attempt to justify this by turning to their religion and emphasizing the alleged societal costs. The ‘family values’ viewpoint asserts that gay marriage is wrong (according to the Bible) and damaging to society. Accordingly, the standard, historical heterosexual family is the basis of society and needs to continue in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the country. However, a modified approach to gay marriage is in no way inconsistent with the strong family values held by the majority of America. Furthermore, a modified approach would be more intellectually consistent with limited government conservatism.
An easy solution would be for the Republican Party to separate the issue of marriage into its two natural components: ceremonial marriage and legal rights. One of the roots of the current problem is that these two issues are intermingled. A logical Republican alternative would be to remove the state from any sort of marriage. If marriage is truly a spiritual and community-based institution it should be left to the churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations to decide how it functions. What is left is the legal rights component; something that is naturally a function of the state.
Essentially, this allows the state to only play a role in determining the legal rights and obligations of an individual in regards to his or her partner. Everyone can get a civil union from the government- where they can choose one partner with whom they can file taxes, receive employment benefits, make health decisions and the like. The spiritual institution of marriage is then left for private communities and religious organizations to determine.
Critics will claim that this issue can’t be easily compartmentalized in this fashion. The strongest arguments point to supposed societal damages caused by gay partnership. Specifically, raising children is one main issue. However, there are two flaws with this argument. First, many of these rights are already given to gays. For instance, they can often adopt. We have yet to see a breakdown of society or a pervasion of the younger generations as a result. Secondly, there are much broader problems with the American family than sexual orientation. Divorce rates are astronomical and many parents do not have a clue how to raise children. Republicans and America are better served by focusing on educating individuals on how to responsibly build a strong, morally-upright family. Right now we spend far too little time learning about family, child rearing, and inter-spousal relationships – three of the most central facets of American life.
A combination of government civil unions, religious marriages, and increased education to establish strong family values will lead to a better Republican Party. With such a policy the GOP will be able to speak to a wide swath of America. Furthermore, it will maintain an intellectual consistency. Lastly, it will help develop a healthier America.
First and foremost, the party is fighting a losing battle. It is inevitable that the rights of gays will grow over time. Currently this is occurring across many states. The inevitability is easy to see if one studies American history. Over time, all minority groups have gained more rights and equal treatment. Even if at one point or another there have been set backs, the overall trend of history is constant. The simple logic behind this is that a minority has a lot to gain by fighting for his or her rights; while relatively speaking the majority does not have a lot to lose by granting those rights. The minority will be able to fight indefinitely; while the majority will eventually tire. Ultimately, the minority will win this war of attrition.
Because of this inevitability it is fruitless for the GOP to waste its time and energy. Not only does it divert resources from other issues and causes, but it puts the party on the losing side of history. This is a cost that is too high to pay. Despite the fact the fact that it was the Republicans that freed African-Americans from slavery, the party is portrayed as the loser in the culture wars and thus, at least for the foreseeable future, precluded from the African-American vote. By fighting gay marriage, the party only provides fodder to the left to incorrectly portray the Republicans as intolerant.
Secondly, the current party stance is inconsistent with the intellectual basis of American conservatism. Conservatives call for a limited government role in the individual’s life. The government should be small and efficient, staying out of the private lives of its citizens. Unlike liberals, conservatives argue that in regards to the vast majority of issues individuals are capable of making their own decisions and leading their own lives as they see fit. However, the current gay marriage platform flies in the face of this. It calls for immense government control over a major part of many American’s lives.
Social conservatives attempt to justify this by turning to their religion and emphasizing the alleged societal costs. The ‘family values’ viewpoint asserts that gay marriage is wrong (according to the Bible) and damaging to society. Accordingly, the standard, historical heterosexual family is the basis of society and needs to continue in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the country. However, a modified approach to gay marriage is in no way inconsistent with the strong family values held by the majority of America. Furthermore, a modified approach would be more intellectually consistent with limited government conservatism.
An easy solution would be for the Republican Party to separate the issue of marriage into its two natural components: ceremonial marriage and legal rights. One of the roots of the current problem is that these two issues are intermingled. A logical Republican alternative would be to remove the state from any sort of marriage. If marriage is truly a spiritual and community-based institution it should be left to the churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations to decide how it functions. What is left is the legal rights component; something that is naturally a function of the state.
Essentially, this allows the state to only play a role in determining the legal rights and obligations of an individual in regards to his or her partner. Everyone can get a civil union from the government- where they can choose one partner with whom they can file taxes, receive employment benefits, make health decisions and the like. The spiritual institution of marriage is then left for private communities and religious organizations to determine.
Critics will claim that this issue can’t be easily compartmentalized in this fashion. The strongest arguments point to supposed societal damages caused by gay partnership. Specifically, raising children is one main issue. However, there are two flaws with this argument. First, many of these rights are already given to gays. For instance, they can often adopt. We have yet to see a breakdown of society or a pervasion of the younger generations as a result. Secondly, there are much broader problems with the American family than sexual orientation. Divorce rates are astronomical and many parents do not have a clue how to raise children. Republicans and America are better served by focusing on educating individuals on how to responsibly build a strong, morally-upright family. Right now we spend far too little time learning about family, child rearing, and inter-spousal relationships – three of the most central facets of American life.
A combination of government civil unions, religious marriages, and increased education to establish strong family values will lead to a better Republican Party. With such a policy the GOP will be able to speak to a wide swath of America. Furthermore, it will maintain an intellectual consistency. Lastly, it will help develop a healthier America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)