Wednesday, December 6th 2006
Belated Rant
This is what I was going to post before our server went down last month.
—
What do you think about last night’s results?
I’m happy that the Republicans lost Congress. I’m happy that the people of Michigan have passed their own version of Prop 209, a ban against the disgusting practice of affirmative action. That’s about it.
Arnold won; I don’t care. The state GOP has embraced the left, and they’re celebrating. The only Republican that I really cared to see win, Tom McClintock, didn’t again. I thought he would pull through based on the early results, but my constant refreshing of the results page said differently. Based on the proposition results, the people of this state also love endless spending and apparently approve of government thugs pissing on our private property rights. Passing Prop 90 would have made the night, but freedom never wins. Maybe the masses will turn around once they start feeling the unintended consequences of overwhelmingly passing Prop 83.
Outside of California, freedom lost too. Voters want a government so powerful that it can dictate which adult relationships are legal and which aren’t. Voters want a government so powerful that it can dictate how much a worker is worth, destroying the job opportunities for that worker. Voters want a government so powerful that it can dictate what chemicals you aren’t allowed to use: not for recreational purposes, not even for medical purposes. Voters want a government so powerful that we no longer have to worry about antiquated notions such as tolerance and liberty.
To everyone who has been celebrating the Democrat victory, enjoy the high while it lasts. In a couple of weeks, you’ll come to the sobering realization that your party didn’t win, but it was the other party that lost. There are no winners. There is virtually nothing positive to be excited about in today’s America. There has been no real change. People still hate freedom. And we are those people.
I think it is pretty clear that neither did the California Republican Party embrace the left nor did they win. In fact, HAD they embraced the left a little more, they might have won.
Arnold certainly took a couple steps leftward and he went from an unpopular figure (as he was during and after the special election) to become the most popular Republican in California (and one of the most popular in the nation). Meanwhile, those who embrace socially conservative policy lost and lost big.
I find it inconsistent that you support “small government” fans like McClintock who have advocated for “a government so powerful that it can dictate which adult relationships are legal and which aren’t.” Yet you don’t care about Schwarzenegger’s victory who has brought the California economy back from the brink of bankruptcy without raising taxes and while protecting and expanding social liberties.
It is true that the Dems didn’t win as much as the Reeps lost the election. But the GOP will continue to lose unless it learns to embrace both economic and social freedom.
Comment by California Grown — 12/7/2006 @ 2:19 pm
There’s a difference between opposing gay marriage and advocating for “a government so powerful that it can dictate which adult relationships are legal and which aren’t.” Opposing gay marriage simply means you don’t support government recognition of gay relationships. We can argue on whether or not that is justified but as far as gay marriage opponents go, no one but a few fringe kooks thinks government should ban gay relationships. We just don’t see the need to expand the government program of recognizing marriage to those relationships. A better example of “a government so powerful that it can dictate which adult relationships are legal and which aren’t” comes in the form of anti-sodomy laws (which, I think we would both agree, are idiotic).
McClintock, as far as I know, would agree with us on that too. In the 2003 recall debate, he made clear that he supports medical marijuana laws - not exactly something you’d expect to hear from a stereotypical nanny-state social conservative.
If you have any other examples of how McClintock is a big-government conservative, I’d be glad to hear them, but from all I’ve seen he seems consistently in favor of small government on both social and fiscal issues - far more so than Arnold.
Comment by jfullmer — 12/7/2006 @ 9:21 pm
Anti-sodomy… wait… there are laws against that?
Aw shit (no pun intended).
Anyway, the whole thing about “freedom lost” out of California or in California.
Since we live in an oligarchal/democratic society, and we all have the freedom to vote, it’s impossible for “freedom” as a whole to lose.
Sure, individual freedoms can be lost, but only because we have exercised our majority rule freedom to restrict individual rights.
If anything really “lost” this election, it was whatever the opposite of apathy is. Because apathy totally pwned all the special interests:P
Comment by Charles — 12/10/2006 @ 10:00 pm
“people still hate freedom, and we are those people”. Speak for yourself pat, some of us didn’t want to win for the symbolic lesson it might (but won’t) teach. Your pessimism and cynicism are part of the problem. How is a party going to fix itself when its advertising itself against that goal?
Comment by Megan S — 12/31/2006 @ 4:24 pm
James,
You are right in that Anti-Sodomy laws were a clear example of the government making certain adult actions illegal unjustly. But you are wrong about marriage equality not being a similar situation.
The government has exerted its power to allow only heterosexual relationships to be recognized to the detriment of gay relationships. It was only a generation ago that the Supreme Court declared that laws forbidding racial intermarriage was unconstitutional while people were out there claiming that they believed the government should not be supporting interracial marriages in a similar fashion to your statement that the government should not expand recognized marriages to inlcude same-sex couples.
In allowing a government to determine which relationships are recognized and which aren’t, we are giving the gov too much power.
Comment by California Grown — 1/3/2007 @ 2:02 pm
“In allowing a government to determine which relationships are recognized and which aren’t, we are giving the gov too much power.”
Then, government should stay out of marriage altogether and leave it up to individual churches. How very libertarian of you.
Somehow, though, I don’t think that’s the point you were trying to make. And I am not a libertarian (well, not at least as most “libertarians” define the word), so let’s leave that behind and get back to the question.
The argument about marriage equality that you’re making rests on a faulty assumption - that the government recognizes an individual marriage because of the morality or goodness or whatever of the individual relationship. To encourage people to pursue their happiness, one might say. And no rational person would argue that someone is less entitled to the pursuit of happiness because of who they are sexually attracted to.
But, my friend, that’s not the issue. The government doesn’t really care if by granting a marriage license to me it’s giving me a way to express my happiness.
The government recognizes and subsidizes marriage because marriage 1) provides a mass social framework that allows for the raising of children in two-parent homes with both a male and a female influence and 2) provides a mass social framework in which individual men protect individual women (who are generally physically the weaker sex) and individual women make sure individual men (who are generally the more idiotic sex) don’t do anything too stupid. This saves the government from having to do all the safety and police work itself. (You’ll pardon me for being unbearably traditional and generalizing in my views of the sexes.)
And the reason why two people of the same sex don’t qualify for this governmental recognition is because - at least in the eyes of society today - a relationship between two individuals of the same sex does not fulfill those two criteria. Both are up for debate, of course, and incidentally I think the strongest argument for gay marriage is that it does provide social stability. The whole “marriage tames men [and women, in this case]” argument.
If there’s no societal benefit, there’s no reason for the government to incentivize a behavior. Gay marriage advocates have got to convince the government that there is a societal benefit if they want to get anywhere. Talking about equality and the “freedom to marry” is a non-starter.
And I know this is running long but I’ll address your other two points really quickly.
“…while people were out there claiming that they believed the government should not be supporting interracial marriages in a similar fashion to your statement that the government should not expand recognized marriages to inlcude same-sex couples.”
No, because given the two reasons government recognizes marriage that I listed above, an interracial marriage is no different from an intraracial marriage. Anti-miscegenation laws were attempts by racist idiots to preserve “racial purity” and had nothing to do with whether or not a particular marriage was beneficial to society. Racism and homophobia are both terrible things. However, there actually is a non-homophobic case against gay marriage; if there’s a non-racist argument against interracial marriage, I’ve yet to hear it. So let’s dispense with this analogy, shall we?
“In allowing a government to determine which relationships are recognized and which aren’t, we are giving the gov too much power.”
No, quite frankly, we’re not. Marriage, as we’re discussing it, is recognized by - guess who - the government. For the purposes of this discussion, marriage is a government program. If the government has a program, it can set requirements for who qualifies for that program.
As I’ve said before, if the government interferes with our rights to enter into consensual relationships with whomever we want, then I’ll be out there with you protesting it. But don’t mistake the fact that some relationships qualify for government recognition for an inherent right to have a relationship recognized by the government.
Comment by jfullmer — 1/5/2007 @ 7:57 pm
James makes some good points. As it currently stands, marriage is basically a government program for the benefit of heterosexual couples. According to this, you get 1,400 benefits/rights from the government. I think it’s perfectly fine for a small government conservative or libertarian to think twice about expanding yet another program…
But there are a lot of basic legal protections (just in case something happens) that homosexual couples don’t have access to. It would be fine if there were other ways to attain them, but how, when a government marriage is the only game in town?
I personally support letting gays marry legally, but I would greatly prefer that the government get out of the business altogether. Churches could distribute marriage contracts (and they would be free to choose which couples to distribute to). But other private organizations could also join the market, giving couples the opportunity to choose which set of protections would suit their relationship the best. And, though some may not like it, niche providers could even draft the contracts for polygamous relationships (a new boom industry for Utah? heh). All contracts would be legal in the court of law, just like any other contract.
Almost everything the government gets its hands into, it messes up. It politicizes issues, divides the people, and is terribly inefficient to boot. Marriage as a government program is a failure, given the divorce rates in this country. In addition, I find it offensive that the government offers monetary incentives to get married. Especially if it’s toward subsidizing a social goal. Shouldn’t cementing the eternal love you share with another be the one and only reason for marriage? Call me a old-fashioned, call me a romantic idealist, but call me anything other than a social engineer.
Comment by patr — 1/5/2007 @ 10:53 pm
James,
I am going to make a response to your comment on my blog today. Clearly it has become a long enough issue to merit its own post for discussion instead of a thread on the Patriot Blog. I invite you to discuss it further with me!
Comment by California Grown — 1/8/2007 @ 11:34 am
Good call. My comment awaits your approval.
Comment by jfullmer — 1/8/2007 @ 11:57 pm