Who Decides?
November 21st, 2008 . by tgirschPublius does a nice job summing up what’s at the heart of the liberal/conservative divide on “social conservative” issues:
The social conservatives’ positions tend to empower government over individuals. If they got their way, the public would be forced to submit to the government’s decision-making. The more liberal position, by contrast, allocates power to individuals – no one is forced to do anything. (Admittedly, this is not really a constitutional argument – just an additional explanation for why the Christian Right tends to scare people).
Take, for instance, the granddaddy issue of them all – abortion. The Christian Right position would require every single person in a given jurisdiction to give birth. (Yes, some would argue that it’s simply about letting the states decide – but still, they prefer this position because many states, and virtually the entire South, would ban abortion). Thus, the decision-making power here would belong to the government. Individuals would no longer be free to decide.
The pro-choice position, by contrast, ensures that individuals – not the government – will ultimately make these private decisions. Individuals remain free to have, or not have, abortions as they and their God see fit. And everyone remains free to persuade their fellow citizens of the values of bringing all pregnancies to term. But in the end, the individual – and not the state – would make the final call.
This pattern repeats itself across a number of issues. For example, gay marriage doesn’t require anyone to do anything. It merely allows consenting gay adults to be married. Gay marriage bans, by contrast, grant that decision-making power to the state.
Similarly, rights to contraception don’t require anyone to do anything – the ultimate decision remains with the individual. Contraception bans, by contrast, allocate the decision-making power to the government.
Same deal with school prayer. Banning school prayer in public classes doesn’t prevent anyone from praying privately at the school. But allowing public prayer, by contrast, would force non-Christians to sit through prayer sessions in a publicly funded school. Again, the decision to participate in prayer would be made by the state, not the individual.
The larger point is that these examples illustrate why many people fear social conservatives – simply put, many of the latter’s preferred positions would use the state to intrude on people’s lives and dictate very private and personal decisions to them.
Now, I think this is largely true. But at the same time, if you expand beyond the so-called “social conservative” issues, there are plenty of places where it’s the liberals who would be doing the forcing. Environmental issues, for example, or gun control.
That said, I think the fact that compliance is somehow enforced is not, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing. It depends upon your view of the thing being enforced.
It is an intriguing case to argue that a social conservative ideology involves greater intrusion by the state. But, that is taking it to the extreme. Social conservatism is about drawing lines around decency. Take gay marriage for example. Where do you stop? If marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, what is to prevent it from being between a man and a boy…a woman and a horse? After all, to restrict that would be to bring the weight of the state into the equation.
The pro-life position is based on the notion that life begins at conception and that at THAT point, individual rights begin for the child. That is a constitutional right that trumps a found right to “privacy.” It is not about bringing the government into the bedroom…and I think most reasonable pro-life folks can make the exceptions for life of the mother, rape and incest…together they account for about 2% of the abortions. The mother already had the decision making power as an individual the night before, government or no government. But a government that cannot protect the least among us is doomed to fail.
Prayer in school? I am not a fan of saying that all children must be required to pray to a certain God or sect. But please remember that the doctrine of separation of church and state was not to protect the state from religion…it was to prevent the church FROM the state through religious freedom and the prevention of an established church like the Church of England our founders were escaping from. Cannot we be reasonable and ask for a moment of silence where Christians, Jews et al can quietly pray to their God? I guarantee you that with multi-culturalism run amock, we are headed towards having the public schools provide for Muslims to pray towards Mecca, while Christians and Jews are denied the simpler rite.
This is not about dictating to others how to live their lives. It IS about allowing Christians to live theirs in freedom. The state has already intruded enough on that.
If marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, what is to prevent it from being between a man and a boy…a woman and a horse?
A concept that very few conservatives will even acknowledge exists: Consent.
.
If consent were to exist - such as between multiple partners or adult siblings - would marriage be allowable? And if not, why? Why challenge the traditional makeup of marriage as one man / one woman and not challenge the math?
Well, copper, I have no dog in the fight… but I think it’s way past time for government to stop recognizing “marriage” as anything but a civil contract between consenting parties.
Full stop. If you wanna call your contract “a marriage,” s’ok with me.
.
Whether or not one feels that “traditional marriage” is between one man and one woman depends on when one thinks the “tradition” started. Marriage has, in fact, undergone many changes to what’s allowed and what isn’t, and what is and is not recognized, even within the last 50 years. Laws against miscegenation, for example, existed in the US until 1967. Polygamy existed in the Bible, and was not condemned (ask Solomon).
Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundational building block of society. That is the wisdom behind recognizing this institution. Dilute it to just a “contract between consenting” folks and you will ultimately destroy the society. Look no further than the destruction of the black family in America by the substitution of the government for the father in the welfare state. Some traditions are worth keeping.
Wow, some comments just speak for themselves.
Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundational building block of society.
I think you’ve confused “marriage” for “agriculture.”
.
Great post Tgirsch. Great discussion. I only wish Ned would drop in so that we could argue about my next sentence.
I have always believed the term “social conservative” to be an oxymoron. Conservative to me means less government. Adding the word social kind of cancels out the conservative part. You can be a cultural conservative and still support individual liberty and small government, but social conservative almost always means big government. Most people are pretty culturally conservative in their lifestyles though, regardless of whether they are righties or lefties.
When Rumbler said that some traditions were worth keeping, I agreed with him. But I disagree that government should “keep” those traditions. Those traditions should be kept by society, not government. Religion and spirituality should keep those traditions. It should never require the point of a gun to keep a tradition.
JP was right when he said that marriage should just be a contract between consenting adults. In fact, thats really all that it already is. I personally believe that marriage is a covenant between man, woman, and God. Recognition by a government is not in my definition. Some people that have marriage contracts in this state do not agree. Some do not even believe in God, but they still have a contract. I don’t know of any believer who would deny two non-believers the right to legally entwine. Knowing this, why do any of us care if gay people want a contract too? It doesn’t infringe on our freedom, does it? I just can’t for the life of me figure out why people care. Personally, as someone that is not too fond of big government, I could give a rat’s ass how the state defines marriage. All I want is for the state to leave me alone.
As for abortion, I personally don’t believe it is a social conservative issue, not for me at least. I oppose most abortions because I believe it to be a brutally violent act. From a religious standpoint, one can believe that life begins at conception. But from a scientific standpoint, we have to have some kind of consensus as to when life begins. Obviously, government should side with science. Surely nobody in here believes that life doesn’t start until the baby sticks his head out. I think we all agree that third trimester abortions are violent acts. My point is that as soon as life is said to begin (beating heart, whatever), then it is a violent act, and no longer an issue of liberty, that is unless we are talking about the right of the child.
Gay marriage, what should it mean to us?
JP was right when he said that marriage should just be a contract between consenting adults. In fact, thats really all that it already is. I personally believe that marriage is a covenant between man, woman, and God. Recognition by a government is not in my definition.
Well, it should be, since all manner of issues arise if government treats everyone as a single person (rights of survivors and progeny is one very obvious case; hospital visitation, another). That has a lot to do with why activists would like to avoid the multitude of “separate-but-equal” schisms and schemes suggested, and say, “hey, let’s just call it marriage already, since everyone knows what the rights conveyed are, historically.”
.