Why Proposition 8 Matters

Proposition 8 has provoked extreme emotions on both sides of the issue. It is generally shaped as being about tolerance and equality on one side or about morality and tradition on the other. While they are polar opposites, it is important to realize that both sides have boasted faulty arguments. There are agents of intolerance within both camps, whether intolerant of free speech or hateful of a different lifestyle. The most important thing within a pluralistic society is the ability to construct sound arguments and not get caught up in overwhelming emotions. Please hear me out and let me explain why I endorse Proposition 8.

It is very important to outline what is marriage and what is the role that it plays in society. Marriage is typically outlined by society and it is shaped by the culture, whether through religious or legal customs. Historically, cultures have outlined that marriage is between people of the opposite sex- regardless of an Eastern or Western philosophy. However now, this is seen as both hateful and bigoted. The archaic understanding of marriage should be modified, after all racial matters were decided through government intervention. Although the racial legacy of the USA has been tainted with slavery and hostile welcoming of immigrant groups, the California court's decision in the beginning of this year cannot be equated with the rejection of interracial marriage. The racial tension and restrictions were morally deplorable and were against legitimate moral teachings. The current debate cannot be honestly tied to the past struggles on moral grounds for clarity's sake. Although marriage between two people of different faiths have been banned periodically throughout history, that ban has not been on racial grounds. Since people of different ethnic groups could convert, interracial marriage was not condemned within religious texts. Certainly the question of American bans on interracial dating and marriage within ultra-conservative groups is often raised as a parallel. In order to rebut this erroneous claim I will turn to a quote from columnist and thinker Dennis Prager,

"American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side."

Certainly my libertarian friends will object with the limited concept of imposing morality on other people. I want to be perfectly clear that it is really impossible to not impose your worldview on other people. Even the belief that all beliefs should be tolerated and debated is imposing one's belief on someone else. In other words, there is no such thing as objectivity or universal acceptance. Some compassionate people might say that the rejection of this proposition would be a reinstatement of human rights. After all, Thomas Jefferson once penned, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Human rights are applicable to all people, and through the vigilance of the state, people should be protected. Although perfect equality will not happen due to the natural condition of humanity, it does not mean that we should not strive for legal equality. Homosexual and heterosexual couples should receive and continue to receive equal legal rights. The legal benefits between my wife and I should be granted for two partners through civil unions. There are rights that can be given but do not call it marriage. Prejudice should be fought against and tolerance of other lifestyles should be sought, but an abandonment of all societal ties for the sake of 'progress' must not be attempted.

One of the classic arguments in support of same-sex marriage that must be addressed is that we must support same-sex marriage because a heterosexual marriage will not be impacted by a homosexual marriage. Congratulations on making a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the debate, no one ever said that it would. Even in my conversations with the most conservative of Evangelicals this topic does not come up. We are not discussing individual marriages, instead we are talking about foundations of society. The elimination of the mores that bind us to our foundation is precarious and that is what this debate is about. Of course, advocating for marriage between a man and a woman is now the equivalent of being a sexist or racist. And soon, I am certain, it will be a hate crime. Even though one might have all the love and respect for someone of a different sexual orientation, the sentiments that only a man and a woman should marry is hateful. The playing of the hate card is intellectually dishonest and blackmail. If everyone else is labeled hateful by you if they oppose a measure, than you are promulgating hate.

Marriage is at the very foundation of civilization. Society lives and dies through the ability to sustain its culture and grow as a people by reproducing. Three traditional views on marriage is that marriage a social contract, sacrament and/or a legal binding. According to my Protestant worldview (with a bit of Catholic influences), the issue leans more towards all of the above. Marriage redeems society and should be a blessing unto it, through the dynamic of two different people coming together-- building society through stability and furthering society in childbearing. This (potential) ability is what sets marriage apart from other relationships. If it is a purely legal matter, than allow the society to legitimately decide the definition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Marriage has been chosen from within society and is bestowed on whom it chooses.

Words are incredibly important. The description of a piece of legislation as either a bailout or an economic stabilization plan could cause significantly different public reaction. With this constitutional amendment the phrasing could make all the difference. The proposition originally read: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The changed wording should melt even the hardest of hearts. Attorney General Brown changed the phrasing to manipulate popular sentiment, framing those who oppose gay marriage (even those who have no animosity towards gays) as bigots. Just as O'Brien would famously ask Winston in George Orwell's 1984, many now ask "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" Even if you reply four they will force you to say five. Why? Because up is down and down is up. There is no Truth, morality is dead. After all, we are simply a nation of sheep.


Marriage has always been defined by society, secular or sacred. If society chooses to allow same-sex marriage, then so be it. It should be defined through the ballot box, not through judicial and dishonest actions.


-----------------------------
For more, please see:

Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love

by Dennis Prager

California's Decision will radically change society
by Dennis Prager

The Meaning of Marriage
by John Witte, Jr. in First Things

Natural Law, the Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage

by R. Scott Clark

The Rise of the Rest

I was introduced to the writings of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman several years ago. His masterpiece The World is Flat altered my outlook on life for many years. Friedman forcefully argued that the world was becoming more competitive through the spread of information and the proliferation of technology. Small businesses and developing countries can close the distance with larger rivals. It is a phenomenon known as the "Rise of the Rest."

The past 500 years witnessed the dramatic and dominating growth of Western Europe. Once mired in the "Dark Ages" it grew into a powerful region. A rebirth of Classical philosophy led to the pursuit of knowledge, the Reformation led to the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment. The Rise of the West was phenomenal and allowed Europe and its offspring (the United States, Canada, etc.) to dominate the globe. Within the Twenty-First Century we are not necessarily seeing a precipitous decline of the West but the Rise of the Rest. This flattening of the world, in my opinion, can be traced to two events in the Twentieth Century.

1. The two World Wars led to the exhaustion of Western resources. The will of Europe to wage war was spent and much of the colonies they once had was gradually released. Those who lived under the imperialist nations witnessed how Japan could fight against European powers and become successful. Decolonization and the principles of self determination led to the rise of non-Western powers.
2. The information age and rise of IT helped to further flatten the world. China, India and Brazil are rapidly growing in economic and international power. Brazil's economic growth has been astounding, flourishing into a regional power (US News and World Report examined this growth more intensively). Thomas Friedman was right, The World is Flat.

As I wrote in a previous post, the American Republic will fall eventually. Every empire and nation has an expiration date, they will be replaced by another world power. America is not necessarily collapsing on its own, but is rapidly being replaced by the rest of the world. Fareed Zakaria would point out in his book The Post American World (for an excerpt, visit this site) that the world is moving beyond America. The world is catching up to the Superpower. They are not surpassing it in military might or leadership, but the developing nations are rapidly becoming part of the strata of elite nations.

The developing nations are taking distinct advantage of the Pax Americana, much like the United States took advantage of the Pax Britannica. A large nation can stabilize the world or region and allow other groups to simultaneously flourish. Global peace and prosperity will usher in the era of Brazil, India and China- the Rise of the Rest. This is not as disconcerting or pessimistic as my previous post asserted, instead the world is growing incredibly interconnected. The demise of a great power will lead to the decline of other great powers. The Rise of the Rest is still linked to the West and the demise of the West still leads to the decline of the Rest because the world is incredibly flat.

The Decline and Fall of an Empire

Amidst turbulent times and troubles, one can only fall back onto the recesses of the past to look forward. I look back to the heroes and villains of history, seeking to learn from both their triumphs and disasters. Things will rebound and times will get better, they always have. Things might change, new leaders might emerge, but the sun will still rise from the east.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
– John Adams (1814)

Ever since I discovered this quote from my friend it has challenged me to think about the future. Empires rise and fall. St. Augustine wrote "The City of God" during the decline of the Roman Empire as Visigoths, Vandals and Persians raided the land. What caused the great and powerful empire of Rome to fall into decay? Economic, martial and political chaos led to the fall, yet while the demise occurred Augustine chose to remind the people about the hopes of an eternal land- the City of God.

The Bishop of Hippo contended in his treatise that there were two rival factions, the earthly and heavenly. While the former was beautiful and tempting it was entirely temporal. The City of God was magnificent, the very foundations would never be shaken. St. Augustine desired to invoke to his fellow Romans that temporal pleasures pale in comparison to the everlasting joy that they shall receive. Sin and selfishness were finally beaten, true peace would reign forever.

When the American Republic will fall, the Believer must not doubt about God or their faith. It is an entirely natural course, the rise and fall of powers are not based upon God. As the sun sets each evening, surely each government has its appointed day of expiration. Our faith is rooted in the City of God, our pilgrimage will only last so long. Eternity must be written on our hearts.

As a sojourner, it is comforting to think that the City of God shall stand against the ebb and flow of time. Things may falter, but the Kingdom of God remains ever strong. I am reminded of Martin Luther and how he stood while evils and corruption abounded. He reminded us all that a "Mighty Fortress is our God"! Might we remember that still.

Because Wall Street affects Main Street (Part 3)

Final entry in the "Wall Street impacts Main Street" series.

It is a somber day for the American economy.

Plan Will Save Free Market, Not Destroy It

By REP. JOHN CAMPBELL

This free-market, Milton Friedman devotee, conservative Republican congressman will be voting strongly in favor of the $700 billion bailout for Wall Street. What, you ask? Has the California sun fried my last brain cell?

No. I will vote for this bill because it will likely not cost anything, is not a bailout of anybody and will help every American with a bank account, a job or a retirement plan. It also will save the free market, not weaken it.

Allow me to explain.

The $700 billion figure so often mentioned will not be spent, but actually entirely invested with three different mechanisms to ensure that the taxpayers get all their money back.

First, these "troubled assets" will be purchased at less than the expected net present value of their cash flow. That means taxpayers should make a profit by holding them to maturity.

Second, taxpayers will get warrants to purchase stock in the companies from whom these assets are bought. That is more profit potential if the companies recover.

Third, whoever is president five years from now is required to offer to Congress a proposal to recover from these same companies any net loss incurred by the taxpayers to that point. No investment's return is certain, but this one looks pretty good. It for sure will not cost anything close to $700 billion over time.

Furthermore, you are not bailing out companies when you buy assets from them at 30%-60% of what they paid for the asset. That's a bath, not a bailout.

And they should take a bath. They made an investment decision, and it turned out to be a bad one, so they lose money. The purpose of the purchase plan is to create a market where one does not now exist and allow these companies to move that capital back into productive use in the economy. It is not giving them any kind of deal.

If this bill does not pass and Congress does nothing, Wall Street will suffer for sure. But so will everyone with a retirement plan as those values drop precipitously and their nest egg disappears.

Just imagine a whole week of days like Monday. People with bank accounts or money market funds may find their money inaccessible as the debt markets freeze over. And nonfinancial businesses that rely on short-term borrowing to meet payrolls and finance inventory spikes may be unable to get that credit, resulting in layoffs. In short, we all lose, whether we live in Manhattan or Peoria.

So has the free market failed us and that's why we need the government to take it over in this way?

No again. Free markets work. They are still working. They are rational. But on both sides of any free market transaction are two human beings who are subject to emotional behavior. The market cannot correct for overwhelmingly irrational behavior, whether that behavior is fear and panic or risk-ignoring exuberance.

When the short-term debt of some of the world's most profitable companies has no buyers, that is evidence of widespread fear bordering on panic. The objective of this bill is to remove the object of that fear, the bad mortgage-backed securities, from the market so that rational behavior will return.

In some ways, this bill is more of a free-market solution than other actions that have been taken. The government will not take over any companies here. Even the warrants will be nonvoting. No one will be compelled to sell the government their assets if they don't want to.

Even the "reverse auction" process of establishing pricing for the assets, where sellers submit bids to one buyer rather than the other way around, is a market-based pricing method.

Other ideas are out there to correct this problem. I have seen most of them. None has a better chance than this one to stabilize the credit and equity markets. Furthermore, no other plan has the broad base of political support that this plan has from leaders in both parties.

The credit markets in particular are too fragile. We cannot afford the time delay of starting over.

If we do not pass anything, I shudder to think of how bad things might get as that fear turns to full-fledged panic.

If we pass this plan, some banks and other companies will still fail. The world economy will still struggle and have problems for months if not years to come.

But markets will function again, and we will likely avoid the abyss. That will save our free-market economy, not jeopardize it. I hope and pray that at least 217 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives will see it that way on Friday.