Huck, the Constitution and "God's standards"

Franklin and R E-P, I wasn't trying to establish any equivalency between particular moral issues. I was simply trying to establish up front that we have a collective interest in moral questions that affect public life, and that we can legitimately use the law to place constraints on anti-social behavior, regardless of the moral beliefs of those who engage in it. Once we've agreed on that point, we can go about the business of debating whether or not there is a compelling public interest in prohibiting a particular behavior.

It's interesting that you brought the issue of gay marriage into the discussion, because I was actually thinking more about abortion. I'm not in favor of anti-sodomy laws, for precisely the reason that R E-P raises. I just don't see any public interest that's advanced by such laws. On the other hand, I would not go so far as to say that the issue should be off limits to public debate, because there might be some social impact that escapes me.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, I think churches should be free to define marriage however they choose. That's part of the freedom that's guaranteed to them under the First Amendment. I also think that gay couples should have the same freedom to use existing contract law to enter into agreements regarding joint property, rights of inheritance, medical powers of attorney, etc. My understanding is that they do currently have that right, though admittedly I'm not an attorney.

As for tax breaks, Social Security benefits, etc., I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm categorically opposed to that, but I'm not persuaded by the arguments that have been offered. Admittedly, my perspective on this is influenced by the fact that I am a single taxpayer. So we really are talking about taking money out of my pocket and putting it in someone else's. We do that all the time, of course, but we do it to advance some public interest. For example, in the case of traditional marriage, I am (grudgingly) willing to put my support behind it, because I think government endorsement of heterosexual monogomy probably does help curb illegitimacy, which very clearly carries heavy costs to society. So even though it may benefit individuals unequally, the collective benefit is still worth the cost.

Perhaps there is some comparable rationale for government sponsorship of gay marriage, but I have yet to hear it articulated. All I've heard is that it's a matter of fairness, because of the unequal treatment that currently exists between gay versus straight couples. This strikes me as a patently absurd rationale, because the unequal treatment of single people versus couples is inherent to government sponsorship of marriage. So if equality trumps everything else, we should abolish marriage, not expand it.

On the other hand, if we accept that unequal treatment is permissible to the extent that it advances some common good, then it's necessary to articulate what that common good is. Obviously, the reason for discouraging promiscuity among heterosexuals (i.e., to curb illegitimacy) is not applicable to homosexuals, because their sexual behavior is inherently non-procreative. Without that, I just don't see why we should care whether or not gay men and lesbians sleep around. I have yet to hear anyone make the case for why we should seek to impose social control on their behavior comparable to what we currently impose on heterosexuals, given that the form of social control that we've adopted (i.e., government endorsement of monogomy) comes at a cost to the public. I'm completely open to debate on this or any other issue of social significance, but I have not been impressed by the arguments that have been put forward to date.

Spunky, at the risk of sounding Clintonian, I think it comes down to how one defines support. It's possible to be philosophically supportive of a constitutional amendment, while still believing, as a practical matter, that other strategies are preferable at a particular point in time.

In fact, that's pretty much how I would characterize my own position on the issue. In a perfect world, I would love for the right to life to be enshrined in the constitution, but at this point in time, I believe the focus of the anti-abortion movement should be on restoring the power of the states to regulate abortion.

There are three main reasons why I believe this. First, it is my impression that there is not sufficient support among the general public for a constitutional amendment at this time. Consequently, a campaign for an amendment would simply divert resources away from strategies that are more likely to produce immediate results. Second, returning the power to the states is more likely to at least reduce the carnage in the short-term, which I see as an immediate priority. Third, it is meaningless to speak of a constitutional amendment if we continue to allow the words of the constitution to be overridden by the whims of five judges. Roe v. Wade was a direct assault on the authority of the constitution itself and I believe that restoring that authority should be our immediate priority. Does that mean that I don't support a constitutional amendment? I don't think so.

I think it's important to draw a distinction between goals and strategies. While the strategies that Huckabee has supported might have changed over time, the goals that he has envisioned have not. On that basis, I see no equivalency between his record on the issue and Romney's.