A rejoinder to The Classic Liberal

Our good friend The Classic Liberal commented after one of my previous posts ranting about libertarians deserting social cons on the fight with liberals over homosexual marriage (and every other social issue). 

I thought his question, and my reply, deserved their own post, and hopefully everybody else is as interested in this as I am so that it will get a good discussion going. (Sorry for some profanity.)

Here is TheCL’s reply to my original post:

What I’d like to know is, why do you insist on the state being involved in marriage in the first place? Does the state need to regulate even the realm of God? Is God’s word only good if backed by the Almighty State?

The right has become as beholden to the state as the left. The conservative movement has turned into the Israelites who demanded a king. God punished them with one.

Our Founders wanted the state to stay out of the church for good reason. Today, you want the state in the church so it can define what is and is not marriage. Can the state do something for you God cannot? Demand your Overlords define marriage, and you’ll lose the battle forever.

The left turns to the state. If the right turns to the state too, it matters not their intentions, you’ll both get to the same place.

Here is my reply to TheCL (whom I greatly admire and respect, so I hope I don’t come off rude or condescending).
TheCL:  Good question, one that most libertarians fail to understand.  You and I come to many of the same conclusions, but we get there using vastly different premises. 

I am a believer in our Constitutional form of government as handed to us by the Founding Fathers.  My basic premise is that they handed us a blue-print for the most wonderful form of government known to man. Not perfect, just vastly superior to other forms of government.   So my basic premise is if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it is still good enough for me.

Libertarians, on the other hand, look at life through the premise that government should have the absolute minimal impact on personal lives, and only do the bare minimum.  I agree with that philosophy to an extent so long as it does not contradict what the Founders did, or so long as it does  not lead to absurd results. 

The Founders certainly “legislated morality.”  We might not agree with the morality that they espoused, but don’t give me this crap that it is “unconstitutional” or that we should not attempt to do so. 

We legislate morality all the time: we legislate against polygamy, child porn, underage sex, animal abuse, etc. ad nauseam. The only difference between those issues and homosexuality or homosexual marriage is one of degree, not kind.  We just decide to draw lines and make choices because most of society agrees with those choices.

The states have since the inception been “involved” in marriage.   States have required licenses, have dictated who could marry, who could marry them, when they could marry, and have made it difficult to get a divorce.  So don’t tell me that the state has not been “involved” in marriage since the beginning of this country.   And don’t try selling me the canard that opposition to homosexual marriage by social cons is some new phenomenon.  It’s been around hundreds of years.  I stand squarely in the mainstream of American thought through out the ages.  You, sir, are outside, in a little slip-stream eddy off to one obscure side, far from where the majority has been through out the ages. (I do not question your ethics or your integrity–I merely believe that you have been misguided by your sincere–but incorrect–basic premise.)

And liberals/progressives/perverts/hippies, etc. and various other anti-American types come to the same conclusions as good people like you do, but again, based upon vastly different premises than either yours or mine.  

Those people, many of whom I despise, I’ll just lump together and call liberals.  Liberals despise America, and they despise America’s morality.  They (many perhaps unconsciously) believe that if they tear down her morality and the country will follow.  Others just think that they know better than all those who have lived before them.  (Liberals being know-it-all?  Go figure!)

They have their own brand of morality, but most would in the past call it immorality.  “If it feels good, do it!” “There is no God, so we can do what we want.” Their attitude is that they certainly do not want those sanctimonious social cons telling us what we can and can’t do with our lives.

 Notice, however, the contradiction–those same people are the first–THE FIRST–to tell others what they can and can’t eat, smoke, drink, say or do when liberals are in power. 

What they and you don’t realize is that the reason this country  has done certain things for centuries is because that way works. 

Notice, for instance, what happened to the country as a result of the “sexual revolution.”  Sure, there were horror stories of people staying in bad marriages, being unhappy, blah blah blah.  But by and large in the past people married, stayed married, had children and prospered. 

With the sexual revolution, the throwing off of traditional marriages, etc. (thanks you fuc–er dirty, hippies) the family unit began to suffer.  Children lost parents, mothers were forced to raise children without a husband, women and children became poorer and dependent on the state for welfare.  Men had numerous children by numerous un-married women. 

All this occurred without any social disapprobation. Ooooh, don’t judge them.  We can not be judgmental. Let them live their own lives, blah blah blah!  B.S.  That ain’t the way we did it in the past.

Believe me, I’m old enough to remember vividly how much of a scandal it was when unmarried women became pregnant.  Many left town due to the pressure.   This type of behavior may seem mean to you, but it was an effective deterrent to what society knew was a bad result. The world may not have been a paradise but people stayed married and children had stable homes. Then laws against easy divorce and morals against divorce and sex out-of-wedlock became loosened or completely undone. 

I believe that marriage and morals based upon our judaeo-christian heritage was the glue that held society together, allowed our country to prosper, and to become the greatest country evuh.  Sure, the country is great due to many other reasons, too, but I maintain that it would not and cannot prosper without our foundation of a strong marriage and morals. 

So really, in my humble opinion, you are fighting against history. (Heh heh, no pressure!)  You are (perhaps because you have not thought about it this way) setting yourself up as smarter than the millions who lived before you, who delivered to you the greatest country in the world, based on the greatest system of government ever devised.  And you want to fuck with it because you don’t want the state “involved.”  I don’t think so, absent some pretty unbedamnedlievable great reasons.  Just “I don’t want the government involved in marriage in the first place” does not cut it for me.

Hope this halps.


John Doe

p.s.  I maintain that the reason marriage “works” best for society is because it was ordained by God in the Bible.  Our creator just happens to know what is best for us. Who would have thunk it? 

You don’t have to believe that to still come to the same conclusions that I do.  Come along and join my side because the “proof is in the pudding.”  Marriage is best for families, for health, for children, for prosperity, and for society in general.  Ann Coulter has an entire book devoted to showing the devastating effect that the break-down in marriages has had on society. Can’t remember the name but I heartily recommend it. 

And yeah, perhaps this deviated from the points you made. I see this as an opening of a dialogue, not the end all and be all of this discussion…

8 responses to “A rejoinder to The Classic Liberal

  1. I’m writing up a response, but gotta head out tonight. I hear your message, we’ll talk tomorrow.

  2. John Doe – I did not read anything I disagreed with, but I am puzzled by the soft porn. These pictures lend respect to an attitude toward sex and marrital fidelity that is at war with your own words.

    Are the nudies attractive? Yes. Do their pictures draw addititonal hits? Perhaps, I wonder those pictures actually attract additional readers.

    There is a poem….

  3. I can’t disagree with what you wrote, either, Tom. My “rationalization” is that a) it is socially acceptable to go to a beach and see such scantily clad women, and b) I do not rail against such behavior and seek to have the beaches declared off-limits, but rather am fond of attending and of viewing the sights.

    I believe that the female body is the most lovely form of art in the world. I enjoy art. I have art hanging on my walls. I enjoy women, therefore, I enjoy having beautiful pictures of women plastered all over my blog.

    Does that make it right? No. But if I were perfect, I’d still be blogging with Megan at her blog. ;(

  4. John Doe – Not sure who Megan, but she must be quite admirable.

    Anyway, the same observation I left here (http://themadjewess.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/hotness-post-pin-up-gals-then-slutty-sleazy-broads-now/comment-page-1/#comment-11527) seem applicable.

    Since none of us is wholly good, what we each produce and admire is to some extent perverse. How perverse? To satisfy our consciences, we each set our own standard and call that good or acceptable. I would imagine it is these individual standards that created a problem for Justice Potter Stewart (when he was trying to define pornography) and his colleagues on the SCOTUS. Since they (the court) can find no objective standard, they do not know what standard to use.

    What does God find acceptable? Is that not the standard we should use? Oddly, however, trying to define God’s porn standard seems to create more problems than it solves. We argue endlessly. For while God may not be the author of confusion, we certainly are confused.

    Perhaps the problem is that we cannot see what He sees. We can only see the art on the wall. He looks into the heart of each man, woman, and child. Whereas each of us can only feebly see into our own heart, and we are not happy with what we find.

  5. Tom, doncha remember? I got my start blogging at “the Mud Pit”? You used to comment there…

    I don’t look at those pictures with lust, nor do they make me wish I was with them instead of my wife. I look at them more as a thing of beauty. I admire them as much as I admire a work of art, or a classic car that has been restored.

    During law school, my wife worked for a baptist school that required their girls to wear coulottes and skirts down past their knees. That’s where they drew the line–I had no problem with them, but I can’t say they felt the same about me.

    I think it is a gray area. If God wanted to be black and white he could have told us explicitly. I also gamble, and drink beer wine and hard liquor. I never claimed to be perfect, just forgiven.

    I’m really hoping to hear from a libertarian, preferably TheCL so that you and I can get a better idea of where he disagrees with us (since you said you agree with what I wrote).

    We learn more from a frank discussion over areas of disagreement than when we all just agree.

  6. That Megan? Yep! I like her posts.

    Still visit The TOXIC Mud Pit, but I suppose it has been awhile since that blog benefitted from my wisdom. 😀

    God judges; we observe. Therefore, if I do not approve, I try not participate, and I do not want to be forced to participate. If I observe someone hurting someone else or trying to impose on my rights, I try to defend the rights of the abused party. We can judge the action, but not our fellow fools.

    What bothers me about so-called Liberals is that they insist that we must adopt their morals, or we are bad people. Complain, and they will judge you and call you names.

    Christians should find this name calling amusing. There are good people? How would we know? We know of people seeking salvation. We know of people who do not know they are suppose to seek salvation. But which of us is fit to judge and say another is good or bad?

    At the same time, Liberals say we are suppose to be tolerant. This convolution is suspiciously self-serving. Somehow Liberals always seem to arrive at the place where we are suppose to put them in charge, otherwise we are bad. Either Liberals do not understand what they are talking about, or they are corrupt. In either case, why would we want to put Liberals in charge of anything?

    The modern Liberal is a Socialist. Even though most Liberals refuse to call themselves Socialists, their solution almost always involves putting government in charge. Thus, unlike the people who once called themselves Liberals, the modern Liberal is someone who refuses to understand that everybody has the right — and the responsibility — to run his or her own life.

  7. Tom good for you that you dont go to TOPIX, you are so smart and better suited building your own place.
    Agree on the lib being a Socialist now, they have come out of hiding and are pretty bold now.

  8. I guess my trackbacks aren’t working properly, I’ll have to look into that, meanwhile, here’s my response:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s