Excellent Article on Same-Sex Identity Politics

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

From the sage Chairm:


Equality is typically predicated on characteristics that do not imply actions, because actions are always choices. Skin color is irrelevant. And unchosen. Sexual orientation is almost certainly unchosen, but the decision to incorporate a sexual desire into one’s identity, and then to act on it, is a decision. Maybe most people think it’s the right decision, the healthiest decision, but the point is that it’s a choice, and subject to moral reflection. A sexual desire is not its own justification.


I want to add that the SSM campaign's emphasis on sexual orientation has not materialized in a legal requirement for gayness when people show up for a license to SSM.

And, obviously, there is no such "sexual orientation" criteria for marriage -- neither for eligibility nor for ineligibility. We should recognize that marriage unites the sexes. And what makes this a sexual type of relationship is not a raw desire for sex with the opposite sex; it is the influence of a social institution that makes normative the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood. That's why I emphasize the marital presumption of paternity and the lack of anything in the SSM law that would make SSM a sexual type of arrangement and, much less, a "gay" relationship type.


Too many libertarians do not understand the essentially Marxist project they are now promoting. Watch out. Individuals may be left free, but institutions that stand against the state’s values will be repressed in the name of equality. Individuals who are not free to form institutions (associate) are impotent against the state’s power to impose its values.


The social conservative argument is not the only argument against the imposition of SSM. But it is a big umbrella argument that protects what libertarian principles espouse; and it also protects what liberalism (not the distorted modern American version) holds as socially and morally significant.

The thing that distorts and shrinks libertarianism and liberalism -- and which is directly opposed to social conservativism -- is the assertion of supremacy of identity politics. In the case of marriage this has materialized as a direct attack on marriage and on the principled basis for the three major versions of the American philosphic tradition. It is an attack on religious and political pluralism.

I encourage you to read Maggie's entire column. And read it twice again. Redefining Religious Liberty http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDQwMGU5ZjgwNmFiODcxZDgyNTAxYjVmYzY2ZjViOTY=


Euripides said...

Maggie's article is excellent and details the current and upcoming problems facing religion and the religious community. Chairm does an excellent job of analysis.

Post a Comment


Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.

Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).