Same-Sex Marriages
Well Same-Sex Marriage is here, at least for awhile. Those who support Same-Sex Marriage argue that it will have no effect on society other than that some same-sex couples will now be legally married.
To me this is extremely naïve. I think it will have some positive benefits for those same-sex couples who do marry as it will be easier for them access the benefits that married people have (though with a little work they could have gotten almost all of them otherwise). It will also give them a sense of acceptance (which is what I think really drives this issue.)
However there will also be some negative consequences. The most important will be a further weakening of the institution of marriage that has been on going for several decades now. Traditional marriage, rather than being held up as the ideal it once was, is simply lowered another notch to just one of many lifestyle options.
Another consequence will be that before long, marriage will be even further extended. Supporters of Same-Sex marriage have attempted to dismiss such claims as “different subjects” but the fact remain that virtually ever argument used to defend same-sex marriage apply equally well if not better to other lifestyle options. The question supporters have consistently avoided because they have never been able to answer is why just same-sex marriage? Why not bigamy, or polygamy, or a father marrying his daughter or whatever relationship one want to enter into? If the arguments are valid, why do they only apply to same-sex marriage? As it turns other lawsuits have already been filed.
Another consequence will be that the public school curriculum will need to be rewritten so as to include same-sex marriage as equal to traditional marriage. This will not only promote homosexuality and same-sex marriage, it will further drive people from the public schools and into private schools and home schooling, though given the state of the public schools this might be a positive effect. Still it will have the additional side effect of increasing the growing sense of two Americans, the emerging secular America that dominates the media, government and most institutions, and larger traditional American of people who feel increasing uncomfortable in their own country. Such a divided country is not a good thing.
Another consequence will be that same sex couples will have equal status in adoptions.
Another consequence is that the number of people who engage in same-sex relationship will increase. The PC line is that homosexuals are “born that way” it is fixed and cannot be changed. Even if this is true in some cases, clearly it is not in all. One only has to look at the levels of homosexuality in Greece to see the error of such a claim. Then there are some of the notable examples of people who once claimed to be homosexual, yet who are now not. Then of course there is the new trend towards lesbianism that is already appearing in many high schools and colleges. Thus since at least some people have a choice, as homosexuality is more accepted increasing numbers will make that choice.
Finally this further weakens the rule of law and the democratic process. This was not a choice debated and voted upon, but was imposed as the result of judicial fiat, not based on the law or constitution, but from the political agenda of the judges. As a result there is a growing sense among those opposed to such judicial activism that if the other side is not bound by the law, why should we. This, combined with the growing sense of two Americans, is a very dangerous mix.
Now if the supporters of same-sex marriage are correct, and the traditional family structure is merely one of many possible and equal lifestyle choices this will not make much difference in the long run, expect to further divide the country. But this claim is at best unsupported. 5000 years of human history and cultures from around the globe argue to the contrary. As do a growing number of social studies particularly over the last 10 years, that clearly demonstrate the negative impact on children and society that the weakening of the traditional family structure has already had. For the judges in Massachusetts, and those who are imposing this massive societal experiment on us their agenda trumps all this. The experiment has begun, I hope that I am wrong, but the evidence would seem to indicate otherwise.
The Iraq War
When it comes to the war, one can only speculate what would have happened if Turkey had not backed out and our troops could have come down from the north. Most of the problems today come from that area north of Baghdad that were left untouched by the war as a result of Turkey’s decision.
On the other hand, our military was seriously depleted during the 1990s and one of my big disappointments with Bush, is the failure to build it back up. Over the last 50 years we have bloated the domestic side of the budget with giveaways designed to get votes, often at the expense of the defense budget. Our troops are the ones bearing much of the burden. At the same time we have increased the tax burden as a percentage of GNP to near record highs. The result has been tax cuts that get the economy going again, but before long the tax burden begins going up again.
Thus we are in a position were we need more money for defense. Yet raising taxes would almost certainly throw our shaky recovery back into recession resulting in even less money, and cutting domestic spending seem to be virtually impossible.
Democracy has always been seen as an unstable form of government, as eventually the people will vote themselves so many benefits, that the government either become fiscally unstable, or unable to respond challenges. A couple of years ago I had a discussion with someone on whether Democracy in this country was at any risk, I argue that there was a potential risk 50-70 years down the road, Whit did not think that was the case. I am beginning to wonder if I was not too optimistic in putting it off so far. The coming months and years will tell if we are at that point yet.
No Way to Run a War
Mark Helprin has a very good piece in Today WSJ, “No Way to Run a War” in which is he critical of both Republicans and Democrats and luckily it is on their free site.
https://opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=110005090
While I do not agree with all of his comments, (call me overly optimistic, but I do think that creating a democratic Iraq is worth at least a try and an important part of a long term solution) I agree with the many of his points. Particularly Bush’s trying to run the war on the cheap. I think we need a big increase in the defense department and the size of the military and thought so even before 9/11. I do not think it is right to treat reservist as regular army with such long terms. I think the shortage of troop is a problem. Not that we need more in Iraq, but just that we do not have enough to rotate them in and out, plus maintain our commitment elsewhere. In short we are stretched too thin, and that this is one of the reasons we waited so long to go into Iraq, and why we are rushing to get out. Our weakness is apparent and this emboldened our enemies.
Thus I think there is plenty of room for a challenger to attack Bush for being too weak on the war. However Kerry and the leading democrats, while they sometimes say those words, are actually attacking Bush for being too strong. Rather than arguing that we need a larger military, they instead argue that we should fall back and let the UN and Europe take a larger role.
George Melloan summed up the current situation pretty well today when he wrote in the WSJ, about Bush “He now has a war on two fronts, against armed guerrillas in Iraq, and those armed only with harsh words and scowling countenances at home. They have the same purpose, to sway American public opinion against the war.”
Rather than being critical of Bush for not being strong enough on the war, Kerry and the leading democrats seem to have decided to try an turn Iraq into a “Vietnam quagmire” hoping that as support for the war falls, so will Bush’s poll numbers, and that this will propel them into power.
They seem oblivious to the consequences of such a strategy, for as weakening support for the war at home will only encourage our enemy, as that has been their strategy all along, as detailed in Bin Laden comments on the strong horse and the weak horse. Emboldening our enemy can only lead to more of our troops dying, now as they seek to further weaken support, and later as we try to recover lost ground. It may be a political strategy that might work, but work or not it is a strategy that our soldiers will pay dearly for.
Crossing Another Line
One clear difference between conservatives and liberals is that for liberal, almost everything is political. This is one of the reasons liberals tend to gravitate into control of what otherwise are non-political organizations and then once in control, use the organizations to support their personal agenda, regardless of what the actual membership believes. For example in many unions the membership, like the country is pretty evenly split, yet almost all unions strongly support the democrats. In polls I have seen most nurses are Pro-life, but nurses unions are solidly pro-choice.
One areas were politics has been off limits has been has been the military. While after people got out they were free engage in politics, while in the military this was off-limits. The reason is that politicizing the military is a very dangerous thing to do.
Yet now the democrats are beginning to cross that line. In their myopic attempt to bring down Bush at any cost they are seeking, not those who are out of the military but reservists and guards not on active duty, who are opposed to the way the war is going, so that they can speak out against Bush. Delivering the democratic response to the Presidents radio address yesterday, and then on at least one of the Sunday News Programs.
This troubles me, not because I think it will be effective, it is doomed to fail. Anyone familiar with the military knows that that vast majority support Bush. Thus if this democratic tactic began to make some headway, then Republicans would (and probably will anyway just to be sure), start looking for counter parts to make the opposite case. What troubles me this that this crosses the line and begin the politicization of the military. That will not be good for anyone.
An Interesting Historical Contrast.
I heard an interesting historical contrast the other day. When Dewey was running for President against Roosevelt during WWII, he received some information that indicated that Roosevelt knew in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor.* General Marshall asked him not to use the information because it would hurt the war effort. As such Dewey did not use the information. Considering that Democrats are already accusing Bush of knowing about 9/11, It is somewhat useless to ask if democrats today would show the same restraint.
BTW, Roosevelt launched is reelection campaign at Pearl Harbor, and had a campaign button with his picture and the words “I remember Pearl Harbor.”
*This information later turned out the be untrue. Having read the transcripts of the Japanese cables that the US had decoded and FDR read, and the discussion of the cabinet meetings leading up to the attack, I do not believe that Roosevelt had advance warning, despite some seemingly incriminating statements (at one point in Nov, a cabinet member asked, ‘how do we get Japan to attack us.’) There is no doubt in my mind that Roosevelt knew war was coming, and that the Japanese would be launching the war in early December. But I do not believe that he had specific knowledge of the attack, or that it would be at Pearl Harbor. Rather they suspected that the attack would come in the Philippines.
