I'm a "libcon." To that small slice of the political spectrum called libertarian conservative, personal freedom is central.
With a consistency that strikes some as foolish, I'm pro-choice on abortion before the quickening, pro-choice on my investment in Social Security and pro-choice on private competition to Medicare.
That also explains why libcons demand that government protect rather than intrude on privacy, and why we excoriate government officials who permit media mergers that limit public access to all shades of opinion.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
The libcon credo: respect majority rule and deeply ingrained cultural custom unless they step on individual freedom, at which point wave the Bill of Rights and holler.
That mind-set, so helpful in providing instant certitude on everything, is generating the jangle of cognitive dissonance on same-sex marriage.
The issue is often posed as one of simple legal fairness: why shouldn't two adults of the same sex who want to become life partners have the same opportunity -- and gain the same legal rights of government insurance, pension protection and hospital visitation -- as a couple who choose op-sex marriage?
That encouragement to making homosexual relationships more permanent is the primary argument for "civil union," the euphemism for "legal marriage but don't call it that because it makes most straight people angry." Many gay people, like many casually cohabiting heterosexuals, will embrace the principle but not the practice, as it would involve the consequences of dissolution of such a contract: alimony, child support when applicable, division of assets, and the law firm of Nasty, Brutal and Short.
The libertarian in me says: civil union corrects an inequity in the law. There should be no legal or economic discrimination against homosexuals anywhere in the US. And what is lawful in Vermont or Massachusetts should be recognized in every other state because we are one nation when it comes to basic rights, popular statutes to the contrary notwithstanding.
That's the easy part. More difficult is the argument that the primary purpose of society's bedrock institution is to conceive and rear children in a home of male and female role models known as caring parents. But now that there are adoptive and scientific substitutes for old-fashioned procreation, and now that 43 percent of first marriages fail, the nuclear family ideal is not what it used to be. Little lock is left in wedlock.
But what about the religious dimension to marriage? The ceremony performed by clergy in a house of worship involves a sacrament, invokes God's blessing on a man and a woman who take a solemn vow on entering a spiritual and not just a physical union. Won't pressure to marry people of the same sex split denominations, dismay millions of churchgoers and infuriate many ardent believers?Yes. Divisive it would surely be. Proponents of s-s-m who want more than a city hall wedding -- who want more than a civil union -- would seek clergy and congregants who welcome them. It would be a source of bitter doctrinal debate in many neighborhoods. So was racial intermarriage; but this faces scriptural admonitions as in the doomed city of Sodom.
That brings us to the Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy law in Texas. That victory for privacy slammed the bedroom door in the face of prosecutors who disapproved of forms of consensual sex engaged in by homosexuals and others. The stinging dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia, however, was prescient: the court decision opened the door to agitation for same-sex marriage. It may not be the slippery slope to polygamy, polyandry, incest and bestiality, but s-s-m is surely upon us.
The conservative in me wonders: if equal rights can be assured by civil union, why are some gays pushing so hard for the word "marriage?"
The answer is that the ancient word conveys a powerful message. Civil union connotes toleration of homosexuality, with its attendant recognition of an individual's civil rights; but marriage connotes society's full approval of homosexuality.
The pace of profound cultural change is too important to be left to activist judges. Because as moral-political issues go, this big one deserves examination by minds that can deal with internal contradictions -- which is the libcon way.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers