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.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry