More on marriage as a contract

Proponents of same-sex marriage were smart to cast it as a civil rights issue. However, if opponents of same-sex marriage are to have a chance in future battles, they would be wise to re-cast the issue as one of a contract involving three parties: the state and the two halves of the couple. Although marriage itself is not merely a contract, it can be helpful to think about the value of marriage to society in contract terms. For a more thorough understanding of the true nature of marriage, see this article by Jennifer Roback Morse. The state, by tradition, has decided to enter into contracts with couples including one man and one woman. The question is, does society now wish to enter into contracts with same-sex couples?

Consider these three states: California, Iowa, and Vermont. In California, the outcome of the referendum could be seen as the people declining to enter into contracts with same-sex couples. That is the laboratory of democracy in action. In contrast, Iowans were told by a court that they had to allow these contracts because a panel of judges bought the civil rights argument. Iowans are being forced to enter into contracts with same-sex couples. Even if there is evidence at some future date that society does not benefit from these contracts, the civil right to marriage has been established in Iowa. It will be much harder to change law made by a court than by a referendum or by legislation. Vermont took the legislative route, and they, too are an example of the laboratory of democracy. Vermont has the opportunity to change the law if the people, through their representatives, determine that conferring marriage on same-sex couples is not benefiting society, just as California has the opportunity to do the reverse. Unfortunately, Iowans are more tightly locked into a public policy of allowing same-sex marriages. In the future, other states should watch carefully what happens in Iowa and Vermont to see if they really want to expand their contractual relationships to same-sex couples.

Right to marriage?

The advocates for same-sex marriage have done well to cast the issue as a civil rights issue. This was the key to their recent victories, especially in Iowa. As I have argued before, the issue should be about whether or not sanctioning same-sex marriage is of any benefit to society. The reason is, marriage is a three-party contract among two partners and society. Society's interest in the contract is the benefits that I have enumerated previously. No individual has a right to force society into a contract unwillingly. Until such time as same-sex couples present a convincing argument that society will benefit from entering into a contract with them, there is no civil rights issue.

However, we have reached a time where we have a few states that have legalized same-sex marriage. There is an opportunity to compare them to traditional marriages. Will gay men stay in these relationships for the long term, moderating their promiscuity? What about same-sex female relationships?

I suspect that same-sex married women will be as different from same-sex married men as their heterosexual counterparts are. They will be more likely to adopt children and stay in stable relationships, for longer periods of time. You may read studies about same-sex marriage that are limited to females or blur any distinction between male and female, but perhaps none that study same-sex male relationships. If so, would it not be fair to conclude society isn't getting anything in return for sanctioning same-sex male relationships?

Easter Gaiety

There was once a bowl of jelly beans. Most of the jelly beans were either red or black, in roughly equal numbers. As time passed, the jelly beans grew bigger. Once in a while, a giant would reach into the bowl, take out a jelly bean, and pop it into his mouth. However, the jelly beans found that if a red jelly bean squeezed really close to a black jelly bean, they would stick together. The giant preferred to eat the largest jelly beans, especially if they were not paired, as he didn't like to mix the sweet red flavor with the licorice flavor of the black jelly beans. Consequently, pairs of jelly beans survived in the bowl longer on average than unpaired jelly beans. Moreover, once in a while, a new, small jelly bean would emerge from a pair. Generally speaking, the new beans were either red or black in roughly equal numbers. The giant's appetite was such that the total number of jelly beans in the bowl tended to increase over time. However, it was a very large bowl.

In addition to the red and black beans, there were a few green jelly beans and a few lavender jelly beans. Green and lavender jelly beans sometimes squeezed together like their red and black friends, usually two lavender beans together or two green beans together. However, no matter how hard they squeezed, they couldn't produce new beans. Also, the giant liked to eat the green beans and especially the lavender beans, so their number remained small. Sometimes, the green jelly beans would be jealous of the black jelly beans and try to paint themselves a darker shade. But there was always a slight tint of green to them. Some of the lavender beans tried to paint themselves red, but they ended up looking spotty and the giant still found them tasty.

Sometimes, clusters of black jelly beans would get together and make mischief in the bowl. Although this was a problem at times, whenever there were red jelly beans around, especially if they were paired with black jelly beans, the mischief was reduced.

As the bowl got fuller and fuller, the jelly beans got together and elected a ruling council to organize their activities. The ruling council noticed the advantages that the paired jelly beans had, surviving the giant's snacking, producing new beans, and keeping the black beans out of trouble. The ruling council decided to give special privileges to paired jelly beans, so long as they were black and red. This made the green and lavender beans even more jealous, but the ruling council argued that the individual black beans and individual red beans weren't given any privileges either. There were many disputes between the various colored jelly beans to try to expand the privileges to include other colored pairs. In the long run, the ruling council was persuaded. Pairs of green jelly beans began to appear quickest, with a few lavender pairs. Unfortunately, the green and especially the lavender pairs didn't stick together very well and the giant kept eating them, not having to worry about mixing flavors. Meanwhile, black jelly beans began to switch from one red bean to another and performing all sorts of mischief, sometimes leaving the red beans just after a new jelly bean had emerged. Strange new colors of jelly beans began to be seen. The giant liked all the new colors and eating them seemed to increase his appetite. Pretty soon, the number of jelly beans in the bowl began to decrease. It decreased until there weren't enough jelly beans to serve on the ruling council anymore. The ruling council was disbanded. Shortly, it became clear that there was no one left to provide the privileges everyone wanted. Eventually the giant picked up the bowl and dumped all the remaining jelly beans into his mouth. Then, he opened a new bag and filled the bowl with only red and black beans, starting the whole process over again.

Obama economy tanking faster than expected

President Obama has moved so aggressively to insert the federal government into your life that we are already seeing the signs of stagflation. Why would you start a new business when he is already talking about raising taxes on small business? Why would you risk your savings when you know you will have to pay your share of the ballooning deficit before long? Why would you buy that new car, computer, or refrigerator when your savings are evaporating? To add insult to injury, you are criticized for saving too much. But isn't it prudent to save when your job isn't safe and your retirement account is all but gone?

The Democrats see the economy as a black box. They seem to think that if you inject a certain amount of spending into the box, you get a certain level of GDP out the other end. This is a form of static analysis that doesn't work well even for small amounts of spending, let alone spending in the trillions. It is just as bad as the static analysis that is behind Democrats' objections to supply side tax cuts. Both ignore the way government actions change free citizens' behavior. Right now, we are feeling a bit of an Atlas Shrugged effect. This economy will not improve until Obama's spendorama and socialistic programs alienate enough people that they elect a Republican President and Congress who pass a large tax cut. Until then, save what you can and take care of each other.

What is wrong with deficit spending?

It is common sense that if you are deeply in debt, you should think carefully about whether or not to add more debt. Adding to the already gargantuan liabilities of future generations, as the Democrats' latest spending bill would, is much more likely to do harm than good. David Limbaugh made the case against saddling our children with this massive debt much better than I could in a recent column. Medical students are taught to first do no harm. With the imminent passage of the Democrats' stimulus package, we are about to find out what harm can be done by excessive government spending.

Spending proponents argue that we have such a massive economic problem, unprecedented government action to stimulate the economy is necessary. They add, as the President did in his televised press conference, that all spending in stimulus. When critics counter that Roosevelt's New Deal didn't end the Great Depression and Japanese government spending failed to prevent the lost decade of the 1990s, spending proponents reply that both efforts failed, if they failed at all, by spending too little. I reject the spenders' arguments and look to good old, traditional, American thriftiness instead. Here is why.

First of all, since we have never seen government spending on such a massive scale before, there is no comparable historical event we can use to predict the effect we will see. Acting on a speculative theory on such a large scale inherently violates the principal of “first do no harm.”

Second, raising the government's share of the overall economy crowds out private investment because the government competes unfairly by using its tax authority to generate funds. Government enterprises also crowd out private enterprises as the government's size provides unfair competition in the form of higher negotiating power and sometimes exemption from regulations. These factor combine to reduce innovation and entrepreneurship in the overall economy. Consequently, any stimulative effect of the spending bill is likely to be counteracted by the drag caused by increasing government's role.

Third, all spending is not stimulus. When governments spend on the types of programs that are contained in this bill, there is inevitably waste, which causes the spending to be inefficient. In addition, there are always strings which impose additional costs on the recipients, adding to the inefficiency. Moreover, government can never do as good a job of picking winners and losers as the market. The resulting waste and mis-allocation of resources is an additional drag on economic performance, which is the opposite of stimulus.

Fourth, our economy depends on the profit motive causing people to work harder. All of the above factors reduce the profit margin for workers, leading to sluggish economic performance (think France). Government jobs and government paychecks are subject to interruptions that depend not at all on the performance or worthiness of the worker or recipient. The resulting financial uncertainty will cause those who depend on the government to hold onto their money, reducing consumer confidence and spending overall. Less hard work and tighter spending together work to cancel out the predicted stimulative effects of government spending.

The bottom line is this spending bill is very unlikely to work and a bigger one is even less likely to work. If you don't believe this analysis, just watch in the next few years as we waste trillions of dollars and the recession extends out past the next congressional elections. If we are lucky, we will only experience stagflation like in the 1970s. But with the level of debt the Democrats promise, stagflation is likely to turn into rampant inflation in the not too distant future.

Further reading on same-sex marriage

One of my readers suggested I provide some references to support the concepts I have written about in my earlier posts on why the state sanctions marriage. For starters, here are a few links that support my contention that same-sex couples are more promiscuous than heterosexual couples. Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples by the Family Research Council, is a well referenced (56 citations), easy to read summary of many studies comparing homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships. If you only have time to read on thing on this topic, this is an excellent place to go. Another easy to read special report from the Traditional Values Coalition quotes some Statistics On The Homosexual Lifestyle that support the idea that people in same-sex relationships are more likely than heterosexuals to be promiscuous. The Women's Prayer and Action Group (WPAAG) provides a site discussing various aspects of Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage. Of particular interest are the “in-their-own-words” sections which include quotes from homosexual authors about promiscuity and same-sex marriage. Finally, Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost provides a heavily referenced response to an assertion by one of his correspondents, Josh Claybourn, who suggest that male homosexuality is a myth. Don't miss the section about the 1984 book “The Gay Couple,” noting what happened to the authors' hopes to dispel the promiscuity myth. Mr. Carter provides references to several other reports suggesting that even in committed relationships, homosexual men are not at all likely to be monogamous.

Contraception is stimulus?

Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi defended inclusion of increased funding for contraception in the latest federal stimulus package over the weekend. Setting aside the irony of a such a policy coming from a woman who has no qualms about selling herself as a Catholic grandmother when she is campaigning, there is much to criticize in this proposal. First of all, if we have fewer people, who is going to pay all of the taxes that will be needed to fund the social programs Speaker Pelosi helps to enact? Once again, the Democrats see people as a problem for the government to manage. In that context, it makes sense to limit the number of people. Which people, in particular, do the Democrats not want? This is another example of the Democrats supporting a culture of death. However, as I have argued in a previous post, society benefits from increasing human fecundity. Where will tomorrows workers, artists, musicians, inventors, and entrepreneurs come from? There are good reasons to follow the scriptural suggestion to be fruitful and multiply. Moreover, what sense does it make for the federal government to spend money it does not have so that the states don't have to spend money they do not have? I'd rather see individual states setting their own spending priorities, especially when times are tough. I, for one, do not want the United States to become like Europe, where declining birth rates are crippling their socialistic economies and hastening the Islamization of once great Western societies. Sorry Mrs. Pelosi, spending more on contraception is a bad idea.

Favorite Christmas Carol of 2008

Every year, I fall in love with a different Christmas carol. In 2008, it was The Cherry Tree Carol. Check this link for a fine rendition I found on YouTube by coolanddark.

Why does the state sanction marriages?

It is hard to deny that there are many advantages to married life. Studies have shown that married people live happier, healthier, and wealthier lives, as do their children. Add to these benefits the good things that society bestows on those who choose to marry: social status, retirement benefits, sharing of property, favorable tax treatment, and more. Although there are some economic disadvantages and responsibilities as well, there is no shortage of people who are willing to commit themselves to marriage.

Why is the state willing to absorb the cost of conferring these benefits? You can be sure such an arrangement didn't arise out of pure kindness. Setting aside the direct benefits to the marriage partners, how does society benefit from promoting monogamous marriages?

Placing the enforcement power of the state behind the organization of society into monogamous family units is advantageous to society as it reduces mating conflicts. For instance, state-enforced monogamy curbs domination by stronger males, including any tendency toward polygamy. Also, since they can count on the state's help in keeping outsiders from violating the exclusivity of marital relations, both spouse are free to pursue employment, invention, education, and other activities outside the home. Intact marriages present a positive role model for others that society is also happy to support. Further, to the extent that divorce is made difficult, state sanctioned marriage increases the stability of families, which are the primary building blocks of society.

There are still more benefits to society that compensate for the costs of sanctioning marriages. People in committed relationships are less sexually promiscuous and suffer from fewer of promiscuity's negative effects. Men in particular are civilized by marriage and married men have improved relationships with their children,. For both men and women, marriage reinforces the parental instinct. This protects society from the cost of providing for children, including the costs of higher levels of a variety of social ills that children experience when they aren't in intact families. Women (and some men) who forgo careers outside the home receive economic protection from the rules surrounding state-sanctioned marriage. This was especially true when many women stayed home to raise their children.

Finally, stable families have proven to be a critical element in maximizing human fecundity. A healthy society supports its future generations. We see the negative effects of low birth rates in many European countries today.

Is the cost-benefit equation similar for same-sex couples? Hardly. Same-sex couples are far more promiscuous than heterosexual married couples. For example, many studies show that gay men do not maintain fidelity even when they are in committed relationships. There is talk of “monogamy without fidelity” among gay men. Other studies suggest that for gay men, after a period of moving from partner to partner, satisfaction begins to require riskier and riskier practices beyond the novelty of a new partner. It would be hard to argue in the face of these studies that same sex marriage civilizes men or reduces promiscuity. There is little to suggest that same-sex marriage reduces mating conflicts, frees gay couples from fear of infidelity, or unless it is truly monogamous, presents a positive role model for others or a building block that society is happy to support. As for children, statistically speaking it is rare for same-sex couples to have children. Increasing support for same-sex marriages certainly doesn't maximize human reproduction.

However, it is true that if same-sex couples can be shown to stay together, each partner will gain the kind of economic protections currently provided to stay-at-home spouses. All in all, there would seem to be little benefit to society in sanctioning same-sex marriage that couldn't be provided through various contract arrangements.

Instead of claiming that there is widespread discrimination and prejudice when polls show little support for same-sex marriage, the above factors should be considered. Voters favor traditional values even when they haven't spent the time to do their own social analysis. Most of the time, that is not a bad thing.

Introduction

There was a time when traditions were respected just for being traditions. That is to say, you could win an argument by stating “it's traditional.” That all changed during the counter-culture days of the sixties. Change for change's sake became popular. The winning argument switched to “It's time for a change.” But traditions are traditions for very good reasons, reasons that persist over time, but may have been long forgotten. Unfortunately, appealing to tradition is not enough anymore. Now that rapid change is the norm, the reasons behind the traditions need to be re-discovered, rejuvenated, and re-stated.

I like to read famous quotes. There are any number of famous quotes about tradition. Even a cursory examination of quotes about tradition will tell you that it is traditional to ridicule tradition. For instance, try this one from Henry Ford “We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's dam is the history we make today.” Or this one: “In America nothing dies easier than tradition,” from Russell Baker. I prefer the more measured insight of W. Somerset Maugham, who said “Tradition is a guide and not a jailer.” Even more to my liking is this one: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.” written by G. K. Chesterton. I share the sentiments of those who respected the positive aspects of tradition.