A Case For Changing The Republican Party of San Diego County – Part Four: Rebuilding the Coalition

Brian Brady Brian Brady 55 Comments

Share

There is an ongoing national struggle for leadership in the Republican Party: business establishment vs. populist conservatives.

Populist conservatives led the Republican House victory in 2010, infighting between the two factions produced a national loss in 2012, and an aggressive establishment victory snared the Senate just last month. In California, that struggle was highlighted by the Tim Donnelly v. Neel Kashkari gubernatorial primary last June. Republican volunteers loved Donnelly but the establishment, big-money donors backed Kashkari (then abandoned him in the race against Brown).

Locally, we saw similar struggles in the past three election cycles: the 2008 and 2012 San Diego Mayor’s races, the 2012 Assembly races, and — most recently — the 2014 52nd Congressional race. The local party endorsement matters because registered Republicans look to the voter guide for guidance. Consultants increasingly play oversized roles in those endorsements because they can deliver money to the Republican Part of San Diego County. The donors’ influence has dwarfed volunteers’ influence, in endorsements, because more than half of our voting Central Committee members rely on income from the political establishment.

Fewer and fewer Central Commitee members represent the grass roots volunteers, but we need those volunteers if we’re going to start winning more elections. Before we try to solve the problem of representation and endorsements, let’s see who those volunteers are.

Who identifies with the Republican brand? This is tricky. A lot of voters support national Republican candidates but vote for local Democrats (the opposite is true, too). Nonetheless, we want to find the most active Republican voters to become volunteers so let’s see who is most likely to join our coalition:

1- small business owners
2- gun owners
3- weekly church goers
4- veterans
5-  libertarians

Stated simply, if you meet a lady who opened a gun store after she retired from the Navy, she’s probably a high-propensity Republican voter and potentially a likely precinct captain. The easiest way to find these potential volunteers though is right in our voter database. We already identify high-propensity Republican voters by precinct. An off-year effort to contact four to five high-propensity Republicans in each precinct can produce amazing results for us next year.

Look at that list — they don’t all think alike. I would venture to say that not one of them is in total agreement with the California Republican Party platform. Each will have a vote-moving issue and sometimes those vote moving issues will conflict — conflicting issues are what fractures the coalition. The big challenge then is to convince a precinct captain to support Republican candidates who won’t protect their vote moving issues. That’s hard to do.

In the prior installment, Where did our voters go?,” one commenter suggested that a bottom up platform at the local, county level is a better approach than subscribing to the national or state platform. I don’t know that I want to gut those documents; I think they are quite good but perhaps there are three to five non-negotiables which our local party would adopt.

Let’s try to discuss that prior to the the holidays. What would you say is a “non-negotiable”?

*****

Read the prior part in the SeriesPart 3: Where did our voters go?

See the entire series one one page.

Share

Comments 55

  1. Brian,

    This is an excellent series..it is both critical, yet constructive. Will viralent elements within the Party apparatus listen? We can only hope so.

    For myself, and hundreds I have personally met and interacted with throughout the build up to the General election, we are at least 3, in my case, was four, of the five “propensity” voter attributes you described so aptly above. Yet, caustic and hyper-pejorative elements either within the CC, or strong enablers voicing on this site, didn’t see that; they simply fixated on the fact that these 3/4 out of 5 propesity voters took a stand on the two tenets professed by the GOP itself; Life and Marriage. What ensued was a blistering attack of “homophobia, bigotry, and intolerance”. Yet, it was the same EC and the Chairman that only two years before, during the Prop 8 debate declared the GOP “will always be the party of [traditional] Marriage…” until, of course, it is no longer PC and worth taking a convicted stand on…or the core-fund raising and money-sniffing consultant class decided Life and Marriage were not “hills to die on,” or that it was incongruent with their secular, progressive, avant-guarde sensibilities. We saw inklings of this when both DeMaio and Falconer took that cockamamy pledge while on City Council about not adhering to the will of the citizens of CA by ignoring Prop 8 and supporting policies against the majority vote.

    The question is this…how will you get a Frank Dowse and a Michael Schwartz and a Richard Ryder in the same room to discuss the future of the Republicans in SDC? Who will mediate as they (Schwartz and Ryder) leer across the room at what they perceive as a “bigot” and turncoat while they (Dowse et al) leer back at what they see as sell-outs, neo-progressives and spineless and opportunitic insiders?

    The GOP has a definate role to play here; it needs to provide crystal clear clarity on the actual platform. This continuous nebulous netherworld of placating conservatives with platitudes of supporting vital issues on Family, while downplaying, and in increasing cases where conservatives are actually villified by Party Bosses, candidates, and enabling pundits, causes much of the consternation. If these positions are insurmountable (call it the Dowse-Schwartz/Ryder conundrum), then the GOP can cut the Gordian Knot by declaring where it precisely stands- It either supports & defends Life and Marriage, and stands for those that adhere to that, or it doesn’t..scratch the two “regressive” positions off the slate- Be the “GNP, (Grand New Party) and sell the fiscal, small goverment, Ron Paul National Security to those that want it..In the case of the 52nd, 1000s of conservatives saw the infiltration of the GOP by the latter as a clear sign the GOP did not, and was not, going to seriously consider conservative concerns.

    As far as SDC is concerned; the jig is up. Never again will conservatives be marginalized and demonized by the same party apparatus that basked in the victories and performances these conservatives help fuel in 2010 and 2014, yet treated those same grassroot, ground-game forces with such disdain, contempt, and disrespect.

    One thing is for sure; the Establishment GOP leadership had better find a way to reconcile with those “toothless, bigoted, swamp rube” conservatives that cling to their Bibles and Guns…or they can wallow in political irrelevancy for the foreseeable future. (Oh, and they can kiss a new stadium goodbye as well…Maybe right after the GOP re-affirms marriage and life to its core tenets, the conservatives can hold their nose on the coveted desires of many insiders for stadiums, and whatever other pet projects the Star Chamber of Commerce types crave). Maybe that is pragmatic compromise enough for the GOP realists.

  2. This is a great series, Brian. I really appreciate your thoughtfulness and how much effort you are putting into this. I’d like to offer some commentary as to the nature of the problem, as I see it, as pertains to the marriage issue. In a nutshell: I believe we have a misunderstanding between the socially conservative and libertarian caucuses. Let me try to bridge it here. Please bear with me as I walk through the argument point by point.

    Speaking as somebody who did not vote Yes on Prop 8, who is a convert to the natural marriage issue, and who now is on the front lines of the issue, it has been very, VERY difficult to convey something critically important:

    • SSM is NOT about gays or gay sexual activity.
    • SSM is only a means to an end for the Left.

    Both sides of the argument resist this heavily–they both want SSM to be about gays and gay sex. But it’s not, and this is why, I believe, we have such a deep divide. People in both caucuses:

    • think that there are only religious arguments for natural marriage
    • believe that the only libertarian positions on marriage are to support SSM or to “get the govt out of marriage”
    • don’t realize that natural, civil marriage can be defended with libertarian, limited government, arguments (the bridge between the two caucuses!)

    How do we bridge the gap? Here’s our starting point: SSM implies “gender neutrality.” This point must be understood and cannot, under any circumstances, be neglected in making these arguments. Gender neutrality means that the state no longer recognizes sex differences. Advocates of redefining marriage seldom point this out. However, when they implement SSM, the point becomes crystal clear. Here is one example (of many):

    http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2014/07/07/california-removes-husband-wife-from-marriage-statutes/

    Notice the rational given in the article: husband and wife are “outdated and biased.” Libertarians typically support SSM, but when did it become the government’s job to modify our language?

    Did historical libertarians talk about gender neutrality? Yes, they did. Let’s consider Chapter 8 of Murray Rothbard’s, “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays,” which was first published in 1974. He makes an argument against feminism and “unisex.” It is identical to the argument we make at the Ruth Institute against SSM and gender neutrality. I have long suspected that SSM is subterfuge for feminist ideology. When I stumbled upon Rothbard’s book a couple months ago I became even more convinced. To feminist way of thinking, the state’s recognition of sex differences is oppressive. Feminists tried to implement gender neutrality with the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s but were defeated. Now they are trying again, but this time they have had much more success due to the subterfuge they have employed.

    Rothbard’s book provides some historical background into unisex/gender neutrality. It’s free at Mises.org. As an aside, it’s interesting to note that Rothbard was against the ERA.

    http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Egalitarianism%20as%20a%20Revolt%20Against%20Nature%2C%20and%20Other%20Essays_2.pdf

    Once the premise of unisex/gender neutrality is understood, one can go on to read von Mises’, “Socialism,” and see the same argument there that Rothbard was making. It is free at Google books:

    http://books.google.com/books/about/Socialism.html?id=dPkB7AiURigC

    I could go on, but I’ll just say this for now: it is entirely possible to make a coherent libertarian argument for natural, civil marriage. But in order to bridge the divide and stand unified on this issue, each caucus will have to give up something they hold dear. I will leave it to the reader to reflect on what that might be. In the mean time, I hope, I pray, that social conservatives will embrace these arguments and these historical references from famous libertarians. Maybe by so doing, they will be able to make headway among their libertarian compatriots.

  3. Post
    Author

    “Oh, and they can kiss a new stadium goodbye as well”

    Ugh. You do know how to hit a guy where it hurts. I can’t imagine a GOP which would endorse a tax hike BUT, as you asked earlier FF, “Could the GOP retreat from protecting the Second Amendment?”

    “Did historical libertarians talk about gender neutrality? Yes, they did. Let’s consider Chapter 8 of Murray Rothbard’s, “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays,” which was first published in 1974. He makes an argument against feminism and “unisex.”

    Jennifer, I am stunned, impressed, and flabbergasted (but not surprised). Well done, ma’am.

    I suppose I’m interested in vote moving issues. For me, the primary vote mover is “no new taxes.” Second, would be finding ways to protect the unborn. Third, would be “shall not be infringed.”

  4. JJT,

    This is superb. Much to the chagrin to some on this site, I have many Libertarian friends and have Libertarian leanings on a number of issues. While this has been broached on occasion, where we all sensed a Venn intersection of agreement on the SSM issue, your adroit and well articulated comment captures it as well and I am in total agreement with you. This is a poltical and legalistic approach which is paramount to overcome the sometimes ill-articulated position some make from (an ill-informed) religious or biblical perspective. The former however, doesn’t fuel the propoganda meme of “religious intolerance” that seems to have crept into more secular progessive lexicon of some “New” comers to the GOP…so much so, you have (former) leaders of the GOP outwardly attacking former GOP donors, volunteers, and supporters with ad hominom viceral language of “bigot” and “homophobe,” just to stifle debate and discourse. Naturally, we expect this kind of low-brow thuggery from the Left…This allows for both the most “hands off” Libertarian and Biblically-staunch Conservative a moment of clarity…and perhaps hope.
    Well done!

  5. Frank, I’m not interested in being in the same room with you. I am very interested in Brian’s reforms which will change the process from a top down to a bottom up process. Notice Brian hasn’t mentioned changing or enforcing the platform. Even after his reforms the candidate who gets the most votes moves on to the general election no matter how far off or how close to the platform that candidate is.

    Why don’t I want to be in the same room as Frank? Many reasons.
    – Frank doesn’t represent any group of people.
    – Frank is a bigot because he is intolerant of a group of people (not because he disagrees with same sex marriage ). Same with Grube and Moran. You can be opposed to same sex marriage or opposed to the government recognition of same sex marriage without being a bigot. But Frank, Grube, and Moran…judging them by their words…are bigots. There’s no room in politics for that.
    – Around 70% of eligible voters didn’t vote. I’d much rather go find people who aren’t involved and help them get involved than deal with Frank’s bigotry.
    – Anti-same sex marriage is a losing issue. It deserves to lose because of the way your side has framed it, Frank. Republicans aren’t interested in the government regulation of relationships or governments choosing not to validate contracts based on the sexuality of the people entering into the contract. Republicans are very uninterested in government approval or disapproval of religious ceremonies. Courts are even less interested than Republicans in any of that. Republicans want to make sure government protects your right to live your life the way you envision it. People can relate to that. Republicans don’t use government to make neighbors live their life the way you see fit, Frank.
    – Most important is the people I do get involved…I don’t want them scared off. I’m not going to spend countless hours of my free time getting very normal people involved just to have them run off by weirdness. Hate, bigotry, an obsession with who is having sex with who…is weird, Frank. If I’m in the same room with someone, it won’t be someone like that. I’ve learned from countless conversations with people all over the county regarding politics…the #1 reason more San Diegans aren’t more involved is because of the oddness of people they find when they do get involved. Time to scuttle the weird.
    – Because you voted for and endorsed Scott Petters. I don’t care if you’re a “turncoat”. I’m hardly someone who can be considered extremely loyal to the Republican Party. It’s because you sold out your principles because you felt the ends justified the means. There’s no respect to be had for someone like that. You and Garlow and the other antigay people who endorsed Peters traded in your character and your honor for a vote. I’m definitely not interested in working with someone like that.

  6. Brian,

    Perhaps Mr. Schwartz is prepared to debate what clearly is something passionate and simmering in his heart. He continues to impugn me, and others, many formerly dedicated to the party and its tenets. Then he and other insider stakeholders lament “why has the GOP lost 80K registered voters?” …because “Frank is a bigot?” is what he and others desperately want you to believe.

    This is important for those following your multi-part analysis to remember; The RPSDC, and the Chairman specifically, Tony Krvaric, emphatically declared during the Prop 8 debate:

    “…the local [GOP] party affirms its unwavering support for traditional marriage and looks forward to the U.S. Supreme Court affirming Proposition 8.”

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/gop-chairman-in-san-diego-county-blasts-prop-8-ruling.html

    What will be the next tenet “the party unwaveringly supports” that the GOP in SD will abandon? Which CC members will be next removed or forced out by the Chairman or others when a tenet they are willing to fight for is threatened? Perhaps the Second Amendment? I’d like to think Mr. Schwartz would have the fortitude and conviction, after all his passion and support of the 2A, as displayed by the Garlows, Morans, Grubes, or Franks did with their “red-line” tenets were threatened.

    Consider this- Every single CC member…every VIP member, Eagle Forum or Tea Party Caucus member is then threatened by the Schwartzes of the world when “new” forces or pressures from fundraisers flood the zone to recraft what part the platform “should now be.” After all, do we really want to be the party of “gun nuts” and “promoters of violence” in the “gun debate?” How far off is that proposition given the hyperbolizing of gun violence in America? Might the “new” GOP consider the demographics of how many frightened mothers, or urbane, sophisticated non-gun owners would support the GOP if we “infringed” just a little? “Its a public safety issue…” blah, blah..After all, there are those that argue the Constitution is such an outdated document written by those “old white men; “The “boogey man” of the “New Generation” neo-progressives. We saw how fruitful that narrative was.

    I propose Mr. Schwartz puts all his passion where his venom is…ask him if he has the fortitude and courage to debate..is he prepared to make his argument to those that would be interested? Can he not weather the storm from such a weak and flimsy argument from such a “bigot?” (Of course, my position is no different than was Tony Krvaric’s and the RPSDC was just a few years ago…but let’s not cloud the issue with facts)

    If Mr. Schwartz is so convinced as to his stance and conviction, then why not debate? It’s a relevant topic, near and dear to many voters and political pundits observing the state of the GOP in San Diego. He seems driven and determined to impugn my character and honor…why not do so in a public form? Shut down the “bigot” (or whatever invective he chooses to hurl). We could even be in separate rooms and still debate..so he can keep his pledge to “never be in a room” with likes of me. (Brian, you know we could make that happen…there are media and radio outlets that would consider sponsoring or supporting that…)

    Alas, he won’t…not because “he won’t be in the same room” with such a “despicable, dishonorable, and disreputable character,” but because his arguments are based on the same memes spouted from Establishment GOP officials, pundits, and stakeholders across the nation in a surreptitiously crafted narrative to demonize, ostracize, and vaporize conservative (and Libertarian) opposition; many are realizing it is a concerted effort to redefine and reshape the family, American societal and anthropological norms, and the Republican Party that supports them from its origins.

    I don’t use this term lightly…but cowardice will probably be the default position. Many like Mr. Schwartz talk a good game, with great bluster and “guns a blazing.” But if he were serious, and really cared for the Party as he claims, then he would step into the breach…step into real fire…not just shoot at false-targets and paper convictions…

    I’m willing. But those who truly know me know that is not an issue for me..not so easy for political blowhards and posers…who think conviction is swaying to the politically correct winds, or petty local political hacks and greedy consultant sycophants.

    The question is…Is Mr. Schwartz prepared to step up? Is he ready to support his position with all that “bigotry” rhetoric? Slay the “intolerant” conservative dragon?

    Sadly, Brian, cowardice never does…He won’t show up, because in a debate, the target “shoots back.” It will be the Michaels of the world that will bog progress for reconciliation and fail to provide the meaningful and necessary reform you and thousands in SDC seek to return to the roots of Goldwater’s, Reagan’s, and Kemp’s GOP…not the Garlows, Morans, Grubes, Consiglios, Franks or the scores of others the RPSDC has targeted, vilified, and ostracized who were brave enough to oppose it or the cowardice displayed by the Republican machine posers…whatever these true courageous Americans oppose…be it higher taxes, 2A infringement, expanding business regulations, or pro-Abortion and anti-OM/OW Marriage and redefinition policies.

    The gaunlet is thrown…but I’m sure the Michaels of the world don’t want to be proven wrong twice by the same “bigot” in one year.

  7. “Jennifer, I am stunned, impressed, and flabbergasted (but not surprised). Well done, ma’am.

    I suppose I’m interested in vote moving issues. For me, the primary vote mover is “no new taxes.” Second, would be finding ways to protect the unborn. Third, would be ‘shall not be infringed.'”

    Thanks, Brian. Keep in mind that I didn’t make the argument for marriage here, just tried to lay some groundwork. If people can accept my premise, then we can go on to the argument. Once understood, the issue may rise in importance in people’s minds.

  8. Jennifer,

    “Let’s consider Chapter I of Murray Rothbard’s . . one can go on to read von Mises’s . . . ”

    I am impressed. Rothbard and Mises huh?

    I have printed Chapter 8 and appreciate the thinking you are doing to bridge these two coalitions. That has always been my desire and I believe it can be done without compromising principles.

    If I may ask an honest question, perhaps a bit utopian, why would our government need to recognize sex? I am not challenging you only thinking of our founding documents and wondering what role a just government has in recognizing such.

  9. Hi Eric, do you mean sex as in “sex differences,” ie, male and female, or sex as in, “the sexual act”? I think you mean the former but I just wanted to be certain before answering.

    BTW: Merry Christmas!

  10. I rarely comment on this blog, but I want to thank Brian Brady for opening this thoughtful discussion. People like me who, after voting Republican most of our lives have in recent years become alienated from the party, are grateful for the opportunity to voice our views and concerns.

    In answer to Brian’s question, “Where did our voters go?” I will speak only for myself. I first left the party in 2008 when, in my view, the social issues began taking a back seat to economic ones.

    Since then, I have drifted in and out of the party, leaving again this summer after the local GOP endorsed Carl DeMaio over Kirk Jorgensen.

    And I happily signed the letter urging 52nd district voters to vote for Scott Peters instead of DeMaio, because I agreed that DeMaio was a far greater threat than Peters.

    Mr. Schwartz, if that causes you to call me a “bigot” or “turncoat, I am thrilled and consider it a badge of honor. Your sophomoric name-calling doesn’t dissuade me one iota or make me question my decision in the least.

    When Bob Filner was run out of office for harassing women, we were appalled—and rightly so. Filner justly deserved to lose his position.

    Yet, when Carl DeMaio openly proclaimed his unnatural and immoral same-sex relationship (and ran a commercial demonstrating it), as well as his intent to change the GOP from within on the social issues, we were supposed to turn a blind eye and say that’s okay, merely because the GOP endorsed him? No.

    I want to vote for candidates who espouse virtue, not vice. Kirk Jorgensen was one of the former; Carl DeMaio exemplified the latter. We expect Democrat candidates to purvey and cheer vice. We don’t expect or want GOP candidates to do so.

    To win back voters, the GOP must adhere to the party’s planks on life and marriage–and then NOT run or endorse candidates who diss those issues.

  11. Frank, I have some major dental work scheduled for after the first of the year. Can I get you to come sit with me and the dentist so we can do our debate? It makes a lot of sense to me to combine those two activities due to the similar level of interest I have in each.

    If you haven’t thought of a nickname for our great debate, I propose “Who Cares?”

  12. Brian,

    I’m going to take a hiatus from the slugfest for awhile. I will weigh in later as I do take slight umbrage to the conditions you’ve set within your analysis as they are laid out…but for another time…

    For now, thank you for your timely, thought-provoking, and spirited analysis on the vital critique of the status of the GOP in SD. More importantly, thank you for seeking solution sets…It took much of your personal time, effort, and (rare…very rare) tremendous courage, for some one “within the system” to speak in bold strokes and poke at the seams of much of the consternation and division that has been created over the last several years both by, and within, the RPSDC, and those (former) loyalists and ground game supporters that were alienated from it.

    It is refreshing in this hyper-cynical atmosphere to see political courage triumph party official cowardice, deceit, and thuggery that sadly are what many of the 80K who have left found had become hallmarks of the RPSDC, either perceived or real.

    Its a noble and brave gesture you make in an increasingly un-noble and cowardly culture.

    May God Bless you…your family, and your efforts. Merry Christmas!

  13. Post
    Author
  14. Hi again Eric. I was out of town for a few days but am back now. I didn’t want to reply to you with my phone–too much of a hassle.

    I am certain that you and I agree on the definition of marriage, but we disagree as to the state’s duty to it (and, by extension, the natural family). If I understand your position correctly, your view is that the state has no duty towards those things, has no duty to recognize or respect them on their own terms. Do I have that right? Based on the writings of historical libertarians, I believe your position is a departure from theirs. If we search the Rothbard book (Control-F) for the following words:

    marriage
    sex
    gender
    unisex
    feminism
    heterosexuality
    bisexuality

    and read their context, I believe that it is easier to make my argument for marriage from a libertarian stand point than it is to make yours (my argument being this; that the state has a duty to recognize natural marriage, and, by extension, the natural family). We can do something similar with the von Mises book, by searching for marriage, feminism, social institutions (in quotes), sex, and there are probably others.

    By so doing, we can see that they were grappling with the same issues we are, but from a different angle. In no instance can I discern any calls from these libertarians to “get the government out of marriage” in order to solve the problems being analyzed. Von Mises, in particular, is quite clear here:

    “…For it is a characteristic of Socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature and to endeavor, by reforming those institutions, to reform nature.”

    His definition of sociaism of course means, “Socialism as imposed by the state.” He’s talking about the state takeover of a natural social institution.

    I am drawing attention to these historical libertarians because I believe that present-day libertarians have made an unexplained departure from their roots. Historical libertarians seemed to affirm that sex differences matter to the definition of marriage, and they seemed to take no issue with the state’s role in marriage. Do you agree that present day libertarians with respect to the state’s duty to the natural social institution of marriage represents a departure from historical libertarianism? If yes, I’m sure there is a good reason–can you explain what that reason is? What do present day libertarians know, or what new circumstances have arisen, that Rothbard and von Mises did not know or foresee?

  15. Welcome back Jennifer.

    Repeating my question . . .

    “If I may ask an honest question, perhaps a bit utopian, why would our government need to recognize male vs. female? I am not challenging you only thinking of our founding documents and wondering what role a just government has in recognizing such.”

  16. Jennifer,

    I think we agree on the definition of marriage – male and female for life but we disagree on the duty of the state. I understand you to believe that my position is a departure from that of Rothbard and Mises and you recommended that I read Rothbard’s ‘The Great Women’s Issue: Setting it Straight.’

    I believe my position is consistent with Rothbard. I have read the above essay, twice, being careful not to read anything into his writing that wasn’t stated in the text.

    No where in his writig did I find Rothbard making reference to the State having a duty to recognize marriage. Was Rothbard an advocate for our definition of marriage. Absolutely, but what he did in the piece was utterly dismantle the weakness of the feministic position against the backdrop of their property rights and freedoms women have gained via Capitalism.

    Note:
    From the Garden of Eden until about 150 years ago, marriage was a covenant made before God. The state had nothing to do with it. Neither George and Martha Washington nor John and Abigail Adams needed a marriage license.

    Where did licensing originate? When an individual wished to marry someone of a different color. Those wanting to do so were required to get approval – a license.

    Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.” We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission?

    Why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? Which pre-existed the State? A license by definition “confers a right” to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

    “… more government is not the answer” Rothbard, page 167.

    If you could, please show me where Rothbard says the State has a duty to recognize natural marriage.

  17. Eric,/Jennifer

    I agree with everything you both aptly stated. Some try to make the argument about “denying” rights to those who choose to redefine the marriage definition. (the millennia-long definition is forcibly changed, and those that do not subscribe to the new definition are suddenly placed in a category that is deemed “intolerant” when their position did not change, but the conditions, standards, and definitions for a new construct did: i.e. very Orwellian).

    How would you address those who claim to be more “libertarian” on the issue of marriage “equality” yet appear to have no issue with the State proclaiming one using their moral discernment by choose not to participate in an action they find moral incongruent (i.e. photo shop business owner mandated to participate in SSM ceremony) as now “bigoted?” It appears a logical conundrum for the self-proclaimed “libertarian” types who normally champion the State’s non-interference, but then rail against those who oppose the faux “equality” meme on moral issues and now (the former “non interference” types) are uncharacteristically comfortable with the State mandating adherence & now compliance to behaviors and contrived social constructs millions cannot adhere to for moral, ethical, or religious reasons?

  18. Anyone who supports the use of force, to mandate that a business owner serve a customer, isn’t libertarian.

    If you own a store with a sign on it which says “no Jews allowed,” I wont shop there. I’ll also tell my friends not to shop there. I won’t pass a law which requires them to change their ways.

    (I’m not likening real bigotry to businesspeople who don’t want to participate in gay weddings.)

  19. Brian,

    Once again…I agree thoroughly..yet, it appears the more social-progressive wing adopts the meme of “stay out of the bedroom” and “don’t tell me who I can marry” which on the surface appears “libertarian” ….yet, now we see a narrative manifesting in GOP circles that says you may no longer discern (i.e. “I choose not to serve someone, rather than “you must” serve them…) This is not saying Jews, or anyone else cannot be served…it says I choose not to serve because to participate violates my religious freedom, or moral/ethical convictions. What is manifesting is “because those with these convictions (many Christians) will not participate, we need to mandate that they do..” Or, more sinister, we need to marginalize and minimize “those Christians” in the party. (I have personally heard this rhetoric and it has been relayed to me by close confidants both formerly and currently in GOP circles in SD, to include the RPSDC, that is was precisely what was being prescribed)

    If I owned a business where I may be approached to participate in a ceremony, or support a behavior for which I find morally unacceptable, then my answer would be to ensure I find them a business that can support their requests..yet, the new meme says “no, not good enough, you MUST serve them, of expose your business and provision to financial, tax, or punitive action..”

    Does a Jewish Deli now have to serve an Aryan Nation banquet, or a Hamas political rally? Is an Irish Pub “bigoted” because it chooses not to cater to a British/N.Ireland Orangemen’s Day” celebration? Or a Ukrainian restaurant forced to serve a Los Angeles Russian Consulate event?

    No one would question any of those..yet, there is a metastasizing, unchecked, unfettered narrative within the GOP that if you oppose (opposed) SSM, or a candidate who supported those position (whether DeMaio or Faulconer) you are now bigoted.

    How does the Republican schism address this apparent insurmountable dilemma? (I don’t think silencing the so-called “bigots” is the answer..)

  20. FF,

    Not sure if I understand your question nor can I say I am aware of any Republican who holds it. If I was to restate what I think you are asking it would go something like . . .

    “How would you address the libertarian who champion’s the State’s non-interference in marriage but believes a business owner must serve those whose ethics they disagree?”

    My response would be that their ideas about liberty are inconsistent.

    Libertarians are advocates of free markets and believe coercion is immoral. A libertarian therefore defends the right of the business owner to determine whom he wishes to freely trade his property and whom he does not.

    “No action can be virtuous unless it is freely chosen.”
    ― Murray N. Rothbard

  21. Eric,

    Thank you for the response ..I couldn’t agree more!

    “My response would be that their ideas about liberty are inconsistent.”

    Precisely…they are inconsistent…so, how is it (some) RPSDC officials will refuse to discuss or reconcile with those that supported Prop 8, and who hold the conviction of Marriage is between OM/OW, and opposed a DeMaio candidacy based on his support of SSM (and abortion)? (BTW, I opposed Faulconer as well..again, on his backing of incongruent policies to my convictions on both marriage and life, not his sexual life-style choices..)

    -In the RPSDC/DeMaio-orchestrated Media-control phase of the 52CD primary election, was there anyone that was able to discover Mr. DeMaio’s position on business owners who didn’t support SSM and chose not to participate with their goods or services?

    -Did anyone ascertain his position on CA AB 1266 (as it relates to a federal or nation-wide acknowledgement), or the possible removal of “husband and wife” from the State working definition of marriage?

    -Now that he has led with the identity politics methodology of the Dems, can we expect more of the same from him, those he will support in the future, or those that supported his strategy during the campaign?

    While there may be those that opposed DeMaio on his sexual preference alone, the vast majority were much more concerned about what his “New” campaign meme would usher in..and, there are those that supported Mr. DeMaio simply because he was the candidate the RPSDC crafted for the nomination, and who we are now discovering did NOT do their homework, or didn’t care whether Mr. DeMaio would support unisexual bathrooms, punitive measures against those who choose not to serve a client who’s moral positions or antithetical to theirs, or who would now claim those that supported Prop 8, and still oppose the contrived notion of SSM are “bigoted”.

    These are all supported, in some cases sponsored, and implemented by strong LGBT advocates, some in pronounced and influential political positions (i.e. mayor of Houston, among others)…is this the tacit or declared position of the RPSDC post-DeMaio candidacy?

  22. Hi again Eric,

    “If I may ask an honest question, perhaps a bit utopian, why would our government need to recognize male vs. female? I am not challenging you only thinking of our founding documents and wondering what role a just government has in recognizing such.”

    Because male and female are how marriage works, how it functions.

  23. Regarding civil marriage licenses v. the state recognizing marriage. Even though George Washington may not have had a civil marriage license , that doesn’t mean that marriage was not recognized by our government at the founding. It was.

    It’s interesting to note that one of the first things slaves did after they were freed after the Civil War was to get civilly married. As slaves, they had “privatized marriage.” If what they had was desirable–or better–why did they seek civil marriage? Isn’t it because of the state’s duty to marriage and the natural family? I believe so.

    Here’s another interesting factoid. Have you read the Dred Scott dissent by Justice Curtis? It’s quite long, but at one point he makes the case that Scott’s civil marriage freed him. It’s an interesting argument that, I believe, goes right to what we are discussing here.

  24. Regarding Rothbard and the state’s duty to marriage. It’s clear that he takes civil marriage as a given. Nowhere, that I have seen, does he advocate to privatize marriage. I would encourage you and anybody else interested in this issue to examine those books with the keywords I listed previously (control-F). The results are interesting.

  25. FF,

    “How would you address those who claim to be more “libertarian” on the issue of marriage “equality” yet appear to have no issue with the State proclaiming one using their moral discernment by choose not to participate in an action they find moral incongruent (i.e. photo shop business owner mandated to participate in SSM ceremony) as now “bigoted?” It appears a logical conundrum for the self-proclaimed “libertarian” types who normally champion the State’s non-interference, but then rail against those who oppose the faux “equality” meme on moral issues and now (the former “non interference” types) are uncharacteristically comfortable with the State mandating adherence & now compliance to behaviors and contrived social constructs millions cannot adhere to for moral, ethical, or religious reasons?”

    It’s definitely a conundrum. I’m not sure I agree that they are completely comfortable with the state’s new, hostile, posture towards those who dissent. I think they wish there was some middle ground. Some of them blame public accommodation laws instead of SSM. Maybe it’s a fair trade in their minds, a quid pro quo so to speak–the states power did not increase, it simply transferred from one area to another. Or maybe it really does look like a reduction in state power to them. I’m not really sure.

  26. Jennifer,

    “It’s interesting to note that one of the first things slaves did after they were freed after the Civil War was to get civilly married. As slaves, they had “privatized marriage.” If what they had was desirable–or better–why did they seek civil marriage? ”

    Yet you would deny civil marriage to those who are romantically attracted to only those of their same gender.

  27. This answer is a perfect example of begging the question.

    “If I may ask an honest question, perhaps a bit utopian, why would our government need to recognize male vs. female? I am not challenging you only thinking of our founding documents and wondering what role a just government has in recognizing such.”

    Because male and female are how marriage works, how it functions.

  28. “Yet you would deny civil marriage to those who are romantically attracted to only those of their same gender.”

    The purpose of civil marriage is to form a “boundary” for the natural family, one that the state cannot cross without cause.

  29. “This answer is a perfect example of begging the question.”

    I suppose from one angle it seems like an incomplete answer, but it’s not begging the question.

  30. Jennifer,

    “The purpose of civil marriage is to form a “boundary” for the natural family, one that the state cannot cross without cause.”

    So you would deny that “boundary that the state cannot cross” to those who are romantically attracted to only those of their same gender.

  31. “So you would deny that “boundary that the state cannot cross” to those who are romantically attracted to only those of their same gender.”

    Sex between men and women makes babies. It really boils down to that. Marriage, as properly respected by the state (which we don’t have now for various reasons) protects this for those who engage in it.

    Anyway, we’re not going to convince each other. My purpose here was to introduce the idea that a libertarian argument for marriage can be made. Marriage is a natural social institution that attaches mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. The state has a duty to respect this. Von Mises put it plainly:

    “For it is a characteristic of Socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavor, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature.”

    Redefining marriage to be gender neutral is an attempt to change an unalterable fact about a natural social institution, and by so doing, to reform the institution and to reform nature.

  32. “So you would deny that “boundary that the state cannot cross” to those who are romantically attracted to only those of their same gender.”

    Let me point out what you would deny. You’re probably unaware that your push for SSM is actually a trade, in a way. You’re willing to give up one thing in order to obtain something else. What is that one thing?

    It’s the right of a child to have a mother and a father.

    In fact, you’re doing away with the very concept of mother and father. And not just for kids in gay households, but for everybody. That’s what the new gender neutral regime requires.

    You are using marriage to institutionalize fatherlessness. We already can document that fatherlessness is very harmful, but your push for SSM means that we will institutionalize it.

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=the%20problem%20of%20fatherlessness

    You are also using marriage to institutionalize motherlessness. I’m not sure if there have been studies about motherlessness like there have been about fatherlessness. But if there haven’t been, there will be.

    So these are some things you would deny to children.

  33. Jennifer,

    Two questions:

    1. Do Libertarians believe that adoptive parents are actually parents?

    2. Do Libertarians believe that married childless couples are actually married?

    If the answer to the above questions are both yes and your only Libertarian argument is that “sex between men and women makes babies,” then you have actually have no argument as to why the State should sanction any institute of marriage that excludes same-sex marriage.

  34. Jennifer,

    As to your other point: What actually has been well documented as harmful to children is to be raised by only one parent.

  35. Although I make a libertarian argument for marriage, I’m not a libertarian and I can’t speak for them. But I’ll address your questions anyway under the assumption that you thought I was a libertarian.

    Adoption exists primarily to provide parents for children who need parents. It does not (or should not) exist primarily to provide children to adults who want to be parents. Are you familiar with the movement among adoptees to reform the industry, and their reasons for it? Are you assuming that kids don’t care about their origins?

    As far as married childless couples… of course they are married, but you knew that. There is no requirement for procreation–there is no mandate on the “front end” of marriage, so to speak. I like to think of it as more like a presumption, a presumption for procreation based on science. Yes, science! lol I am always amazed at how often I need to say this, but I’ll say it again: sex between men and women makes babies. (I notice that I have to say it to men more than women. I wonder why that is. Might it be that men don’t get pregnant? I’m not sure.) Anyway, even contracepted sex makes babies, more of the time than many realize.

    About fatherlessness: the research is clear. A lack of fatherhood is the problem, so two women can’t ever compensate that.

    Sex differences are real. It’s going to require an awful lot of state power to enforce the idea that they are not.

  36. Sorry, I just saw this:

    “If the answer to the above questions are both yes and your only Libertarian argument is that “sex between men and women makes babies,” then you have actually have no argument as to why the State should sanction any institute of marriage that excludes same-sex marriage.”

    Children have a right to a mother and a father, and the state has a duty to recognize the only social institution that respects and protects those bonds… those boundaries, so to speak. That you don’t find this persuasive is OK by me. I suspect that you don’t think the natural social institution will be harmed by the new definition. Am I right about that?

  37. Jennifer,

    You are wrong about the research because there is none showing that children raised by two mothers turn out worse than those raised by a mother and a father. To repeat, what the research does show is that being raised by a single parent is disadvantageous.

    As for your final question, not only don’t I think that allowing two men (or two women) to marry would have any effect on my marriage, I know that it doesn’t.

    One final question for you – is it up to the State to legislate away all disadvantages that a child may have growing up? Should divorce be illegal, for example?

  38. First, I am not a fan of using social science data to address ethical considerations–to reason in that way is to put the cart before the horse. The fact is that children have a right to a mother and a father–their own, whenever possible. Separating a child from his origins–by design–is unethical. This is a self evident truth. Our understanding of what is owed to children is profoundly skewed today, and frankly I blame heteros for greasing the skids on that front. Their lack of understanding here has been hugely problematic. They have cultivated the foundation that has made gay parenting and gay marriage even imaginable. I have addressed this many times. Here is one example.

    http://www.ruthblog.org/2014/06/25/masha-gessen-five-parents/

    Secondly, there IS research that demonstrates that kids in lesbian households (and gay households too) fare worse than kids raised with their married bio parents… and not just a little worse, but a lot worse. Here’s a link to the study, published in 2012. Scroll down to where it says, “Findings on Differences in Social Outcomes.”

    http://www.familystructurestudies.com/summary

    A quote:

    “On economic outcomes, grown children of an MLR [mother who had a lesbian relationship] were almost four times more likely to be currently on public assistance than the grown children of IBFs [intact biological family]. As young adults, they were also 3.5 times more likely to be unemployed than the grown children of IBFs.

    “On criminal outcomes, the children of FGRs [father who had a gay relationship] showed the greatest propensity to be involved in crime. They were, on average, more frequently arrested and pled guilty to more non-minor offenses than the young-adult children in any other category. The children of MLRs reported the second highest average frequency of involvement in crimes and arrests, and in both categories, the young-adult children of intact biological families reported the lowest average frequency of involvement in crimes or arrests.

    “Contrary to recent and widely circulated conclusions that there is no sexual victimization in lesbian households, the NFSS found that, when asked if they were ever touched sexually by a parent or an adult, the children of MLRs were eleven times more likely to say “yes” than the children from an IBF and the children of FGRs were three times more likely to say “yes.” The children of IBFs were the least likely of all family types to have ever been touched sexually: only 2% reported affirmatively (compared to 23% of MLRs who replied “yes”). When asked if they were ever forced to have sex against their will, the children of MLRs were the worst off again, four times more likely to say “yes” than the children of IBFs. The children of FGRs were three times more likely to have been forced to have sex than the children of IBFs. In percentages, 31% of MLRs said they had been forced to have sex, compared with 25% of FGRs and 8% of IBFs. These results are generally consistent with research on heterosexual families; for instance, a recent federal report showed that children in heterosexual families are least likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused in an intact, biological, married family.”

  39. “One final question for you – is it up to the State to legislate away all disadvantages that a child may have growing up? Should divorce be illegal, for example?”

    Here’s my premise about divorce: the state has no business getting involved in an family without cause. In that sense, no fault divorce was a huge expansion of state power–now the state gets involved at the behest of one spouse. No cause has to be shown, which means that the other spouse is always legally innocent. Not only is this terribly problematic from a libertarian perspective, it has been very damaging for children.

    Given all this, I would not outlaw divorce, but I would go back to a fault based system, or, at the very least, some system that takes into account the harm done to children when their parents divorce. Perhaps an educational program for parents seeking divorce, coupled with a requirement for marital fault. I’m not really sure about the specific details. All I know is that the old system for divorce was more just than the one that began rolling through our country in the early 1970s.

  40. Even though I don’t call myself a libertarian, I am very interested in limited government ideas. So no, it’s not up to the state to legislate away all disadvantages a child may have. That’s quite an expansive view of the state’s role, isn’t it? When the state determines what is advantageous, it is no longer the parents. The state’s role is to respect the self evident truth about marriage and the natural family.

  41. “As for your final question, not only don’t I think that allowing two men (or two women) to marry would have any effect on my marriage, I know that it doesn’t.”

    Let me clarify. Here’s what I asked:

    “I suspect that you don’t think the natural social institution will be harmed by the new definition.”

    When talking about the institution as a whole, I’m thinking ahead to the future. I’m not thinking of the present. What does the new gender neutral definition say to future generations? For example, does it signal to them that fathers matter? I don’t see how it does. In fact, I’m quite confident that it does not.

  42. Jennifer,

    When you talk about morality, ethics and “self-evident truth,” I hope that you understand that not everyone will agree with you. The greatness of this country is that it is ok to disagree and it is ok for me to have a different opinion about what is and isn’t moral. Even greater is the fact that the the government doesn’t get to choose whose morality is correct.

    As for your question on the future, the future of the institution of marriage now that same sex couples have been allowed to participate will be fine, just like it was after interracial couples were allowed to participate and just like the institution of voting was after women were allowed to participate.

    As to your last point, will fathers matter (if a marriage certificate is gender neutral)? Of course they will. When I was growing up, I referred to my parents as “my parents” much more often then I referred to them as “my mother and father.” Even so, my father still mattered.

  43. Jennifer,

    As for the study you quoted, please read http://www.regnerusfallout.org/the-story. Take special note of the section on peer review (or lack thereof. Also note that there have been 30 years of scientific research and 59 studies published by the American Psychological Association showing that “having gay or lesbian parents does not predispose children for negative sociological outcomes.”

  44. Jennifer,

    One last point on your “study.” There is a huge difference between someone who is in a same-sex marriage and someone who “has had a gay relationship” while married.

    It doesn’t surprise me in the least that children who have a parent that has cheated on his/her spouse (same sex or heterosexual affair) will have more problems than a child whose parents remain committed to each other for life.

    That being said, am I correct in assuming that you are not in favor of criminalizing adultery despite the damage that it does to children?

  45. Jennifer,

    I’m disappointed. I was hoping for a direct response.

    I asked, “ . . . why would our government need to recognize male vs. female? . . . wondering what role a just government has in recognizing such?”

    You responded, “Because male and female are how marriage works, how it functions.”

    That’s it?

    Your response lacks any rationale behind why it is just for the state to have jurisdiction over something God has given every man as a right (a point I made above)

    Do two wrongs make a right? Shall we do evil that good may result? (Rom 3:8) Ends justify the means? Humanistic pragmatism and Christian orthodoxy are now coherent ideas?

    I personally believe same-sex marriage is immoral but so is giving the state licensing jurisdiction over unalienable rights.

    The Bible also says, “Honor your father and your mother.” Would a Johnson-Thieme government enforce that too?

    Marx’s Communist Manifesto has destroyed more lives and families than anything I can think of. Would a Johnson-Thieme government censor that too?

    Does the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution have any jurisdiction in your political philosophy or have they been shredded too?

    You have evoked Hayek and Mises to support your position that government be given licensing jurisdiction over marriage. That is like citing the Pope is in favor of abolishing Mass.

    You have read conclusions into the text of Hayek that are not there to support your position.

    I asked “If you could, please show me where Rothbard says the State has a duty to recognize natural marriage?”

    You have not done so.

    I’m sorry Jennifer. I find your ideas void of any Biblical or Constitutional reasoning. If we, as Christians, better uphold our own biblical precepts we would not be in this situation (see ‘log in our eye’)

    The immoral IRS tax code has over 1,100 property redistributions (see 8th Commandment) favoring married couples. If such didn’t exist do you think same-sex couples would be seeking this status?

    Government impotent to address character issues (see Prohibition and the War Against Drugs) and I am afraid when you wield government force and coercion in this way you may be in danger of becoming the very tyrant that already inhabits our government.

    I believe this is called “Christian Tyranny” – a concept utterly inconsistent with the nature of Christ.

  46. Eric, took me a while to get back here. Let me try again.

    “You responded, ‘Because male and female are how marriage works, how it functions.’ That’s it? Your response lacks any rationale behind why it is just for the state to have jurisdiction over something God has given every man as a right (a point I made above)”

    This is a “self evident truth” (to borrow a phrase from the Declaration): sex between men and women makes babies. Babies need mommies and daddies who are married.

    The state has a duty to respect the “triangle” of bonds formed between the husband/father, wife/mother, and their children. When the state shrugs this duty, it expands. The welfare state expands and the judicial state expands.

    “You have evoked Hayek and Mises to support your position that government be given licensing jurisdiction over marriage. ”

    (Just so readers are clear: I quoted from Rothbard and von Mises, not Hayek.)

    That’s because THEY supported natural civil marriage. They never once spoke out against it, not even Rothbard who wanted to privatize many things. Have you wondered about why Rothbard never argued to privatize marriage? Is it possible that he and the others see natural, civil marriage as a self evident truth, as I do? They are not here for us to ask but I can’t help but wonder: if “enemy of the state” Rothbard thought privatizing marriage was a good idea, wouldn’t he have said so?

    “If you could, please show me where Rothbard says the State has a duty to recognize natural marriage?”

    I think it’s fair to say that he took natural civil marriage as a given. He accepted it as it was at that time: the state recognized it, and he never argued that it should be otherwise. But I can’t bring up a quote where he said, “The state has a duty to recognize natural marriage.”

    I will ask you a similar question: where did Rothbard argue to privatize marriage?

    It’s not an issue of character. It’s an issue of requiring the state to have a natural standard for recognizing parenthood–the bond of mother and father that brings new life into the world. That’s it. It’s very simple. And maybe that’s the problem: it’s so simple that people take it for granted.

  47. HQ,

    “I correct in assuming that you are not in favor of criminalizing adultery despite the damage that it does to children?”

    I am in favor of requiring marital fault before the state gets involved in a divorce. That would include adultery. That’s not a criminal offense, only a civil one. So no, I don’t want to criminalize adultery.

    Regarding the study I quoted:

    It’s the best study to date in terms of methodology. Since you want to use social science to make your case, let me do something similar. Let me link to some CDC statistics about MSM (men having sex with men).

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/
    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

    This is not even social science: this is REAL science. Don’t these statistics suggest that we shouldn’t encourage gay sexual activity?

    That was a rhetorical question. My point is this: do you see the problem with using science to argue about “self evident truths” and rights? Our debate is, unfortunately, a clash of rights. Children have a right to a mother and father, and this is much more important (and self evident) than whether or not gays have the right to marry.

    If I missed any other questions, I’m sorry. The comment thread is long and I don’t want to read it all. Please restate them if you feel like doing so. Not sure when I will have time to come back though.

  48. What is being overlooked is the best outcome for children is to grow up in a state that protects the individual. It is incumbent upon government to protect the health and safety of those individuals without the rational thought necessary to protect themselves, to set the stage for self actualization. This not a government determined state of being, but set by the individual, with government removing only the largest encumbrances to that end. By mandating a generalized “best” family or marriage, you deny the “best” family or marriage to a minority, thereby perpetuating extreme utility. Extreme utilitarianism is a dangerous road for a state to take. Civil marriage is a contract and terms should be set by those signing it, The welfare of children should be determined as questioned, on a case by case basis, without state mandated generalizations about what produces a successful or superior crop of adults. Would my interests as a child been better served if the state held that the natural family was of primary interest? Absolutely not, I’d likely have not survived or at best, been a supremely screwed up adult. I cannot support any definition of what is broadly best for children outside of physical well being; in education, in family law, or in social and cultural realms. It leads to the degradation of the interests of the individual and the perpetuation of a collective morality, thereby supplanting personal responsibility.

    You cannot make the argument that the state has an interest in the natural family as best, without also making the argument that there is a “best” in parenting for all children, a mistake made by many. As someone who has long ago put in the 10,000 hours, I think I can safely refer to my self as a professional in child development, perhaps even an expert. There is no single best way to parent, as evidenced by households where a 3 kids succeed and one stagnates or fails to thrive. The best way is determined by the individual. Children have a right to be cared for, educated and have a life free from abuse or exploitation. That is the interest of the state, and as always, should be done through the least restrictive means The state has no place in mandating their best way to be parented, as it is impossible, just as children have no right to choose their families, it is impossible. It is simply the same argument made by the left for social equity/justice, trying to use government to right the wrongs of being born into poverty or a minority race. You cannot use government to create a moral equity/justice for children, it ends in the same taking of individual liberty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.