FEDERAL DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE AMENDMENT GENERATES SPIRITED—AND CRUCIAL—DEBATE
A furious national debate has erupted lately over the issue of same-sex marriage—only this time it is between members of the conservative camp. Actually, it’s between those who would call themselves “culturally conservative” and those who would deem themselves “open-minded economic conservatives.” One rather interesting aspect of the debate is being hashed out between National Review’s Stanley Kurtz and the conservative homosexual community represented by the New Republic’s Andrew Sullivan and the National Journal’s Jonathan Rauch. This trio of writers has been debating back and forth over the question of whether of not support for same-sex marriage can be considered a conservative position to take. Rauch and Sullivan have argued vociferously that allowing same-sex couples to marry fits neatly within the conservative philosophy, while Kurtz has taken the opposite position, writing that marriage as an institution would be irreparably harmed by such an expansive alteration of its definition.
Since many Christian conservatives are accustomed to seeing the debate over same-sex marriage as one between the opposition right and the supportive left, few are familiar with what Sullivan and Rauch call the conservative case for such an novel institution. Their argument turns on two primary points: (a) same-sex marriage would domesticate homosexual men, allowing them to develop healthy relationships that would ultimately benefit society and strengthen the institution of marriage, and (b) same-sex marriage would not create a ‘constitutional crisis’ of recognition thanks to the legal flexibility allowed states under federalism. These two basic propositions, according to Sullivan and Rauch, lead inevitably to the position that same-sex marriage deserves a chance, at least in a few states. After all, the argument goes, conservatives tend to prefer local control, support strong families, and are strong defenders of state’s rights; same-sex marriage seems like a perfect fit for these political “values.”
Thankfully, Stanley Kurtz pokes a few good holes in these arguments, making some significant contributions to the conservative case for traditional marriage along the way. He first argues that marriage by its very nature is incapable of conferring its domesticating benefits upon same-sex couples because its very existence is premised upon the compatibility of the sexes. Marriage is the institution through which women domesticate men; the institution itself, however, cannot do the trick. The act of getting hitched in itself only solemnizes the reality of commitment and mutuality created between members of the opposite sex through the process of courtship. As for the federalism argument, Kurtz notes that the primary purpose of the division of powers between the state and federal government and the retention of state authority over certain areas of law is the overall unity of the nation. The phrase, “out of many, one” found on our currency points to the fact that the individual states preceded the nation, and ceded sovereignty to the national government in exchange for unity. Thus, while states do retain spheres of quasi-autonomous power, the alteration of so fundamental a legal institution as marriage would have ripple effects throughout the nation. Finally, Kurtz notes that even if the local autonomy fostered by federalism were to allow for divergent legal definitions of marriage, the courts would ultimately bring these discrepancies into line.
The fact that same-sex marriage has become a point of contention even between members of the conservative ranks demonstrates that it has become a defining issue of our time. Granted, both Sullivan and Rauch are homosexual men, leaving the purity of the philosophical opinion open to scrutiny. But no one can deny the force of their arguments, especially with those who hold no overriding fundamental objections to homosexuality. Indeed, the most salient conclusion to be drawn from their arguments, and from Kurtz’s responses, is the fact that conservatism as a political philosophy can be used to defend conclusions at odds with religious belief. Too often, Christians tend to equate conservatism with morality and decency. While the values of modern-day conservatism are oftentimes compatible with Christianity, people of faith must not fall into the trap of following conservative reasoning to immoral conclusions. Such is the trap that Sullivan and Rauch have fallen into, and such is the temptation that Stanley Kurtz has so artfully avoided.
Please click on the following links in order to follow the debate on the web:
U.S. HOUSE VOTES TO BAN HUMAN CLONING
The U.S. House voted last week to place a comprehensive ban on human cloning, defeating a compromise amendment offered by Representative James Greenwood that would have allowed for the creation of clones for scientific and commercial research, while banning the implantation of such clones in a woman’s uterus. This amendment would have guaranteed the destruction of every human clone created to satisfy the desire of companies wanting to conduct massive embryonic stem-cell research programs. Once the amendment was defeated on the floor, the House went on to approve a comprehensive ban on the practice of creating human clones for any purpose.
The House’s refusal to allow the creation of human clones for any purpose is significant. First, it guarantees that cloned embryos will not be used as property, created and discarded at will for commercial purposes. By outlawing this practice, the House defended the basic dignity of human life at all stages of development. Second, the House’s action sets the stage for a full ban on federal funding of stem-cell research. If the Greenwood amendment had passed, approval of federal funding for research on already existing embryos would have been an almost unavoidable next step. The House’s decision to ban all human cloning, however, lends greater credence to the demands by pro-life groups that President Bush refuse to spend federal dollars on any form of embryonic stem-cell research.
Final Vote: Texas Delegation (Yes indicates a vote for the ban)
Yes – Dick Armey (R), Joe Barton (R), Henry Bonilla (R), Kevin Brady (R), Larry Combest (R), John Culberson (R), Tom DeLay (R), Chet Edwards (D), Kay Granger (R), Gene Green (D), Ralph Hall (D), Sam Johnson (R), Solomon Ortiz (D), Silvestre Reyes (D), Pete Sessions (R), Lamar Smith (R), Charles Stenholm (D), Mac Thornberry (R), Jim Turner (D)
No – Ken Bentsen (D), Lloyd Doggett (D), Martin Frost (D), Charles Gonzalez (D), Ruben Hinojosa (D), Sheila Jackson Lee (D), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D), Nick Lampson (D), Ron Paul (R), Ciro Rodriguez (D), Max Sandlin (D)
Commentary -
Rebates Every Summer? by Stephen Moore
Republicans have struck political pay dirt with the tax rebate checks that are now being delivered to the mailboxes of American taxpayers.
For weeks now tax cut skeptics have been ridiculing these tax rebates as financially irrelevant to most families, but I've yet to meet anyone who isn't eagerly awaiting their $300 to $600 check from the IRS. At parties, on talk radio, and in casual telephone conversations, all anyone wants to talk about is how they're going to spend their windfall. CNN's Web site chat room is filled with wild and innovative ideas for blowing $300 for anyone who is interested.
Economists are busily debating what the financial impact of these checks will be. But it's really irrelevant what people do with the money whether they use it to pay down credit card debt or to buy a new car stereo system it's their money, they should do with it what they please. The point is that these checks are a deserved and appreciated down payment on the Bush tax cut.
The popularity of these rebate checks got me to thinking. Why not send out an automatic tax rebate check every year that Uncle Sam runs a tax surplus? The size of the rebate check could be made conditional on how much of the surplus was not frittered away by congressional appropriators and their voracious spending appetites each year.
In other words, the promise of tax rebate checks could be the ultimate check and balance against the stampede of federal expenditures.
At the start of each fiscal year, Congress should determine the size of the expected non-Social Security tax surplus. Congress should then announce how large the expected surplus tax rebate would be for the typical taxpaying family. Under this new law, discretionary federal spending should be permitted to grow no faster than the rate of inflation (CPI growth) each year. If economic growth came in faster than expected, federal revenues would be higher and the rebate checks would be more generous. If Congress raced through its own appropriations speed bumps, the surplus checks would be correspondingly smaller.
My suspicion is that the prototypical soccer mom, who may not care a whit about politics, would be hopping mad that the rebate check she was counting on from the IRS to help pay the plumber's bill or for summer camp tuition, won't be coming this year because it was intercepted by the profligate spenders in Congress who found other uses for the money.
Herein lies the ingeniousness of the automatic annual rebate plan.
For the first time in decades, fiscal conservatives would actually have a tool to gin up political support for trimming frivolous spending whenever and wherever possible. Voters would be given a financial incentive to keep the government's budget under a microscope and to repel spending for grants to the Pillsbury Dough Boy, obscene art exhibits, or the Bud Shuster moving sidewalk in Pennsylvania. Every dollar saved would be an additional dollar to be passed back to income taxpayers in the form of a bigger rebate check. Election year pork-barreling would lose its "free lunch" appeal because the marble-plated parking garages and the snow pea research funds would translate into less dollars available for a big rebate check every July.
Under this plan voters would think anew about supporting absurd new entitlement programs, such as the Kennedy plan for prescription drug benefits for seniors. Young voters who want the rebate check to help payoff their student loans would be butting heads with seniors who want yet another multi-billion-dollar taxpayer hand-out for free Viagra pills. If voters were aware that Congress' prescription drug benefit plan for seniors, with its gargantuan $300 billion price tag, might mean some $100 a year off their tax rebate check, worker enthusiasm for this new freebie entitlement might start to wane.
Congressional budget hawks like Sen. Phil Gramm, Texas Republican, would have a field day with this new automatic tax rebate plan. Mr. Gramm could announce, "Gee, I'd like to support this $50 billion plan to replenish the IMF, but I can't because it would mean that Texans would only get half the rebate check they're expecting in '02."
As the attached chart shows, federal appropriations have risen more than 25 percent over the past four years. My forecast for this year is a 7 percent to 9 percent growth in appropriations leading to our first $2 trillion annual budget.
This comes on the heels of last year's 10 percent spending rampage.
Economist Larry Kudlow calls this phenomenon the "curse of the budget surplus" because there's no longer a rationale to spend tax dollars frugally. But the Automatic Tax Rebate plan turns a curse into a taxpayer blessing. Surpluses mean bonus tax rebate checks in the mail. What's obvious from recent spending trends on Capitol Hill is that any plan that can create a political constituency for smaller government, would make a lot of economic sense these days.
The Automatic Tax Rebate plan would also heighten the political appeal of slashing tax rates and ultimately reforming the federal IRS tax code.
The experience of states like Colorado that have similar automatic rebate plans is that state legislators will cut taxes if they realize they can't spend surplus dollars on ribbon cutting ceremonies back home. Where's the joy in collecting tax dollars in the first place if you're effectively prohibited from spending them?
Finally, there is economic justice imbedded in this plan. Tax surpluses belong to the people, not the politicians. I believe it was H.L. Mencken who once called the federal spending process an advanced auction on stolen money. Under this rebate plan voters would be reminded that the federal dollars that Congress lavishes on us with such generosity is simply money stolen from us in the first place.
