In order to win the battle on marriage in this country, pro-family individuals need to be able to make their case in a way that is not dependent on religious arguments because so many (even persons of faith) will allow these to be partitioned in public debate and ignored at voting time.
Fortunately, the natural law basis for marriage is clear enough that this is fairly easy to do.
Some even have hopes of putting the argument in a way that may appeal to libertarians.
JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE, FOR EXAMPLE.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Hopefully Libertarians can convince each other on this issue. I have my doubts. As Catholics, we need to convert Libertarians. Libertarianism is a godless philosophy (yes, as godless as Communism) implicitly condemned by then Cdl Ratzinger’s recent homily on relativism. This philosophy has also been condemned by JPII and many encyclicals, Re Rum Novarum specifically. Regrettably many Catholics on the conservative side in this country believe this heresy.
Developing these kind of arguments can be one way of beginning to convert Libertarians. When I argue with non-religious folk about abortion, I don’t find it necessary (or at all useful) to delve into religion or quote scripture. The natural law arguments against it, supported by plain science, should be enough to convince any sincerely unpredjudiced person.
If the person writing this article is not Catholic, then I have reason to suspect that she consulted some Catholic sources. The article mentions the complimentarity of the sexes, natural order, and even goes so far as to imply that marriage as an institution has been under attack by a society increasingly flippant about the inherent value of sex and child-rearing within marriage (which we as Catholics know was made possible with contraception).
Overall, I cannot agree to many Libertarian ideas regarding minimalist government but I have to agree with the notion that the State is not what makes society good and therefore it is impossible for it to take something good, like marriage, and redefine it according to faddish whims. The State can abolish evils like restrictions on women’s voting and Jim Crow laws but it cannot then take what is good and make it something else. No force in the universe has the power to do so. Once the State presumes to have this power with marriage, what is to stop it from redefining the “goodness” of anything else?
Once this happens, the State poses as a being which contains both its cause and effect. This would make the State eternal — forever caused by itself — and therefore God.
Isn’t this a step beyond what even Marx wanted? He wanted the State to supplant religion which he viewed as superstition.
If the so-called Progressives think they are so righteous at pointing the finger at us and calling us prejudiced against gays, they should read the article. It only stands to follow that if we are not allowed to discriminate based on the type of sex people have, then we are also not allowed to discriminate based on whether any grouping of people of any gender have sex at all. In order to limit marriages to the variety of carnal unions, you would literally require the government to be in the bedroom. Which should not be too impossible, given that it will be omnipresent and all.
This means that the government will be REQUIRED to grant civil marriages to anyone who asks. Look at the potential for disaster here. Once enough people get away with bilking the government for the thousand plus civil rights granted to married couples, what’s to stop “marriage” from becoming a common place requirement for any roommate, lodging, or friendship arrangement? Which also means the divorce rate could potentially exceed past the marriage rate — because all these relationships are so fluid.
No government could hold up under such an increase in bureaucracy. The State cannot both be and cause itself to be at the same time. If a non-supernatural force attempts this in the real world, it becomes a snake eating its tail. Not causing itself, but consuming itself to the point of oblivion.
The most frustrating thing about gay marriage is that no society in human history has ever embraced such a concept because for thousands and thousands of years, people understood that what composes a marriage is just a matter of common sense — because, as the article says, marriage occurs naturally.
To say otherwise is to paint the whole of the history of marriage in colors of prejudice and hatred — a fanciful narrative that just does not hold up to scrutiny. Yet they still argue otherwise.
I liked the article.
Mr. Forrest, I say HOOEY. I am a Catholic, and I am a (small l) libertarian. As a Catholic *AND* a libertarian, I am in favor of a total ban on abortion: on the one hand, because it is a grave sin; on the other hand, because it is the ultimate violation of an individual’s rights.
The Church and the Bible tell us how to live our lives, and should be heeded. The government’s job should be to ensure and protect the rights of people and social order.
If you are concerned for people’s souls (which I bet you are), do you really believe that, say, making marijuana illegal has done anything to help people understand that it is a bad idea, morally? Prostitution is illegal; has that clued people in to the horrible dysfunctionality and sin of such an act? The only reason I favor laws against prostitution, frankly, is that it is usually thinly-disguised exploitation.
Yes, I support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman: from a legal view, because it is the optimal structure for a healthy society. But from a moral view, I am married because I participated in the sacrament of marriage with my wife: whether or not the State blesses my union is of precisely zero importance to me.
Rights do not come from the State: rights come from God.
Oh, by the way: I thought the article was terrific, too.
I could go on about how I think that the bigger and more intrustive government gets, the more it crowds the Church out of the public sphere and makes it irrelevant to more people (cf. Scandinavia), but I won’t. To me, being libertarian *exactly* fits putting God first. It’s not moral relevance: it’s seeing the difference between morality (the Church’s bailiwick) and optimal administration (the government’s).
Whether the article is good or not is less relevant than if it can be communicated effectively to people with short attention spans and little time.
If it takes a short book to convey, it’s dead in the water.
Jenny Morse is a practicing Catholic.
Jennifer Morse’s argument can be summed up well in this quote by G.K. Chesterton:
“When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”
Lord, save us from the “small laws”.
First, one has to distinguish what Libertarianism is. Libertarianism for starters is an Enlightenment type scheme that purports that inner joy can be found by an examination of conscience outside the confines of Church and government. Hence, the constant carping about marijuana which I suppose is the ideal tool for finding that inner voice.
Secondly, this scheme purports to advance freedom. It most surely doesn’t. The idea that moral purity can be easily attained amongst the rot of paganism is ridiculous. Yes, one can change the channel from the barrage of pornographic images on network television, but the community of which you are still a member has to consume this filth. Parts of the body of Christ do not suffer individually, but the whole body of Christ suffers when only one part suffers.
Thirdly, libertarianism is at best a utopian scheme or at worse despotic. When confronted with the sufferings of others the libertarian will either say, “with a little initiative (or some other virtue) they can be just like me” or they will say, “life is fair, because you have taken from society what it has offered.” e.g. If I can find a worker whose willing to be paid $0.75/hour than it is immoral for me to offer more.
One needs to distinguish between libertarians and libertines. Libertarians cover a wide spectrum, just as conservatives and liberals do.
Objectivism, which could best be described as a type of libertarianism, is by definition godless. I believe Ayn Rand, who founded objectivism, was mistaken in her belief that a lack of social as well as governmental restraints would make people more free. Most libertarians, however, are not objectivists.
The claim that libertarians dismiss the sufferings of others so casually is poppycock. Libertarians believe that, generally, government is a poor tool for mending such sufferings, and instead we look to private charity. We believe that government often creates more problems than it fixes when it tries to take on certain social conditions.
I also happen to believe that when individuals receive financial assistance that is given to them voluntarily rather than through governmental coercion, they are generally more grateful and more apt to try to make the best use of it — if possible, eliminating the need to receive such assistance in the future and perhaps even paying it back. Private charities can also look at situations on a case-by-case basis to determine need rather than relying on some checklist of eligibility requirements.
As for the claim that libertarians “harp on marijuana laws” because they believe that such drugs are in ideal tool for finding one’s “inner voice,” that is also poppycock. I am on the fence about the legalization of such drugs, but most libertarians I know still wouldn’t use or advocate the use of such drugs for recreational purposes if they were legal. Further, they would still favor allowing private companies to screen job candidates for drug use in order to protect their investments.
(Unfortunately, if such drugs do become legal, I suspect liberal judges would ban such screening as an “invasion of privacy.” That’s a big part of why I question the legalization of such drugs at this time.)
It is also important to understand that libertarians generally do not oppose the right of a person to modify his behavior toward another as a consequence of that other’s moral choices. A libertarian may not have any disagreement with Catholic moral teachings and might simply find government to be an ineffective tool for increasing adhearance to these things.
According to an article at http://www.luc.edu/publications/medieval/vol13/13ch4.html, no less than St. Thomas Aquinas supported the legalization of prostitution, believing that such laws would ultimately increase crime, as horrible as he believed prostitution was.
(I tend to agree with Mr. Koenecke in being doubtful that most prostitution is really voluntary, so I oppose its legalization.)
Sorry for the long post; I just think the unfair slew of attacks against libertarianism call for correction. One needs to have some idea what the philosophy really claims before one can tear it down.
John writes:
Whether the article is good or not is less relevant than if it can be communicated effectively to people with short attention spans and little time.
If it takes a short book to convey, it’s dead in the water.
Yes, many people prefer moral philosophies that can be expressed in short quips like, “My body, my choice.” Unfortunately, sometimes the truth requires more explanation.
I think John’s point is that, if it takes a two-hour lecture to get the point across, it’s not going to work for brief conversations with misguided individuals at work, at school, in confirmation classes, etc. Sometimes something does indeed need to be said concisely.
Er…I guess Confirmation should be capitalized, up above.
Yes, a concise argument is necessary to persuade those unwilling to put much thought into moral, social and political ideas. But I think Morse raises a good point:
The libertarian approach to caring for the dependent is usually described in terse forms as “let families and private charity take care of it, and get the government out of the way.” This position is sometimes riduculed as unrealistic or attached as harsh. But the libertarian position, once fully fleshed out, is both humane and realistic.
Morse spends 10 pages (I printed the article out) “fleshing out” why marriage should be defended by those who have already adopted a libertarian viewpoint. Ten pages isn’t all that much, first of all, although there are those who won’t read it due to its length. But, frankly, I doubt those people are libertarians. People with attentions spans that short haven’t figured out how a minimum wage can actually hurt the lowest income-earners or how “socialized medicine” could ultimately make healthcare less available for everyone.
As far as if Libertarianism can be compatable with Catholicism, I would argure that Augustine was a type of Libertarian (the goverment should stop people from inflicting harm on others, but in other ways stay out).
I don’t think you’ll get many opportunities to sit down with every libertarian you meet for two hours so you can fully expound…in most cases, you need to get your point across in a few minutes–it’s just a pick-up conversation, not a formal debate or a lecture. I have nothing against formal debates or lectures, but often there’s no time or opportunity for them. “Concise argument” doesn’t necessarily mean “bad, shoddy, and lazy agrument”. You might be able to make a point better in ten pages or an hour, but the point will have more effect if you can get it down to one page or five minutes.
Sure — that’s why Catholic Answers has its short little write-ups on various Catholic issues. But I doubt those leaflets ever get anyone to convert on their own — the most they do is get people to explore further. That’s where longer writings come in.
I still wouldn’t call the article “long,” though. Any libertarian unwilling to read 10 pages before throwing out an institution as old as civilization is probably not going to give serious thought to one page either — he’ll just blow it off as conservative ranting.
Still, if you want to boil Morse’s ideas down into something shorter, go ahead.