According to Joe Kovacs at WorldNetDaily, Ron Paul denied the need for a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage.
"I think we have fallen into a trap that we have to redefine marriage," Paul said. "Why don't you just tell them, 'Look it up in the dictionary to find out what marriage is?'"
He said the Defense of Marriage Act was good enough and if further regulations were necessary, "put it at the state level like the Constitution says."
Paul explained getting marriage licenses only came about in recent history for health reasons.
"True Christians," he said, "believe that marriage is a church function. It's not a state function. I don't think you need a license to get married."
I think Paul only got that partly right, although still closer to true than any other candidate.
He's right that the federal government should stay out of anything having to do with marriage. There aren't many clearer instances of a power "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." It is simply beyond the right or authority of anyone in the federal government to make any laws whatsoever concerning marriage. Morally speaking, it is inappropriate for even individual States within the Union to legislate concerning marriage beyond defining it in relation to its laws. A marriage license, by definition, is state permission to marry. Slaves ask permission to marry, not free men.
However, I think Paul is wrong on two points.
First, marriage is is not a church function any more than it is a government function. What priest was present at the wedding of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24:67)? Marriage is between a man and a wife with God as catalyst and witness. It is certainly appropriate for the couple's community, including church and government officials if they desire, to serve as witnesses to their vows or ceremonial participants but nothing more than that.
Second, I don't believe marriage licenses were created to address health concerns. They are primarily an exercise in state power. By insisting on a license, the state asserts its authority over you and your marriage. By seeking a license, you accede to that assertion. Although potential health issues, such as improper consanguinogamy, is often cited as a justification for marriage licenses, health has always been secondary to state power.
Stem Cell Fight a Waste of Time
The long fight over stem cell research has been a complete waste of time, at least for the those arguing scientists should be able to use fetal stem cells derived from aborted babies. On that side, they argue that the potential life-saving benefits of the research far outweigh any moral considerations concerning the source of the cells. It appears to be a purely pragmatic argument, but it really isn't.
Scientists have known for years that adult stem cells are much easier to work with and produce more tangible and promising results in the lab. More generalized stem cells are also available from umbilical cords and uteran tissue. It's easy to understand why the pro-lifers argue against using fetal stem cells. If they really believe that a fetus is fully a human being with all the rights of any other child, then they are morally obligated to fight almost anything that would encourage more abortions. So why would stem cell research advocates spend so much time and effort fighting for the superfluous ability to use fetal tissue? It seems to me that they do it for the same reasons that Hwang Woo-Suk might have had for faking his stem cell research: ideology, pride, and money.1
Ideology has always been a powerful force in the halls of science. In the seventeenth century, Galileo was persecuted by his fellow astronomers, because he didn't tow the party line. Perfectly valid research by some physicists, geologists, biologists, and others is often ridiculed and dismissed out of hand, because it tends to undermine the prevailing "wisdom" of the day. Much of the research that is lauded is overblown, misinterpreted, or out-right faked. This one particular avenue of stem cell research may attract so much attention, because it is right in the middle of an ideological war over the status of unborn babies. Are they individual people with inherent rights or are they organs, part of a mother's body? Scientists who take the latter view will tend to fight for their right to harvest stem cells from aborted babies long beyond the point of reasonable return on their effort, because they are true believers in the cause.
Anyone who has spent a great deal of time on something they consider to be important, especially when it has the potential for making them seem important in the eyes of others, will necessarily not want to give it up. If you show them how pointless their efforts are, they might actually work harder in an effort to prove their own worth. Their pride is a blinder to rationality.
However, the bottom line in almost every protracted struggle is money, and politicians are drawn like flies to you-know-what. The financial best interests of administrators, officials, lobbyists, congressmen, and every other stripe of bureaucrat lies in peddling fear and guilt. "Their going to kick you out on the street if the funding for this project is cut!" "If we don't pass this law, you could die! Your children might suffer!" "Don't you care that more people like Christopher Reeves will die if we don't act right now?" Horse hockey. It's your money they're after. They don't care about a better life for anyone but themselves. They will tell you anything they think will get you to give up your cash. They will threaten, cajole, deceive, and, ultimately, they will tell you it's ok to kill your own children, because it might, someday, somehow, if we're lucky, save someone else's life. "What? No, don't look behind you! Look at this terrible problem over here! You have to act now to save the children."
Which children would that be again?
1 Of course, many people have been fooled into thinking that fetal stem cell research is vital to the future salvation of people with cerebral palsy, nervous system injuries, and every other ailment under the sun. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the scientists, the people who should know better.
Scientists have known for years that adult stem cells are much easier to work with and produce more tangible and promising results in the lab. More generalized stem cells are also available from umbilical cords and uteran tissue. It's easy to understand why the pro-lifers argue against using fetal stem cells. If they really believe that a fetus is fully a human being with all the rights of any other child, then they are morally obligated to fight almost anything that would encourage more abortions. So why would stem cell research advocates spend so much time and effort fighting for the superfluous ability to use fetal tissue? It seems to me that they do it for the same reasons that Hwang Woo-Suk might have had for faking his stem cell research: ideology, pride, and money.1
Ideology has always been a powerful force in the halls of science. In the seventeenth century, Galileo was persecuted by his fellow astronomers, because he didn't tow the party line. Perfectly valid research by some physicists, geologists, biologists, and others is often ridiculed and dismissed out of hand, because it tends to undermine the prevailing "wisdom" of the day. Much of the research that is lauded is overblown, misinterpreted, or out-right faked. This one particular avenue of stem cell research may attract so much attention, because it is right in the middle of an ideological war over the status of unborn babies. Are they individual people with inherent rights or are they organs, part of a mother's body? Scientists who take the latter view will tend to fight for their right to harvest stem cells from aborted babies long beyond the point of reasonable return on their effort, because they are true believers in the cause.
Anyone who has spent a great deal of time on something they consider to be important, especially when it has the potential for making them seem important in the eyes of others, will necessarily not want to give it up. If you show them how pointless their efforts are, they might actually work harder in an effort to prove their own worth. Their pride is a blinder to rationality.
However, the bottom line in almost every protracted struggle is money, and politicians are drawn like flies to you-know-what. The financial best interests of administrators, officials, lobbyists, congressmen, and every other stripe of bureaucrat lies in peddling fear and guilt. "Their going to kick you out on the street if the funding for this project is cut!" "If we don't pass this law, you could die! Your children might suffer!" "Don't you care that more people like Christopher Reeves will die if we don't act right now?" Horse hockey. It's your money they're after. They don't care about a better life for anyone but themselves. They will tell you anything they think will get you to give up your cash. They will threaten, cajole, deceive, and, ultimately, they will tell you it's ok to kill your own children, because it might, someday, somehow, if we're lucky, save someone else's life. "What? No, don't look behind you! Look at this terrible problem over here! You have to act now to save the children."
Which children would that be again?
1 Of course, many people have been fooled into thinking that fetal stem cell research is vital to the future salvation of people with cerebral palsy, nervous system injuries, and every other ailment under the sun. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the scientists, the people who should know better.
The Rabbis Should Heed Gamaliel
According to YNet News, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has forbidden Jews to attend the annual Sukkot parade in Jerusalem, fearing the presence of Christian missionaries. First off, a people with confidence in the superiority of their own religion shouldn't fear missionaries. More importantly, the Rabbinate should heed the words of Gamaliel:
Acts 5:38-39 Withdraw from these men and let them alone. For if this counsel or this work is of men, it will come to nothing. But if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God.
Scientists Discover that Boys and Girls Are Different
AP medical writer, Maria Cheng, tells us that women may need different heart treatment than men, because they are fundamentally different. "There is a big question mark over why this is happening," [Dr. Eva] Swahn said. "We want there to be equality between the genders, but that doesn't mean that women and men should get the same treatment."
In other words, no matter how many times we are told that men and women are the same, they aren't. Pretending otherwise has real consequences.
In other words, no matter how many times we are told that men and women are the same, they aren't. Pretending otherwise has real consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)