How Your Support for Gay Marriage is a Threat to Craft Beer

Alternate title:
The Left and Government Sanctioned Destruction of the Culture

The key insight that brings conservatives and libertarians together in an alliance against the left is that liberty in a constitutional republic can only be predicated on a conservative culture. A conservative culture constrains the bounds of behavior so that government can exercise a light touch over a society that will still function properly. This is why the left is seeking to destroy the pillars of conservative culture in America; marriage and family, the Christian church, and the language. This is being accomplished through government aided destruction of those institutions; while simultaneously "solving" the problems so created and simultaneously growing government.  I am not making an accusation of conspiracy; merely stating that there is a shared realization on the part of the leaders of the left, whether intuitive or explicit, that traditional American culture is a bulwark against their desire for a socialist society.  Hence the movements to delegitimize the keepers of this cultural flame.

The Christian religion, and in particular, the Northern European interpretation of it, has led to a culture of individualism. In this interpretation, one's salvation is determined by an individual decision to follow Jesus. This relationship with God, an intensely personal one, without the benefit of an earthly mediator, leads directly to the conclusion that each man and woman is responsible for the ordering of his or her own life within the constraint of belief. This gives the individual the mental freedom to be entrepreneurial which is usually disruptive to the established order.  Further, within this theological understanding, the grace granted by God should lead to good works in this life as evidenced by one's hard work and frugality.  This idea of this Protestant work ethic being related to the rise and success of capitalism is not new, having been proposed by Max Weber in 1905.  There is a natural cultural pairing of Christianity and capitalism, especially in America. The left, which is nothing if not anti-capitalist, naturally views traditional Christian belief as embodied in the conservative church as an enemy.

This Christian culture is not going to survive without actual Christian belief, so the left seeks to attack both Christian belief and institutions at every opportunity.  Gay marriage is only the latest example.  The move to legalize gay marriage was followed without pause by a public campaign of persecution against those who have religious and moral objections to that outcome.  In some cases, the persecution has taken the form of state sanction against bakeries.  The seamless transition to persecution gave the lie to the notion that this was about equal rights. The gay marriage movement was clearly a ploy to delegitimize traditional Christian belief.  In the meantime, there is no parallel movements against Muslim belief, even though Islam is much more harsh in its treatment of gays than Christians. Why? Because the Left sees Muslims as potential allies to attack the traditional Christian culture.

Destroying traditional pillars of culture and morality results in the need for more government control to make up for the lack of self-control in the population. This is a feature, not a bug, of the process of destroying the culture and is embraced by the left. For example, rampant sex between undergraduates on college campuses is the norm today, or so we are led to believe. While perhaps that has always happened to some extent; it was far less in degree and done with far greater discretion in times past.  But since this behavior gives rise to sex under questionable circumstances, we have the California have the California State Legislature considering how to regulate sex on campus. Here is KTCat's take:

Of course, as we all know, freedom isn't free. No, there's a price to be paid for freedom. We must maintain eternal vigilance lest the dark powers of Christian morality and its wretched partner, chivalry, attempt to come back.
Well, vigilance and affirmative consent rules, ruthlessly enforced by the State, that is. After all, we need something to do the job of a national culture based on Judeo-Christian objective morality.

The same groups who demand that government, to include colleges acting in loco parentis, stop prohibiting sex are now those who demand that government become involved in sex at college.  Why the shift?  This has to do primarily with feminism, which seeks the destruction of traditional gender roles in society and is almost always allied with leftism for that reason.  The initial calls to deregulate sex allowed women more sexual freedom.  Coupled with the wide-spread introduction of no-fault divorce, and state support for single mothers; this shifted economic power away from bread-winning males to the state.  (Time precludes a full exposition of this theory, see Dalrock for more detail.) I note that the government has taken to jailing fathers who don't pay child support in fairly large numbers, further shifting power away from men to the government.  This is necessary because it is men who are likely to be the revolutionaries that rise up against state power.  Now, the new change in attitudes with regards to sex on college campuses is to make it easier for women to accuse men of rape and for consequences to be meted out, without the benefit of trial.  Again there is power shifting towards women, who can claim rape without having to go to trial. The shift of power to single women suits the left just fine, because they tend to be reliable supporters of left-wing candidates.  Married women are much more conservative, because the power of government robs their family of provisioning resources, since intact families are much more likely to be paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits from the state.

So how does the left act in power?  They seek to regulate all facets of society to shift ever more power to the government, in the name of protecting the ordinary worker and consumer, often harming those same groups in the process.  It is not a coincidence that the same political groups that set themselves against traditional culture are the ones who also argue for larger government.  I may add examples later, but the fight over uncontrolled illegal immigration has to do with how fast our society can today assimilate immigrants without damaging our current culture.  Those who favor amnesty and open borders that would inevitably bring in more immigrants call their opponents racist; claiming that is the only reason that traditionalists would wish to control immigration. But society can only assimilate immigrates so fast.  So the call for amnesty and open borders is a cal to subvert traditional American culture by overwhelming it with immigrants who have not had the time to assimilate.  For the most part, those supporting amnesty also support increased government spending and regulating, such as the Affordable Care Act. In turn, government spending and regulating is destructive of free markets.  The left consists of an alliance of groups such as union leaders, environmentalists, and feminists seeking to both increase the scope of government and undermine traditional society.  These goals are complimentary not separate.

Which brings me to craft beer.  My observation is that craft beer is largely a pursuit of white males who are just starting to disrupt the current market for beer dominated by large corporations like AB-InBev.  Budweiser's Super Bowl commercial was evidence that the big companies are taking notice.  AB InBev has a large contract with the Teamsters in North America.  If craft beer threatens union jobs, how long before craft brewers come under pressure?  There will be calls to raise wages, to increase regulatory scrutiny and to change alcohol distribution laws to protect the big boys and the union jobs.  (Look at what Walmart endures.)  Further, the whiteness and maleness of the industry will come under attack by the cultural marxists. (Don't believe me, perform a search on "San Diego Craft Brewers Guild" under images and look at the faces in the various pictures.) The guardians of political correctness will seek to make sure that craft beer will be seen as somehow racist or anti-feminist or some other pejorative.  When craft beer is seen as a threat, and that is just starting, then the persecution will begin.

So this is why your support for gay marriage threatens craft beer.  By supporting gay marriage you are joining an alliance that views entrepreneurs, such as craft brewers, as a threat and who wish to destroy the culture that allows free markets to thrive.  You are voting for socialism, whether you like it or not.

Yes, that's a picture of Jesus watching over my craft beer drinking.

Sunday Sermon: Government Co-opting Religion

One of the reasons that I am such an advocate of limited government is that as government grows it inevitably crowds out activities that were once the province of religion and disenfranchises the role of religion in public life.  We have seen this with the gay marriage debate.  From a logical perspective, if gay intimate relations are not subject to government regulation any more than heterosexual relations, on what basis can gays be denied equal access to due process?  However, government has not always been the arbiter of marriage, that was the role of the church, synagogue or mosque in times past.  In England, I predict that the Anglican Church will soon be legally forced to perform gay marriages.  I would have preferred that marriage remain the sole province of religion, then the free market, not law would have determined what we deem to be marriage.  

More significantly, in terms of impact, the U. S. federal government has been quietly co-opting religious charities by outsourcing the delivery of social services to them.  George Bush gets much of the blame for this. Where is the liberal outrage over lack of separation between church and state in this area?  James Piereson reports in the WSJ that Catholic Charities in the U.S. gets over half of its funding from the feds.  This entanglement leads to a number of negative outcomes for the country and the church.

• Whenever the church is co-opted by government it gradually declines and loses its effectiveness.  This is because it becomes identified with the establishment, especially a failing statist establishment.  This is one reason why the European church is dying.
• The church organizations becomes a lobbying organization for big government, as do all of the other co-opted private organizations.  In the past, the church has served as an effective check on government.  This removes another roadblock against the Road to Serfdom that Obama wants us to travel.  (For those unfamiliar, Hayek shows how the socialist impulse leads to totalitarianism and we end up no better than the serfs of feudal society, both in liberty and wealth.)
• Men feel unneeded by the church and leave, seriously weakening the institution.  Men generally need to have real work to do in order to feel useful.  The modern church gives them little to do, but the good works of charities has heretofore been such a venue.  Now that the work is done by staff paid from federal funds, there is nothing left for men who want to volunteer. Only so many can go to Haiti or Mexico, where there is real need.  A church that loses its men declines, as there is ample research to prove. 
• It undermines the impulse to charitable giving and indeed it undermines the rationale for granting such organizations tax deductible status.  If they are just another government contractor why should we give and why should their donations be tax exempt?  Piereson points this out as well.

Is it too much to ask for some separation of church and state? 

Gay Marriage - NOTA

As in "none of the above." I shy away from the social issues on the theory that the tea party's focus on the ballooning fiscal calamities in all levels of government, federal, state, local and federal reserve is a greater threat to our republic. I making an exception today, because the issue calls for clarity of thought about the role of government.

The issue of gay marriage is framed as a yes or no proposition. But I question why. The answer is that we have ceded to government the role of defining this social relationship. It was not always so. Marriage was once the sole province of the individuals involved or the church. The French Revolution and the German chancellor Bismarck are cited as key influences in the transition of marriage to government regulation; hardly worthy lineage, in my opinion. We would not have this issue if the state was not involved; my none of the above solution. What I resent about the gay marriage movement is the attempt to use the force of government to impose on me a definition of marriage with which I disagree. If the definition is not up to the government, we are free to come to consensus as a society with freedom to disagree. This is the foundation of intellectual pluralism, about which I might blog some other day.

This begs some serious questions about what would society look like without government sanctioned marriage.

• What about income taxes, how will we determine who is in a household? Whoever self declares to be part of the household. Why not? Why don't we abolish income taxes?
• What about divorce? If there is not marriage, what happens when people split up? Ultimately, marriage is a civil contract. We will have to establish a body of contract law for various forms of civil unions. Perhaps, some protections for children need to be established. Certainly the concept of guardianship might still require state sanction, but that is separate from marriage. I think the bigger problem is that we will have common law situations, with no contract at all. But isn't "palimony" an old issue for the courts?
  
• What about incest, like brothers and sisters marrying? Isn't there compelling state interest to prevent such relationships? My answer is that it is not compelling enough. Government doesn't need to solve every problem. Is this a big rampant problem? Not to my knowledge.
• What about polygamy? My answer is that individuals should be allowed to make this choice for themselves. I don't think it is a successful social model, so it isn't going to catch on.
  

This doesn't solve every societal problem with regards to marriage, none are. Better to leave these questions to be resolved by citizens and our chosen institutions outside of government control.

For the record, I believe that gay people (defined as those with a sexual attraction to the same gender) are not inherently evil, nor even sinful. I believe the correct interpretation of the Bible is that gays should live celibate lives. But I strongly desire a government that does not interfere in these personal matters, because a government with the power to investigate our personal lives is one that can invade our privacy for all sorts of ill ends.

Obama Changes the Subject - UPDATE

Obama's poll driven announcement on gay marriage today was a distraction from his real failures to do anything meaningful to improve the economy. His combination of cronyism and neglect of the economy are nicely summarized in this ad from Americans for Prosperity:



UPDATE

My son pointed me to this picture.


This is an example of an internet meme involving the slowest Pokémon, Slowpoke; pictured with Obama's face, in this case. Courtesy of the Pokémeme website.

Conversation at the Mall Today

I took my iMac back to the Apple Store for repairs, for the second time, same issue with the display. Word to the wise, buy Apple care when you buy their products, they appear to break easily. After exiting the store, an earnest young man with longish hair and a wan mustache and square, Olbermann style glasses approached me with a clipboard and asked "Do you support gay marriage?" Uh oh, I thought, here we go. "No I don't," I responded, smiling pleasantly. "Why is that?" he asked, looking a little animated.
B-Daddy: "Because it impinges on my free speech rights."
Wan Mustache: "How is that?"
B-Daddy: "Because it compels me to recognize a union between two men as a marriage and I choose not to do so?"
Wan Mustache: "Do you think it's right to teach our children to treat people differently because they're different?"
B-Daddy: "The are different or they choose to be?"
Wan Mustache: (visibly upset) "That's a glib answer, you should have an open mind and read up on the subject." He then abruptly walked away.

I note a couple of points. I never got upset, remained calm and pleasant, but the young man became angry that I would not agree with him and he refused to talk to me further. Yet somehow I am the hater? Why do gays seem to crave the societal approval that gay marriage would seem to confer? They have the same rights as a straight married couple, just not the title. As a Christian, I don't crave approval from Buddhists or Muslims, or atheists for that matter. I am willing to engage them in discussion and explain my faith, but if they disagree that is in God's hands, and doesn't change my opinion of my own belief. Gay marriage advocates are very emotional abut the subject; if they were certain of their own life style's morality, they would not be so hung up on this issue.

By the way, I don't think the government has any business discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation with regards to the rule of law. I am not even sure that the government should be granting marriage licenses, but that is a post for another day. (I believe so strongly in marriage, that I don't think government should be fiddling around in it, same goes for education.) If someone believes they were born a certain way, I am not going to argue. But behavior is choice, regardless of our genes. I can be born with the gene or genes that gives a predilection for addiction to alcohol and still not become an alcoholic, so the whole "I was born this way" argument is flawed.


*FTC Disclaimer: I may or may not have received valuable consideration in the form of swag, jack and/or coin to endorse these products. I am not saying and have the right not to do so.

Civil Rights and the Proposition 8 Ruling

Dean eloquently opined earlier about the thugish nature of the ruling against Proposition 8. In today's Wall Street Journal there is an article so eloquent regarding the ruling that I am tempted to quote it in its entirety. Here is brave Joyce Show of La Piñata in the WSJ Letters to the Editor:

Proposition 8 is not about gay civil rights. By California law we already have freedom of sexual preference.
...
What Proposition 8 protects is freedom of choice to not only believe that homosexual unions are morally wrong, but to act on that belief without being accused of and legally liable for discrimination.
...
On Sept. 15, 2008, a California court ruled against two doctors who refused, because of their religious beliefs, to artificially inseminate a lesbian woman, although they had made an appropriate medical referral to other providers without these conflicts of conscience.

Given the the hateful manner in which radical gays target proponents of Proposition 8, we wish Joyce well. Exit question: Why is tolerance only extended to some groups? Muslims can have their mosque, but a gay muslim bar next door is provocative. We must call homosexuals unions a marriage (but not between husband and wife) but a Christian sense of morality is somehow hateful. Democrats can wish Sarah Palin dead and not be labeled misogynist, but political criticism of Obama is racist. I'm just asking.

The sadly obligatory California same-sex ruling post

Dean again with my thoughts on what went down here in California a couple of days ago.



A FaceBook friend playfully chided on her wall that we all needed to get over our homophobia now that a federal judge struck down Prop. 8 .

Because supporters of gay marriage wanted so badly for this to be about homophobia, they got exactly what they wanted and as a result this whole ordeal became about intimidation, smearing and undemocratic end- arounds.

Now, before we get into this too deeply, let’s just say that we’re of two minds or more accurately, perhaps, two emotions regarding the issue of gay marriage. Flatly stated, we believe marriage to be that between a man and a woman. Period. Having said that, our passion index for this is relatively low. You won’t ever see us at a Pro Prop. 8 rally (if for no other reason than the fact we might be “outed”. More on this later.) nor will you ever see us in a knock down, drag out argument over the merits or detriments of gay marriage. It’s tough for us to argue against what two consenting adults want to do and how they wish to define it. (The issue of same-sex partners rearing children is another matter altogether that won’t be addressed here.)

However, where our passion index is quite sky-high is when a solitary figure, in this case, U.S. District Judge Vaughan R. Walker, strikes down what the voters of California had clearly stated as to the definition of marriage not just once but twice. It’s a phenomena that is catching, apparently, as just last week, a federal judge struck down a law in Arizona that flanges up with a Justice Department program regarding cooperation between local and federal officers with respect to immigration enforcement – the very same Justice Department that is bringing suit against Arizona for this same law.

Judge Walker ruled that California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions” Really? So that explains why the issue of defining marriage has shown up on the ballot twice already. And in the absence of any constitutionally- (State or U.S.) defined state of marriage, the voters, both times, defined marriage as that between a man and woman.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. In particular, he rejected the argument advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 that children of opposite-sex couples fare better than children of same-sex couples, saying that expert testimony in the trial provided no support for that argument.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

That’s nonsense. It’s called cultural tradition. A cultural tradition that has existed for thousands of years and which has informed various people and societies around the world, absent any moral or religious bias, that marriage is between a man and a woman. That Walker implies homophobia as the sole reason for believing in traditional marriage, he displays his own narrow-mindedness in this matter.

The trial appeared to be a lopsided show for the challengers, who called 16 witnesses, including researchers from the nation's top universities, and presented tearful testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, and both made concessions under cross-examination that helped the other side.

The sponsors complained that Walker's pretrial rulings had been unfair and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out of fear for their safety.
When Walker ruled that he would broadcast portions of the trial on the Internet, Proposition 8 proponents fought him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a 5-4 ruling barring cameras in the courtroom.

When we said earlier we would worry about being “outed”, this is exactly what we were talking about. The thug tactics of the left resulted in Prop. 8 maps where the names and addresses of Prop. 8 donors were flagged on Google maps. So, congrats, people – your win was aided by previously behaving like a pack of brown shirt goons thus chilling any hopes of a fair hearing by your opposition.

So, this will be appealed to the Ninth circuit court of appeals and from there to the Supreme Court where all indications point to the fate of same-sex marriage in this country resting in the hands of the swing man, Anthony Kennedy.


Previous to this, we had felt that were we ever invited to a same-sex wedding, we would be honored to attend because it was not about us nor how we felt about same-sex marriage but about the happy couple. However, because of the undemocratic and thuggish nature of how this whole thing played out, the results are completely illegitimate in our mind and we now feel we could not attend such an event in good conscious.

Again, Congrats. Hope it was all worth it.


Previous posts on same-sex marriage, here.

This article has been cross-posted over at Beers with Demo.

Jerry Brown Comes Out in Favor of Incest and Polygamy

Dean has some good constitutional analysis of Jerry Brown's recent declaration that marriage is somehow a fundamental right, guaranteed by our state constitution. I wanted to add a little about the logic of that position. Though he won't admit it, our AG is really saying that there should be no limits on marriage between consenting adults. Father marrying adult daughter aged 18? No problem, fundamental right. Dude marrying multiple women? No problem, fundamental right. Brothers getting married? OK, you get the picture, I'll quit before we all get sick. But logically, it is an unsustainable argument unless one abandon's any pretense that the word marriage is constrained in any meaningful way. And unless there are logical limits, the word has no meaning at all.

Further, I ask what right I denied gays by voting for Proposition 8? Gays can live together, share households, get insurance coverage for each other, create contractual obligations of mutual support and adopt children. It is an Orwellian twist of vocabulary to argue that they lack fundamental rights.

I never fail to be amazed at the inability of the left to carry the logic of their arguments to their inevitable and usually ghastly conclusion.