Finding Common Ground with Cal Thomas:

I find some common ground with Cal Thomas here. He argues that the gay marriage debate is over and the pro-gay marriage side has won:

"Pro family" groups have given it their best shot, but this debate is over. They would do better to spend their energy and resources building up their side of the cultural divide and demonstrating how their own precepts are supposed to work. Divorce remains a great threat to family stability, and there are far more heterosexuals divorcing and cohabiting than homosexuals wishing to "marry." If conservative religious people wish to exert maximum influence on culture, they will redirect their attention to repairing their own cracked foundation. An improved heterosexual family structure will do more for those families and the greater good than attempts to halt the inevitable. A topical solution does not cure a skin disease whose source is far deeper.

True. Divorce, adultery, and especially out of wedlock births by young single parents who are not able to support the children they have, are far greater threats to the stability of society than gay marriage—or anything done by homosexuals—ever could be.

This isn’t the first time I have found common ground with religious conservatives—and for all of the time I spend criticizing the “religious right” on this website, I’d like to find common ground, workable solutions to these divisive culture war battles. And such ground usually boils down to one word: libertarianism. The libertarian solution seeks to maximize the private, minimize the public, and protect freedom of association & property rights, and otherwise apply public rules in a “neutral” way where no one group gets any favorable treatment vis-à-vis any other. No double standards—a rule on race must apply equally to blacks & whites alike. Similarly, “Christian fundamentalists” as a social group should be treated no better or no worse than “gays.” Unfortunately, the pervasiveness of anti-discrimination laws in private, and the un-likelihood of their repeal any time soon, makes the implementation of this ideal unrealistic in the immediate future.

But regarding religion, politics, & society, as long as religious conservatives have the right to practice their religion, establish their communities, and exclude whomever they want from their churches (in other words, I’d like to see these religious groups be given absolute protection, but in the private sphere of life) and as long as gays, and other folks who have a different worldview are accorded the same rights under a neutral set of rules that favors no one particular group, then I think we could peacefully coexist in the same nation.

And Cal Thomas previously had written that it’s a good idea for orthodox Christians to get out of politics, (perfectly consistent with Jesus’ statement “my kingdom is not of this Earth”) and attempt to affect society by living their lives in a moral way, and by providing good examples of healthy vibrant communities. And I am all with him there.

The problem to my libertarian solution, however, is two-fold. First, the state has so much power and is so large, that various “groups” (or “factions” as our founders put it), just can't seem to help but vie for “state power” to enforce their interests against everyone else. And many of these “factions” are associated with the Left—“racial” and "ethnic" groups, “feminists,” the “disabled,” and many others, including of course, “gay” groups. And this “enforcing your interests to the detriment of the freedom of others not in your group” is done through the use of anti-discrimination laws, and various other organs of the state.

Eugene Volokh gives a prime example of this where under a Seattle anti-discrimination ordinance, a small business owner—a printer—was sued for refusing to print invitations to a gay wedding. Now many on the Right would use this as an example of how “sexual orientation” discrimination laws threaten freedom. But ALL anti-discrimination categories that apply in the private sector have the capacity to operate like this.

The second problem is that the religious right doesn’t want to accept the libertarian compromise. Like the other “factions” (mainly associated with the Left, but the Right has its factions as well), the religious right wants in on the game; they want to use the organs of the state to force their worldview down the throats of society—if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander. And their argument goes something like this: “America was founded so that we could force our worldview on society—not so leftists could force their worldview on us.” But that simply is not true. As I, and many others, have pointed out, this nation (at least our public institutions) was founded as a “secular,” not a “Christian,” entity.

One complaint that I often hear from the religious right is how “hate-crimes” statutes—which they mean, only those that include the category of “sexual orientation”—threaten their freedom of speech, that by simply “criticizing” homosexuality based on their Biblical beliefs, they could be prosecuted under such statutes. And they point to the example of Dr. James Dobson being thrown off the air on certain stations in Canada under their “human rights laws.”

But then these same religious conservatives jumped with glee as the Bush administration started to use the “axe” of the FCC to go after Howard Stern and other forms of public broadcast which they find “offensive.” Fine, let’s let the FCC issue $500,000 fines against Stern and chase him off the air. And then when a leftist administration comes into power and that “newly sharpened” FCC axe, complete with the half-million dollar fines, starts to go after religious conservative broadcasters for “hate-speech,” don’t expect me to shed a tear.

Let’s keep one thing in mind: James Dobson wasn’t the only person who got in trouble under Canadian broadcasting rules. The exact same Canadian statute under which Dobson was punished was also used to punish, yes, Howard Stern. Stern, no racist in my opinion, sometimes makes off-color racial jokes (as he does about EVERY other social group—he’s truly an equal opportunity offender). The same Canadian statute that prohibited “offensive” broadcasts on the basis of “sexual orientation” also prohibited such broadcasts along many other categories, including “racial & ethnic” groups, which categories Stern got in trouble on.

When I talk to religious conservatives about the libertarian compromise, I usually frame the hypothetical question this way: If you were guaranteed the absolute right to practice your religion, speak your mind on any issue, say anything you want publicly about homosexuality and never fear prosecution, or any type of state enforced persecution—in other words, “to be (absolutely) left alone”—but in order to get this protection, these same rights must also be granted to hard core pornographers, would you take this deal? And I usually get a look or a response like I’m the Devil.