Blog | Republican Reason Caucus | Science, Secularism, Small Government

When I was a college undergraduate, I subscribed to a very rigid legal philosophy not too far removed from the originalist views of Robert Bork. The judiciary, in this viewpoint, does not exist to protect minorities, foster stability, or hand down rulings based on an ethical sense of justice. For instance: I am gay, and I support same-sex marriage. But if I were a judge, I believed, I would have to concede that the Constitution does not justify a national mandate for marriage equality. My personal sense of justice, then, is and should be irrelevant to the rule of law. Rather, justice is an institutional process: if the letter of the law has been carried out, then that is justice, properly understood, in a legal context. If same-sex couples want their marriages recognized by the government, then they will have to work through the legislature — not appeal to judges when they can’t get what they want through the standard channels.

To be sure, I still sympathize with this view. Respect for the letter of the law is vital to a healthy, well-functioning judicial system. But I am no longer so certain that a strictly originalist position is the most prudent approach to the law. Antonin Scalia has declared that he believes in a ‘dead’ Constitution — one that does not change with time. But while the logic and principles of the Constitution are indeed timeless — ‘dead’ — the particulars and circumstances of our lived experiences are always changing. This is why Edmund Burke, that great conservative statesman, declared that ‘change is our means of preservation.’ The way that we apply our deep-seated principles, then, will not be the same in all places or at all times. The law must exist to serve mankind, not the other way around. And the spirit of the law is just as important as the letter of the law.

The problem with Scalia’s question that he is projecting his premise — that the Constitution is completely “dead” and therefore is not subject to any sort of change over time — onto Olson’s argument. He seems to imagine that a more expansive view of the Constitution’s application would necessitate some sort of magic moment in time in which recognizing same-sex marriage became Constitutionally necessary — as if something, at once, descended from the heavens into the document. But the question of equal protection for same-sex couples is not an esoteric, metaphysical one — it is the question at hand that the Court is facing! Given the contemporary context (the one in which we live, after all) does it make sense, given the logic of the Constitution and of legal precedent from analogous cases, to issue a mandate? This is what a judge should be asking himself. The law is not something ‘out there’ like Platonic forms — it is a system of regulating human behavior. The law exists to serve human needs, and it is the job of a justice to apply it prudently.

Social conservatives fear that without an objective, timeless definition of marriage, the institution will become arbitrary and meaningless, leaving us with no valid reason to deny marriage licenses to, say, polygamous couples, or people who want to marry inanimate objects, or even children. But the reason that we could still deny marriages in those cases is quite simple: because that is not the kind of society that we live in. Those aren’t the choices and values that we honor and respect. It would be imprudent and highly impractical to mandate that we legally recognize those relationships. The reason that social conservatives think that we might have to is because they are trapped in a mad quest for metaphysical objectivity — as Prof. Robert P. George’s recent book against same-sex marriage, lauded by the Christian Right, makes quite clear. But marriage has never had an ‘objective’ definition — not a legal one, let alone a metaphysical one. The definition has varied across the ages. It is changing again, just as it will surely change again in the future.

To be sure, it would be highly preferable for this sort of task to be carried through by the legislature — the superior option for ensuring social and political stability. But there wouldn’t be anything inconsistent with our country’s legal history or with the principles of the Constitution to grant marriage equality through the judiciary, either. It would be a reasonably logical extension, not an upending, of its principles. This is the ‘living Constitution,’ properly understood, at work. And there is nothing unconservative about it.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Republican Reason Caucus.

Gov. Christie Must Stand with Gay and Lesbian Youth Against “Gay Conversion Therapy”

New Jersey Democrats think that they have finally found an issue that they can use against Gov. Chris Christie, one of the nation’s most popular executives. The state legislature recently passed a bill that would bar parents from forcing their gay or lesbian children into “gay conversion therapy,” a pseudo-scientific mockery of psychotherapy that attempts to “convert” gays into straights with a mixture of religious brainwashing and talk-therapy that probes into the teen’s psychosexual history, under the premise that homosexuality is not a sexual orientation but rather a sexual dysfunction rooted in a gender-role crisis. Christie won’t commit to signing the bill into law.

The jury is not out on the legitimacy of the practice. While a vulnerable teenager might easily be shamed into repressing his natural desires, there is no way to turn a homosexual into a heterosexual. Every major medical association, including the American Psychological Association, has condemned “conversion therapy” in the strongest terms. Christie has personally condemned the practice, but has cited concerns about state intrusion on parents’ rights.

He should sign the bill. As a Republican who supports a strictly limited role for government, I tend to side with individuals, families, and local communities against centralized power, which too often demands homogeneity and conformity at the expense of liberty. But there are certain situations which demand a one-size-fits-all policy: murder, assault, theft, and fraud are never permissible, for instance, since they are direct, overt acts of aggression. The state also has a duty to help defend those who cannot defend themselves. Government properly reserves the right to intervene against parents who are inflicting abuse upon their children.

If an adult wants to waste his time and money on “gay conversion therapy,” then that is certainly his prerogative. But teenagers lack the legal capacity to object to their parents’ demands. If Gov. Christie can’t decide whether to stand with them against their parents, then he should put himself in the shoes of a gay youth who has to live every day knowing that his parents are ashamed of him and belittle him for his sexual orientation. The state cannot save those kids from the ignorance of their parents, but they can at least protect them from their most egregious excesses. “Gay conversion therapy” is nothing short of psychological abuse when a teenager is subjected to it, and Christie should call it for what it is. He has stated that he is “tired of dealing with the crazies” in the right-wing base. This bill is a perfect opportunity to prove that he means it.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Republican Reason Caucus.

The Emerging New Republican Coalition

In a FOX News opinion piece entitled, “Conservativism cannot survive a libertarian takeover,” political strategist Brad Todd accuses the growing army of libertarian-leaning conservatives of trying to dismantle Reagan’s winning coalition of economic conservatives, social conservatives, and war hawks. He claims that modern conservatives want to sing a “one-note kazoo song” that focuses only on the federal budget and the economy.

This is, of course, a gross misrepresentation. Modern conservatives care about social issues — we just have different opinions on social issues than the Republicans of four decades ago. We don’t believe that personal morals — what people do by themselves, without harming anyone else — need to be policed by the government. Modern conservatives believe in keeping America safe — we just happen to not treat the Pentagon budget as a sacred cow where no waste can be found, nor do we implicitly trust the same federal government we mock for the terrible job they do delivering mail and licensing drivers to fix every economic and diplomatic problem in any foreign country on Earth, nor are we willing to sacrifice every civil liberty on the altar of national security.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Republican Reason Caucus.

Why Should “Morality” Mean Opposing Rights of Gays and Women?

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (who was rejected by Pennsylvania voters 7 years ago) spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (“CPAC”) this past week, stating, “For those in our movement who want to abandon our moral underpinnings to win, what does it profit a movement to gain the country and lose its own soul?”

Of course, when Mr. Santorum talks about “moral underpinnings,” he means opposition to legal equality for LGBT Americans, and enforcing a government prohibition on abortion procedures. When Mr. Santorum talks about “immorality,” he refers to a society that is “anti-clerical, anti-God.” The twenty percent of Americans who now do not identify with any religion (“anti-clerical”), many of whom do not even believe in the supernatural (“anti-God”), would take issue with being referred to as “immoral”. These non-religious Americans are caring parents, doctors, teachers, and scientists, working hard to make the world a better place. They are just as moral as their religious friends and neighbors.

Why do Mr. Santorum and his ilk get the privilege of defining the word “morality” to mean anti-equality, anti-medicine, anti-science, anti-diversity, and anti-freethinking?

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Republican Reason Caucus.

Tell Rep. Stockman His Remarks on Transgender Americans are Not Okay

Republican Rep. Steve Stockman (Texas-36), in talking about the Violence Against Women Act, made the point that transgender women shouldn’t be covered by the act, yet he felt the need to mock “change-genders,” saying: “they have men dressed up as women … Change-gender, or whatever. How is that — how is that a woman?”

This is exactly why voters hate us, and this sort of thing will not help us balance the budget or defend the Constitution.

Call Rep. Stockman’s office at 202-225-1555 and tell him you’re a Republican who is ashamed of these comments.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Republican Reason Caucus.

Voters Like Economic Conservatism, Dislike Republican Party

When voters are presented with the Republican budget plan (budget cuts and no new tax increases) and the Democratic budget plan (small budget increases and large tax increases), but are not told which belongs to which, a majority picks the Republican budget. However, when voters are asked explicitly whether they want a budget plan crafted by the Republicans or one crafted by the Democrats, they pick Democrats.

The reason we can’t get our free market oriented reforms passed is not because voters don’t like them, but because they don’t like us on a personal level. They think we stand for bailing out wealthy corporations, opposing the happiness of their LGBT friends and family members, and generally being hypocrites and buzzkills. Until we change that, we will never balance the budget and end the march toward Hayekian serfdom.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Republican Reason Caucus.

Our Statement of Principles

We at the Republican Reason Caucus unveiled today our organization’s official Statement of Principles. These 7 principles define what we stand for, what unites us, and the types of policies we will fight for.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Republican Reason Caucus.

The GOP’s Faulty Moral Arithmetic

Brooks makes the excellent point that voters will not care how much Republicans claim to know about economics and good government, until they know how much Republicans care. This does not mean that Republicans need to support welfare programs, more onerous regulations on employers, or redistribution of wealth away from the successful. Economic freedom is a very compassionate position, but most people don’t realize that fact or don’t care. As Brooks points out: “Perception is political reality.” Despite the fact that we Republicans believe we are doing the best thing for individuals, voters in general don’t perceive us that way.

Voters want to stand with a party on a moral level. The key voters the GOP needs to sway don’t connect with the kind of prudish, negative morality of social conservatives (no sex outside marriage, no obscenity in media, etc.), however. The voters we need are the kind of voters who are swayed by positive, freedom-oriented morality (helping people, ensuring equal treatment by the law, etc.).

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Republican Reason Caucus.

Sign Our Petition to the RNC: Support Marriage Equality

We are collecting the signatures of 20,000 conservatives urging the Republican National Committee to support the right of gay Americans to legally marry. Please add your voice to the petition and share with your friends:

Conservatives for Marriage Equality

First Name

Last Name

Street

City

State / Province

Post Code

Phone

Dear Republican National Committee,

As a conservative Republican who believes in limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility, I urge you to support the right of gay Americans to legally marry. Allowing gay couples to legally marry will promote family values such as commitment, stability, and responsibility. Granting the option of legal marriage to gay couples represents an expansion of freedom of choice, which is as conservative a principle as any. Allowing gay couples to legally marry does nothing to harm the marriages or family values of straight couples. Getting ahead of this common-sense issue will allow millions of moderate voters and new young voters to listen to our party's much needed governing message.

Please do the right thing for our gay friends, family, and neighbors, and the right thing for the future of our party. Stand up for equality.

I'm also interested in becoming an official member of the Republican Reason Caucus

Sign Now

66 signatures

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Republican Reason Caucus.

The Most Ingenious Gay Marriage Ad Ever

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Republican Reason Caucus.

News & Opinion

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Living Constitution

Gov. Christie Must Stand with Gay and Lesbian Youth Against “Gay Conversion Therapy”

The Emerging New Republican Coalition

Why Should “Morality” Mean Opposing Rights of Gays and Women?

Tell Rep. Stockman His Remarks on Transgender Americans are Not Okay

Voters Like Economic Conservatism, Dislike Republican Party

Our Statement of Principles

The GOP’s Faulty Moral Arithmetic

Sign Our Petition to the RNC: Support Marriage Equality

Conservatives for Marriage Equality

The Most Ingenious Gay Marriage Ad Ever