Friday, August 20, 2010

About That Natural Law Thing...

This homosex 'marriage' thing should be a catalyst.

Feser also puts some other Lefty rhetori-tricks into perspective, and calls out the "Truce-er" politicians.

Among advocates of homosexual "marriage," one of the more popular statements from Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling overturning Proposition 8 is that the state is obligated to "treat its citizens equally, not to 'mandate its own moral code." In an interview with, however, writer and philosopher Dr. Edward Feser pointed out that Walker's ruling is not neutral and, in fact, imposes its own moral code...

Well, yes. Now we have "Walker's Commandments," which are at variance from the original Ten.

"According to natural law theory, marriage is a natural institution," he said. And so, he continued, according to natural law theory, a judge could no more decide that two men can marry each other "just by changing a legal definition" than a "judge could decide that cats by nature ought to have five legs."

In other words, people who believe that positive law (such as Walker's decision) can make homosex "marriage" a reality are deluded.

Yes, well. Going on:

...liberals pretend to promote governmental moral neutrality in other issues as well.

"Liberals like to say 'If you don't like abortion, don't have one.'" he said. "That's like saying 'If you don't like stealing, don't be a thief' or 'If you don't like rape, don't be a rapist.''"

"No one would say that that sort of attitude is neutral between thieves and non-thieves, or between rapists and non-rapists. And yet liberals believe, or pretend to believe, that their attitude to abortion is neutral."

Feser has nothing but contempt for the "Truce-ers" (hello, Mitch Daniels)

"I doubt most of these 'pro-truce' conservatives really care about these issues anyway. The 'truce' talk is, I think, a polite way of telling social conservatives to shut up and stop embarrassing them around their liberal friends."

The more sophisticated Truce-ers are feeding pundits the latest meme--that 'the State should simply get out of the marriage business.'


GOR said...

”…the state is obligated to ‘treat its citizens equally’…”

One of my bugbears in the business world was the mantra of some management people that “we have to treat everyone equally - or the same…” If someone screwed up, a general admonition would be issued that “everyone had to do better, avoid this or that problem etc. etc.” This was usually a pusillanimous way of dealing with a specific problem or employee. “No”, I would argue, “Everyone doesn’t have to do better. One person screwed up. Deal with the person who screwed up. This is problem avoidance, not problem resolution. Deal with the problem!”

We don’t have to treat everyone ‘equally’. We have to treat everyone equitably. Big difference! So, when people claim a ‘right’ that they have no right to, deal with that. Don’t fall back on the mantra that ‘everyone has to be treated the same’ and therefore others’ rights have to be trampled upon. They don’t and they shouldn’t.

neomom said...

Nope - I'm with Mitch Daniels on this one.

We need to win over the mushy middle that doesn't like controversy. That doesn't mean we throw the social cons under the bus, it means we let the fiscal cons drive it for a bit. But the bus is big enough for all.

You think Obama and his Congressional minions would have been elected if they had campaigned on what they actually have done? Not a chance. He campaigned as an enigma so people could self define "Hope and Change".

So the fiscal cons campaign as fiscal cons and if they just happen to slide in some good stuff like banning funding for abortions under that banner - everybody polkas.

Dad29 said...


We've allowed an artificial construction of "conservative" to slither into the mix, which allows that there can be two kinds of 'conservatism.'

I don't think so. Conservatism is rooted in the J-C tradition. There IS a hierarchy of values in that tradition, and 'life' is higher on the ladder than 'property.'

For most purposes, those values are inseparable--we don't even think about the distinctions all that much. And, practically speaking, a State which does not respect property rights ipso facto does not respect the lives of its population--which was demonstrated very well by the Statists Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.

I do not suggest that candidates 'run on religion.' I do not suggest that the 'social issues' get top-billing.

But one who claims to be Conservative is lying--or misappropriating the adjective--if he foregoes the social issues for the sake of the fiscal ones.

neomom said...

We are going to have to respectfully disagree on this one. Because there are two types of the "Conservative" label. I would much rather be represented by Mitch Daniels - who by all accounts has a rock-solid pro-life record, and is fiscally conservative to boot - running on a "truce" than say a Mike Huckabee who will be front and center on Life, but has an abysmal fiscal record.

Its all in the lead - and then making sure we discern appropriately.

Dad29 said...

Well, I'm not sure we disagree.

Daniels is likely a far better candidate than is Huckabee, who has serious Big Gummint issues. Those issues go to the "prudence" question.

IOW, while I strongly disapprove of homosexual conduct, it is not prudent to make that conduct illegal. (Consenting adults, yada yada....)

OTOH, it IS prudent to reverse Roe, which would cause a reversion to State laws. That reversion would be Federalist (10th Amendment) or more accurately, it would follow the Law of Subsidiarity.

At the same time, it is imperative that taxpayer funds NOT be spent on abortions.

I suspect that Daniels would move in that direction. OTOH, I don't know that he did so in Indiana.

If he didn't, then he's not all that "pro-life", is he?

neomom said...

I'm with you on Roe. It was a bad ruling, inventing a right and infringin on the state's rights. But I still like Daniels' truce... The important part of Roe for a President is in his judicial selection anyway.

Here is a press release from the 2008 Indiana Gov race from LifeNews...

"Indiana Right to Life has endorsed Gov. Mitch Daniels for re-election in what will be a general election battle with a clear contrast on abortion. The group's political action committee says Daniels has fulfilled his promise to promote the pro-life perspective and is better than opponent Jill Long Thompson.

"We are proud to endorse Governor Daniels in recognition of his steadfast support for the sanctity of life," IRTL PAC chairman Mike Fichter told Tuesday.

"Mitch Daniels pledged to support pro-life legislation as a candidate in 2004 and he has been true to his word," Fichter said. "Now it is time for pro-life Hoosiers to show their appreciation for Governor Daniels by actively working to secure his re-election."

Fichter said that, prior to Governor Daniels, not a single Indiana governor had the courage or conviction to publicly support the sanctity of life of unborn children.

During his first term, Governor Daniels has signed into law key legislation placing Indiana on the leading edge of national pro-life efforts.

That included a bill allowing women to see an ultrasound of their unborn child prior to the abortion, a bill to ban human cloning, and a measure establishing an umbilical cord blood bank to advance life-affirming stem cell research using cord blood instead of killing human embryos.

Daniels also ended 25 years of Indiana abortion clinics operating without any significant health and safety regulations by signing into law new licensure and inspection requirements for abortion centers.

Also, under the Daniels administration, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles approved Indiana's Choose Life license plate that provides funding for pro-life pregnancy resource centers statewide.

"Governor Daniels has helped to advance the pro-life cause in Indiana but there is much more work left to do," Fichter concluded.

"The bottom line is that Governor Daniels will continue to extend greater protection for unborn children in his second term while promoting positive alternatives to abortion, whereas Jill Long-Thompson will enact policies that will expand taxpayer funding for abortion providers and increase access to abortion for the full nine months of pregnancy."

Dad29 said...

Looks good. Let's see how he compares to Haley Barbour...

Anonymous said...

They all suck. Good luck with that.