Robert George Discusses Same-Sex Marriage and Its Social Consequences
BY RICK PLASTERER , CP OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
June 26, 2015|11:05 am
(Photo: Screengrab/ERLC)Robert P. George, Princeton University professor, giving remarks at the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission's 2015 Leadership Summit, titled "The Gospel and Racial Reconciliation," held in Nashville, Tennessee, on Thursday, March 26, 2015.
Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School, Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, fellow at the Witherspoon Institute and the Hoover Institution, and co-author of the Manhattan Declaration, offered a sobering summation of the consequences of redefining marriage from the traditional definition of the legitimate union of man and woman to an affectional relationship between any two people at Hillsdale College's Washington facility on Tuesday, June 23.
Professor George noted that only very recently advocates of marriage redefinition were maintaining it would leave persons and institutions which adhered to the traditional definition of marriage unaffected. No one's marriage would be affected by redefinition, it would have no impact on the public understanding of marriage, and would in fact strengthen the institution by broadening the base of people included in it. Religious and other traditionalist organizations would not be compelled by law to accept the new definition in their functioning, they would not have to pay spousal benefits to marriages they thought improper, no one would be fired or otherwise penalized for their opposition to homosexual marriage. There would be no extension of the logic of accepting non-traditional relationships into social and legal acceptance of polyamorous relationships (involving more than two people). All of these possibilities were rejected as "scare tactics" and fallacious "slippery slope" reasoning.
However, George said, the logic of marriage redefinition to include same-sex couples is that traditional marriage exclusively between a man and a woman lacks a rational basis. Only prejudice and hate can explain the exclusion of same-sex couples, and so no reasonable person of good will can insist on it. This puts traditional morality on the same level as racism, in which an unreasonable criterion is used to disadvantage and harass people. The conclusion that marriage is irrational began to be drawn in the 1960s, George said, when advocates of the early sexual revolution declared that people were better off without traditional morality; unhappy spouses should not be bound to their mates, children were better off if they were not in unhappy marriages, etc.
Yet the ominous predictions of the consequences of same-sex marriage have indeed come to pass. Same sex marriage advocates declare that "same-sex marriage announces that the shape of marriage has changed." Polyamorous unions, which involve more than two people are now being advanced by avante guarde thinkers and even academic writers considered to be mainstream as an alternative to the "dyadic," or two person marriage.
The new nature of marriage is sometimes called "minimal marriage," referring to the low commitment required of the marriage partners. Well known homosexual advocates now frankly advocate promiscuity as a goal of their movement. Andrew Sullivan extols the "spirituality of anonymous sex," while Dan Savage encourages marriage partners to adopt a "more flexible attitude" toward extramarital sexual activity. Those who continue to hold to exclusive marriage between one man and one woman are treated as racists.
The end result, Professor George said, is that true equality among citizens and religious freedom is undermined. The concept of dignity, used by the Supreme Court in its decisions advancing homosexual practice and homosexual marriage, will be used to overcome claims of religious liberty and conscience. Conscience protection will be claimed to cause "dignitarian harm." He maintained that there cannot now be, nor ever could there be, any "grand bargain" between sexual traditionalists and sexual revolutionaries, with new sexual relationships approved by society and the conscience rights of traditionalists respected. There may indeed be temporary concessions in conscience protections, but granting them is merely tactical, and they will be taken away when it is thought politically possible.
Sexual issues, and homosexuality in particular, are the presenting issue in the conflict between Christianity and secular liberalism, George maintained. While the liberal legal theorist John Rawls is extolled by contemporary liberals as providing the way forward for contemporary secular society, George held that Rawls advocated a mere "political" liberalism, "romantically" hoping to forestall a "comprehensive" liberalism that not only cuts government loose from any transcendent basis but attempts to give meaning and value to all of life on a non-transcendent, or secular, basis. He claimed that while there are, and will be, political liberals who advocate for liberty of conscience for traditionalists, they will lose their battle with the comprehensive liberals. In the case for homosexual marriage, it will be claimed the "full equality" means social acceptance, not just legal equality, and this cannot happen if traditionalists are free to decline to contribute to or support activities they believe immoral. More generally, it would seem that political liberals will lose because they do not offer a moral basis for society, whereas comprehensive liberals do propose one.
Because comprehensive liberalism must cover all of life, not only is Christian morality unacceptable in the public square in the provision of goods and services, employment, and housing, but the Christian subculture of religious schools, medical, and charitable institutions must be destroyed as well.
The Christian conscience can only be seen as "discriminatory," and the right of conscience as a right to discriminate. Religious educational institutions will be denied licensing and accreditation, just as in the wider world the benefits conferred by the government in the form of licensing and funding will be denied to conscientiously objecting individuals and organizations. Indeed, in secular universities liberal faculty no longer think it necessary to explain away the absence of conservatives; is increasingly held to be an unacceptable viewpoint. Even though racial separation was essentially a cultural, not religious practice, the same disadvantages placed on racists will now be placed on conscientious objectors to the sexual revolution. The ultimate goal in this struggle, however, is the totalitarian one, to deter thoughts not in keeping with the values prescribed by the state (as, indeed, Obama recently referred to religious freedom laws as "unthinkable").
George maintained that there is no alternative for traditional Christians to continued engagement in the public square, "even if the horizon is 50 or 100 years." While the social radicals maintain that their victory is inevitable, George said that "nothing is inevitable in this domain." He noted that the same demoralizing claims were made after the Roe vs. Wade decision legalized abortion in the early 1970s. Yet the pro-life movement has grown in the years since, persuading larger segments of the public, and young people in particular, of the truth of claims in favor of the right of unborn children to live. Much earlier, eugenics was a favored doctrine of the American elite, and heartily endorsed by the mainline Protestant denominations. Only Roman Catholics, and some very conservative Protestants, opposed it. Yet the horrors of World War II undid eugenics, and even today attempts to revive the doctrine endeavor to disown the name of eugenics.
In terms of practical action, George said that social conservatives must not make the predictions of the inevitability of the social acceptance of same-sex marriage a self-fulfilling prophecy. He asked those who are believers to pray ceaselessly.
Everyone committed to traditional morality should work diligently to elect pro-life legislators and executives, and to keep the Republican Party committed to social conservatism. He noted that the GOP was founded as a party committed to moral principle, specifically, to opposing slavery and polygamy. While he said that the immediate future is not good, Christians should remember that their ultimate duty is to God, and to serve Him in the cause of righteousness in the world. However the struggle over same-sex relationships develops, His coming in glory is assured, and believers should keep their eyes on that.
Rick Plasterer is a staff writer for IRD concerned particularly with domestic religious liberty. He attended Eastern Mennonite College (now University) receiving a B.A. degree in history and sociology, and an M.S. in library science from Drexel University.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/robert-george-discusses-same-sex-marriage-and-its-social-consequences-140891/#Hx5ZbX6flFxLJchL.99
Issue Brief #4486 on Taxes
November 16, 2015
A Flat Consumption Tax Would Be Fair and Efficient
Congress has the power to design a tax system to fund the necessary functions of government. It also has a responsibility to design a tax system that is fair and efficient. A flat consumption tax is the least economically destructive tax system. Relative to the current income tax system, a consumption tax has the potential to increase economic growth substantially.[1]
The term consumption tax should not be confused with an additional tax in line with the current system. Rather, Congress should implement a consumption-based tax system to replace the current, broken system. There are a number of consumption tax systems. Any tax plan that does not double-tax saving and investment is a consumption tax, including a flat tax, the New Flat Tax, a national retail sales tax, and a business transfer tax.[2]
One of the biggest reasons why replacing the current hybrid income-consumption system with a consumption tax would be a tremendous boon for the economy is it would eliminate the heavy taxation that the current system places on investment. One of the ways a consumption tax eliminates that heavy burden is by not taxing capital gains and dividends. Many observers argue that the lack of such taxes is an enormous giveaway to the rich.[3] However, a consumption tax is an entirely different method of taxation than the current system.
A reform plan that establishes a consumption tax should be evaluated on its merit independent of the current system. A consumption tax can both encourage much stronger economic growth and apply a fair and equitable tax burden without applying a tax on capital gains and dividends.
Consumption Taxes Do Not Tax Capital Gains and Dividends
The current tax system suppresses production in part because it taxes investment at multiple levels. It taxes business investment twice, for instance. Business investment makes up the majority of total investment in the United States.[4] The corporate income tax levies an initial layer of tax at the business level. Capital gains taxes and dividends taxes are then a second layer of tax at the shareholder level. Capital gains taxes apply to retained earnings, since capital gains represent the capitalization of expected future taxable earnings, while dividends taxes apply to distributed earnings.
Once combined, the two sets of taxes cause the tax rate on business investment to exceed 50 percent.[5]Such a high rate is a strong discouragement for businesses to invest and for investors to take risks.
A consumption tax mostly removes tax on business investment. At the business level, it allows businesses to expense their investments in capital. In other words, they can deduct the entire cost of an asset from their taxable income at the time they purchase it, rather than over many years as is the case under current depreciation rules. Expensing eliminates tax on the normal returns to capital investment. A residual tax remains on returns that are greater than normal, or supra normal. At the shareholder level, a consumption tax does not add a second layer of tax because it does not have capital gains taxes or dividend taxes.
Capital gains taxes and dividends taxes would run counter to a consumption tax’s nature and purpose. In fact, if a consumption tax did include them, it would not be a consumption tax. It would be much closer to the current hybrid system and would forfeit much of the enhanced growth it could bring to the economy.
Big Benefits of a Consumption Tax
The economic benefits to Americans at all income levels would be immense once Congress implements a consumption tax. The empirical data show that a consumption tax could increase the size of the economy by about 15 percent over 10 years.[6]
That impressive growth would largely arise from investment that is being suppressed under the current tax environment. Investment would rise because a consumption tax would remove the existing steep disincentives for business to make new investments and for investors to take the risk to fund them. Higher investment in the economy would create new jobs and increase productivity, which would increase wages. Those benefits would lift all boats, helping all Americans.
Distribution and Fairness Concerns
A flat consumption-based tax is by definition progressive, even without capital gains taxes and dividends taxes, because the more a person earns, the more taxes he pays. In fact, John Rawls, perhaps the most liberal philosopher of the 20th century, wrote in Justice as Fairness that “a tax on consumption at a constant marginal rate” was the best tax system.[7]
A consumption tax can also adhere to the current standard of progressivity without sacrificing its positive growth effects. For instance, The Heritage Foundation’s New Flat Tax is a consumption tax, and hence, by definition, does not have capital gains taxes or dividend taxes. Yet its distribution (the percentage of the tax burden that various income groups pay) is consistent with the distribution of the current system.[8]
A major reason why the burden under a consumption tax can remain consistent with the current system is that shareholders would still bear most of the burden of the tax on businesses, the same as they do the corporate income tax today.[9] Shareholders tend to be high-income. A consumption tax, other than a national retail sales tax, would retain a statutory tax on businesses. The business tax would be in addition to the tax that shareholders would pay on their wage income, which a consumption tax would also tax.
Distributional Criticisms of Consumption Taxes Miss the Larger Picture
The current system is an enormous drag on the economy; it has large negative effects on Americans of all income levels, most especially on the middle class and the poor. Tax reform would fix this problem and help middle-class and poor families that are falling behind to find better jobs and earn higher wages. Analyses should focus on how well tax reform plans achieve that central goal.
—Curtis S. Dubay is Research Fellow in Tax and Economic Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.David Vitter: Gays Have 'Shoved' Same-Sex Marriage 'Down The Throats' Of Christians
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., addressed the Jefferson Baptist Church in Baton Rouge yesterday in an attempt to burnish his conservative credentials as he campaigns for governor.
Vitter, who is perhaps best known for his involvement in a prostitution scandal, announced at the beginning of his speech that he had received the endorsements of a number of Religious Right activists and organizations, including Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana state lawmaker.
In his speech, Vitter criticized the notion of the separation of church and state and denounced the Supreme Court’s landmark marriage equality decision, claiming that gay rights advocates want their views “shoved down the throats of folks who have sincerely held religious views that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
After declaring his support for a bill that grants legal protections to those who oppose same-sex marriage, Vitter said that the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling “will clearly unleash all sorts of assaults against conservative Christian beliefs who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. And make no mistake about it, those assaults are coming on churches, pastors and believers who are trying to live their faith in a quiet but important way, including in terms of how they choose to live their lives and run their businesses.”
“They want to make believers like us second class citizens,” he said. “They want to completely push us out of the public square and in some cases persecute folks who simply want to live their faith in terms of how they do business and other things.”
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario