In answer to Bryan Fischer re: Ron Paul

On Friday morning, Bryan Fischer, on his radio program “Focal Point” excoriated Ron Paul for Paul’s position that the government should totally remove itself from the arena of marriage.  Mr. Fischer claimed that such a removal would mean the total collapse of the family in America.

I disagree; marriage is best upheld by the God-ordained institutions of the family and the church, and only suffers deterioration when it must rely on the satanic organ we call “government” for its defense and perpetuation.  Ron Paul’s position, far from being marriage’s death-knell, would strengthen marriage.  There is an idea, which I used to hold, that the government is somehow necessary to establish a moral society.  I have since come to the conclusion that the government is as effective in establishing national morality as it is in creating economic prosperity.  In fact, the main institutional support for same-sex marriage comes from the government–the very instution in which Mr. Fischer admonishes us to place our trust.

I personally do not think that same-sex marriage can occur, because by definition marriage is a heterosexual union.  The government can legalise something labelled “same-sex marriage”, but it cannot legitimise it.  I am unsure why the homosexual community would consider a heteronormative institution like marriage to be a proper paradigm for homosexual relationships, but even if marriage were desireable to them, it is unfortunate that the same-sex community would seek validation through government.  Traditional marriage needs no government validation, being traditional.  In fact, it is probably to traditional marriage’s detriment that government has inserted itself into the process as far as it has.  Consider Pastor Matt Trewhella:  But suppose that the government were to declare Christian marriages illegal.  No Christians could call themselves married under the law.  Christians would merely roll their eyes, and continue to get married, because marriage is not a set of visitation rights and tax considerations; it is a solemn vow before God and man to devote oneself exclusively to his partner for the purposes of companionship and procreation.  It would not matter what the government said about Christian marriages’ validity.

Ron Paul supported (although he did not vote for) the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), because it comports with the federalist stance that Congressman Paul has adopted; the law prevents the Federal Government from making a blanket policy for all the states with regard to marriage.

Another quibble about Mr. Fischer’s discussion: he asserted that libertarians “don’t believe in any rules”; that “they think you should be able to do anything you want to do without consequence”.  This is untrue, as libertarians are very firm believers, with the hypocritical exception of antepartum infanticide, in the “non-aggression axiom”, which states that an individual is free to engage in any activity, provided it does not initiate or threaten violence against another individual’s person or property.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: