Nice "Choice" for California Senate
I can’t find the Fox News article anywhere, the one I read on my BlackBerry just two hours ago, but I found the exact same piece here, an AP article on Republican Senate hopeful Tom Campbell, who is in a dead heat with Carly Fiorina to oppose the notorious Barbara Boxer in the November election. Mr. Campbell is a supporter of “gay marriage”, and while of course I disagree with that stance, what is really interesting about the man is his “rationale” on the matter:
In October 2008, a month before the Proposition 8 vote, Campbell wrote an op-ed column in which he said government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives.
One has to wonder if Mr. Campbell is intellectually dishonest, or intellectually disabled, in making a statement such as this. And yet, this is what passes for “reasoning” on the part of so many today. If Mr. Campbell actually believes what he wrote, then he’s obviously incapable of rational thought above a sophomoric level; if he doesn’t, well, then he’s lying to make political points, one would assume. So let’s take him at his word, that he actually believes what he wrote.
Mr. Campbell, you’d then be in favor, of course, of polygamy? Polyandry? Group marriage? The state signing off, giving its official imprimatur, to any and every arrangement that people make in their “personal lives”, because “government has no business” making distinctions? Is that really what you believe, Mr. Campbell, that government is obligated to officially give sanction to whatever people come up with in their fertile imaginations? And how far, Mr. Campbell, do we take this “personal lives” reasoning? What else, in other areas of life, must the state officially recognize, based on this “principle”?
An aside: those of you who have read this blog for some time know that I identify myself as a “small L” libertarian; I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party, though I’m not far from it. But understand this: libertarian philosophy, which seeks to maximize individual liberties and minimize the intrusion of government into our affairs, does not entail asking the government to give sanction to any and every such arrangement that comes down the pike (because it does not follow that allowing people the freedom to make such choices means we have to officially, governmentally approve of such choices). I do not believe, as a libertarian, that we ought to make laws prohibiting adults from living in ways, or engaging in behaviors, that I find morally repugnant; I believe we ought to use the power of persuasion to engage people on a deeper level than merely outlawing behaviors that do not materially affect others.
And so we have a man running for the U.S. Senate—as a Republican—who is fundamentally unable—or unwilling—to make a cogent argument on this topic. No wonder we’re in a handbasket as a country…