'One Man, One Woman' is Marital Socialism
Date: Sep 16, 2003
Word Count: 700 words
Cross-Reference: "One Man, One Woman", Federal Marriage Amendment, Socialism, Marital Socialism
The Federal Marriage Amendment would codify socialism into the Constitution.
After the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Lawrence v. Texas case on June 26, 2003, the subsequent reaction from some conservatives reminded other conservatives of the "If" poem by Rudyard Kipling.
"If you can keep your head when all about you men are losing theirs..."
Some reacted to the Lawrence v. Texas case with such "little boy" hysteria that they even started petitions to amend the Constitution. Sadly, they unwittingly "lost their heads" in abandoning conservatism, calling for ratification of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Considering that such ones are usually quite sincere, conservative Bible-believers, it is ironic that they would make that mistake in the name of "protecting" something which never once happened in the Bible: "marriage" by government.
Truthfully, not one man in the Bible was ever "married" by government. Not one. Government was never involved. Never.
Despite that, the proposed amendment's wording would have government constitutionally define marriage as "one man, one woman" exclusively. While virtually all conservatives oppose the visibly Bible-opposed notion of "same-sex marriage," the proposed amendment goes far beyond addressing that single issue.
On top of maligning Biblical polygamists as "unmarried fornicators," the amendment would constitutionalize socialism.
Indeed, "one man, one woman" is marital socialism.
And opposition to socialism is a key tenet of true conservatism.
"Socialism" is usually defined as a reform system which displaces freedom in a society with a (supposedly) "more just and equitable distribution" among "the people," using governmental enforcement "on behalf of the poor."
Typically, before the entrance of socialism into a society, free choice exists in some form ---freedom.
Socialism responds to "correct" the "imbalances" supposedly caused by such freedom, calling for government's "equalization" for the "poor," while removing incentives for improvement.
In a simplistic scenario of real estate agents, prior to socialism, different agents initially compete to best serve consumers' needs. Consumers freely choose which agent can best serve their needs. Agents who do not provide correct or good enough service will serve fewer or no consumers. Some agents might be so "bad" that no consumer wants anything to do with them. Conversely, the really excellent agents who best serve consumers' needs will end up serving a larger number of consumers.
In a simplistic scenario of polygamous marriage possibilities, prior to socialism, different men initially compete to best serve women's needs. Women freely choose which man can best serve their needs. Men who do not provide correct or good enough husband-qualities will serve fewer or no wives. Some men might be so "bad" that no woman wants anything to do with them. Conversely, the really excellent men who best serve women's needs will end up serving a larger number of wives.
The agents and men (in these two simplistic scenarios) have great incentive for achieving excellence. Agents improve so as to best serve the needs of consumers. Men improve so as to best serve the needs of wives.
Then enters socialism.
Socialism removes incentive for excellence and ignores the benefits to the consumers and wives. Instead, socialism only pessimistically "sees" the consequences for the "bad" agents and "bad" men "losing out."
It claims that it is "unfair" to "poor" agents that no consumers want anything to do with them while other agents excellently care for many happy consumers. And only socialism could purport that it is "unfair" to "poor" (wifeless) men that no women want anything to do with them while other men excellently care for more than one happy wife.
All conservatives agree: it would clearly be socialism to liberally use government to constitutionally enforce "one agent, one consumer." That very notion of "one for each so that each might have one" is unabashed socialism.
Yet, the Federal Marriage Amendment's wording would do no differently. It would just as liberally use government to constitutionally enforce "one man, one woman."
Therewith are immature conservatives "losing their heads" as "little boys," abandoning conservatism, maligning Biblical polygamists, and mistakenly seeking to constitutionalize marital socialism with the Federal Marriage Amendment.
But mature conservatives are "keeping their heads," opposing all socialism.
Kipling's poem, therefore, encourages all to such maturity.
"If you can keep your head when all about you men are losing theirs," the poem concludes, "you'll be a man, my son."