Apologies are owed to the reader by the author for taking this long to reach the chapter about sex. But the principled conservative must address sex, because there must be guiding principles as to how and when public policy should have anything to do or say about what goes on in peoples‟ bedrooms or other private places where private parts meet. Private is the operative word here, no pun intended. The principle is that sex is a private matter and if no one is harmed and consensual adults are involved, there is no role for government and no public policy issues over which to grapple (or grope).
However, we do believe that stable families, via marriage and the raising of healthy and happy children, are fundamental to the future of our society. That does not mean the principled conservative views what goes in a marriage as a subject for government interference, or that marriages are stuck in time in terms of their functionality. In looking for self-improvement and pragmatism, surely the best time-tested values of marriage should carry forward, while some of the negatives can be jettisoned. For example, expectations of married women being subordinate and having all the child-rearing responsibilities and limited employment opportunities are a relic of the past. But, we also reject those who ignore human nature and some of the fundamental differences between the sexes. Women generally are better nurturers of families and relationships, while men are generally physical task-oriented and suited to heavy lifting (taking out the trash and snow shoveling come to mind). Of course any parent sees this when observing that girls tend to play more with dolls and boys with trucks. No amount of exposure to radical feminist ideology is going to change human nature. All roles in a marriage need not to be equally assumed in order to be fair to both spouses; the key is reaching mutual agreement.
We do have a sense that marriage and relationships in general are under assault in a society that seems to focus on sex and physical attraction above all else. Admittedly, this is a cultural change not emanating from any law or government decision. Whether one wants to blame it on the sexual revolution, Hugh Hefner, or rock and roll, the point is that we live in this type of society. But didn‟t we just admit this is not an area of government involvement? Yes, but that does not mean that, as a society, we cannot promote expectations, proffer judgments, and bring back shame. And not just for adulterers. We also reject the hedonistic lifestyle as bad for America because who can ever be a stable partner, parent, etc. while pursuing a “if it feels good do it” lifestyle?
Certainly not the many Hollywood celebrities who are great at physical attraction (and checking into and out of rehab) but often terrible at sustaining an adult relationship. But the promotion of this morality must come from the people, not the government. For example, the debate over providing condoms to teens because “they‟re going to have sex anyway,” versus promoting teen abstinence, should be outside of any government role. We have no problem with a religious group running an advertisement promoting abstinence. Nor do we have a problem with a condom company running an ad promoting their product. Again, this is what legitimate public debate under the First Amendment is all about.
Ah, but the astute reader will recall that didn‟t we earlier proclaim that stable two-parent families are shown again and again in studies to be essential to child welfare and opportunity for success in life. So, shouldn‟t the government spend billions in messaging to encourage you to get in a stable relationship and raise good kids?
Sounds enticing, but here the principle of freedom and the appropriate role of government comes into play.
Let‟s put it this way: families are so important that they are the last place we want the government coming up with “five year plans and new deals” (to quote Creedence Clearwater Revival). The principled conservative simply wants government to stay out of being a family counselor, and let families and yes, religions, nurture socially acceptable practices for sexuality and relationships. This also does not mean that government should suppress the free speech of the hedonists. Let them state their case. Nor does it mean we cannot appreciate physical beauty. Humans have celebrated the female figure from ancient Greece to the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. We are not aesthetic hermits. It is natural for people to want to be attractive, dress attractively, and be attracted to others who do so. We rightly condemn radical Islamists who would cover women from head to toe. Here we seek common cause with Victoria‟s Secret! But this is a far cry from condoning wide-spread promiscuity and fractured relationships.
But now that we have delved into the area of sexuality, it is acknowledged that the committed leftist almost immediately attacks conservatives as being “anti-gay.” As described below, this is not only inaccurate but almost irrelevant to the principled conservative, who believes that ethics and morality comes from family and very close friends—not the government and not from an ethics class in college or business school. People should have the freedom to believe and do what they will in regards to sex. Remember that the principled conservative accepts human nature as it is—and sex is a basic human need like eating and going to the bathroom. It would be strange to have any policy argument in favor of starvation or against indoor plumbing. It is accepted as a given that eating to sustain health and having a nice warm toilet are both acceptable things. The principled conservative would say that in general, public policy should be the same in regards to sex between consenting adults. If you ever hear a political debate over whether U.S. citizens are having too much or not enough sex, the principled conservative should fling a shoe at the TV or computer screen. If the Census Bureau ever wants to ask the question “are you getting enough sex?” the principled conservative‟s response should be that this is a private matter and it‟s none of the government‟s damn business.
But the simple “sex is a private matter” principle does hit a dilemma when sexuality becomes a lifestyle and a political movement. For example, there does not appear to be any coalition to promote the civil rights of middle-aged heterosexual men who fantasize about NFL cheerleaders and like to dine at Hooters. However, there are many organizations that promote “civil rights” for gays and lesbians. Some organizations also actively promote the gay/lesbian lifestyle, as if society were in a recruiting battle for one team or the other, to paraphrase Seinfeld. Think about this for a minute. If sex is a private matter, why should anyone from child to senior citizen be receiving brochures about these matters? It is recognized that conservatives are often criticized for intolerance, insensitivity, and hypocrisy in this area, but the principled conservative would remind all concerned that consistency and fairness are the goal. Yes we recognize that some will be offended by a gay pride parade in San Francisco with half-naked men on a float, but what about young girls flashing their breasts for beads during Mardi Gras in New Orleans? The principled conservative recognizes that if one is fair game, why not the other?
However, before we jump on the parade float, let‟s acknowledge some difficult questions. The principled conservative is both protective of individual privacy but also rightly concerned about the tone and tenor of American culture. We are concerned about the over-emphasis on sex and the impact of the sexual revolution that unfortunately seems to place the physical act on a higher plane than an actual mature emotional relationship. And what we would consider private matters are often openly displayed in public. Back to the simulated man-on-man sex acts on a float or college girls gone wild in New Orleans. Do we simply allow this so long as it doesn‟t cross the legal (ill-defined) line of obscenity, or recommend government restrictions? This is a tough call. But think about this—if one can get fined for public nudity and indecent exposure by urinating in public, what harm would it do to allow localities to issue misdemeanor fines for a range of behaviors considered by a reasonable person to be indecent? That is probably the best we can do here, but it does mean that communities who strongly believe in sex and sexuality as a private matter can fine those who go outside the line. And reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner of overt sexual displays are acceptable. Just as zoning laws can prevent strip clubs from operating next to elementary schools, the same can be said for leather bound gay-pride displays or the college coeds at Mardi Gras. You can limit the location. And while the government does not say this, friends, family, etc. can certainly teach the lesson to keep it inside. We don‟t want to see heterosexuals, gays or lesbians slobbering over each other in public, any more than we want to see bowel movements in public. These are private matters and it‟s time society pushed them back inside where they belong.
But what of those with a religious conviction or belief against gays and lesbians and/or the gay or lesbian sex act? This is certainly a cause for tension because here the belief in sex as a private matter comes into conflict with religious beliefs which every American should be free to hold (so long as those beliefs are not advocating the forcible overthrow of the government, murder, terrorism, etc.). So how is the principled conservative to resolve the matter? Is a person‟s sexuality the same immutable characteristic as race, gender or hair color, that cannot change (well, absent surgery or hair coloring)? We would rightly call anyone a bigot who dislikes or hates a person solely because of such a characteristic. It also does not resolve the matter to say that while I might personally find the lifestyle and behavior offensive, some of my best friends are gay or lesbian. That is condescending and probably would not be something you would be comfortable repeating in front of your gay or lesbian friend(s).
Let‟s put aside the rather easy issue of the rampantly promiscuous person, be it straight or gay. We can be intolerant of the chronically unfaithful, whether a womanizer or “manizer,” because (absent perhaps some actual clinical condition) it is clearly a choice not predetermined by genetics. If someone disapproves of me or dislikes certain lifestyle choices that I choose, then I cannot fairly call them discriminatory. My neighbor may not like that I drive too fast through the neighborhood, that I date many attractive but much younger women, that I drink beer and pass out in my back yard, etc. These are all personal choices which others can rightly criticize. Obviously my choices might be in violation of the law in some cases, whereas in others it will never get beyond my neighbor looking out the window at me and yelling. As noted, in promoting positive behaviors like monogamy, marriage, not having children out of wedlock, etc. it is perfectly fine to bring back the traditional societal attitude of shame or stigma: “Many people confuse stigma and prejudice, but the two are very different…Stigma…means blaming a single person for his or her immoral, dishonorable, or improper conduct.”49
Back to more difficult question of whether being gay or lesbian is a choice or an inherent trait. If sexual preference is not really a choice, but immutable, genetic or unchangeable and part of one‟s nature or essence, so long as that characteristic is not harmful to others, how can my neighbor possibly criticize it without being narrow-minded or bigoted? For my neighbor to say that the bald guy down the street is bad for the neighborhood would be strange and rightly condemned. So how does the principled conservative view being gay—a choice or genetic? Unlike the choice of whether there is a God, this is a decision that we really do need an answer to in the present and is also one that might even be answered scientifically in our lifetimes. Because the principled conservative errs on the side of human freedom and less government interference in private lives, at present and until shown otherwise the principled conservative should conclude this is genetic versus simply a lifestyle choice. While there is no definitive science at this point to say so with 100 percent certainly, let‟s say it‟s a pretty good hunch. Consider human experience throughout history. Long before there were gay-straight alliance support groups in high schools, there have been gays and lesbians in all types of societies and at all socio-economic levels. When something happens that consistently over time, it is difficult to conceive it was a result of a concerted recruiting campaign to join the other team. The genetic or “hard-wired in the brain”
explanation also better explains why one man fantasizes about the physical charms of, say, Catherine Zeta-Jones, while another man fantasizes about Nathan Lane. And this results in a position of non-interference in private decisions. One also has to ask in the greater societal context, are two gay people in a monogamous relationship a worse threat to society than sexually promiscuous heterosexuals? The principled conservative would say of course not. Further, in a free and tolerant America, these principled conservative views are in stark contrast to those societies which would clearly condemn gays and discriminate immensely—the totalitarian/terrorist Islamic states and their adherents in free societies. The best place for a gay or lesbian to live is in a democratic republic such as America protected by the rule of law and conservative principles of privacy that the government will not interfere in decisions between consensual adults.50
The politically astute person may well comment that we just alienated a whole bunch of politically conservative Christians who usually vote Republican and would view a Gay Pride parade in San Francisco as yet another example of America going to hell in a hand basket a la Sodom and Gomorrah. But the principled conservative would respond in two ways. First, we take humans as they are and recognize human imperfection. As long as they don‟t hurt others, a person‟s sexual behavior should be put in perspective that there are plenty of sinners in society who commit far greater sins than this—child abuse, murder, and rape come to mind. Second and more importantly, to condemn someone for being gay, which we accept to be a genetic characteristic, is not acceptable.
Does this mean that the denial of marriage is discrimination against gays and lesbians that should be remedied by legislative or judicial change—or constitutional amendment to either allow or not allow it in order to remove all doubt? This issue of course has become the litmus test of gay rights advocacy groups as to whether you are with us or against us. Is this really THE civil rights issues for gays and lesbians in a similar manner to voting rights for blacks? Before answering this question, let us understand the parameters being used. We are not analyzing what the Founding Fathers would do (it is unlikely they would view this as guaranteed under the Constitution), or whether or not marriage is as fundamental a right as voting or owning property. Principles are to help guide our decisions, not to answer every nuance of public policy. The principle is privacy and individual freedom and choice. When looked at in this perspective, on principle who really gives a flying flip if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex? It has absolutely no impact on heterosexual marriage. It is a decision between two consenting adults. So, from a starting point, the principled conservative should be skeptical about arguments against gay and lesbian marriage. Then the question can turn as to whether this should be determined through the legislative process or determined by the judiciary as an ever-expanding right via a flexible, living Constitution. Given that so many marriages end in divorce and the miniscule impact that being married has on one‟s job prospects or other chances for success in life, the principled conservative should also start from the premise of “show me why this cannot simply be decided in the legislative process since this is bestowing an additional privilege.” It does not seem to be interfering with a fundamental right. Remember, this is a book about principles, not about reaching the correct or right outcome on every public policy debate. This is a contentious matter where two principled conservatives might reach a different policy conclusion. But at least they would be starting their analysis from the proper point. And given that we also want to promote more lasting marriages and family as being good for society, it would be very compelling if proponents can demonstrate that more people will be married and adopt children as a result of such laws. Since over the past 25
years roughly half of all marriages end in divorce,51 society would seem to have no better place to go than up.
Can the principled conservative be “pro family” without being anti-gay? Yes, because family is a different issue altogether and the decision to have a family and raise children is clearly a choice. And this is one that can be encouraged by all sorts of public and private activities because we can conclude that a family is a healthy thing that is good for society. Adoption should be promoted. Stable two-parent families (regardless of gender) are critical. It is difficult for any single parent, no matter how committed, to raise a child. As noted, studies consistently show that children of single parents face much greater obstacles to success. And remember the arguments against promiscuity? The principled conservative claims that monogamy is good, it is a choice, and it‟s good for reasons beyond fighting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. We can also promote social shame or stigma, as mentioned above. But all of this does not mean the government is telling you how to live your life. We are not asking the government to issue public service announcements reminding you that it‟s important to start a family plus mow your lawn regularly. It is up to religions, charities, associations, and other social organizations to do good work in the area, and preach the gospel of stable families and lasting marriages.
Government policies, especially tax law, can be supportive, but expecting government to have much of a role in social ethics and family patterns is foolish. Government policies should not penalize marriage, but clearly assumptions about government policies promoting good behavior have proven wrong time and time again. For example, the committed social engineer will usually say the cliché that if we just handed out more condoms and had more sex education in school, there would be fewer teenage pregnancies and unwed mothers. We have done so for years, and it does not make a difference.52 Naturally, it‟s because such choices are based on character and the home environment. Yes, if only positive social behavior could be accomplished by a poster or television commercials saying “here, do this, it‟s good for you.” The principled conservative is guided by realism and pragmatism versus pursuing the same bad public policy again and again and expecting a different result.