|
Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 17:23:16 PM EST
|
| One example of the kind of bipartisan cooperation toward needed results that I am hoping this blog will foster on all sorts of issues, is of course the compromise to resolve the marriage debate that I've been pushing for all over the internet and at my own blog EggAndSperm since 2004.
In The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, the extreme libertarians that have been protracting the debate are rejected, while the responsible moderates in each party agree to what they both agree about already: preserving marriage as a man and a woman while giving the same benefits and protections to same-sex couples in the form of Civil Unions.
Been there, tried that, you say? True, and there are many reasons why we haven't been able to settle on Civil Unions already, and courts in California and Massachusetts have ruled they are an unconstitutional solution. The key to the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise that makes it different from a "marriage-in-all-but-name" Civil Union compromise is (of course) the "Egg and Sperm" part that would prohibit attempting to procreate with someone of the same sex using modified genes, and then explicitly defining the Civil Unions as not having a right to procreate together, using the couple's own genes. Also, for good measure, the Compromise would affirm in federal law that all marriages must protect the right of the couple to procreate together, using the couple's own genes. This preserves marriage's essential meaning as well as reserves it for a man and a woman, while federally recognizing uniform state civil unions that provide all the other rights and benefits. |
| John Howard :: The Purple Marriage Compromise |
This is a "purple" marriage compromise because it rejects the libertarian positions that government should not prohibit same-sex procreation or genetic engineering. This position is called "libertarian Transhumanism", and is a view shared by libertarian ideologues in both parties:Libertarian transhumanism is a political ideology synthesizing libertarianism and transhumanism.
Self-identified libertarian transhumanists, such as Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, are advocates of the asserted "right to human enhancement" who argue that the free market is the best guarantor of this right since it produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems. There are some Transhumanists who are not libertarians, who argue that the public will only accept genetic engineering if it is well-regulated and safe, and that a strict libertarian position of no laws and regulations is likely to result in a backlash and a ban. (For example, James Hughes's book "Citizen Cyborg", and his article The Politics of Transhumanism). That may seem more reasonable than a wild-west of unregulated Dr Frankensteins making human beings however they want, but it is still unethical and unsustainable Transhumanism, only with huge intrusive state government agencies and regulations on reproduction and taxpayer-funded entitlements to allow everyone access to possibly mandatory genetic engineering and same-sex conception. The Libertarian Transhumanists can't stand Hughes because he affirms the argument against Transhumanism that it will result in Big Government and cost taxpayers. They like to pretend that all the research into "human enhancement" and other wankery will be their own dime. It's hard to say which is worse, him or the libertarians, but it is clear that they are both terrible, whether it is government regulated or not.
A small percentage of Transhumanists are not Libertarians, but all Libertarians are Transhumanists, or at least side with the Transhumanists against a ban on genetic engineering and same-sex conception. To support a ban, or even some government regulation of genetic engineering of human beings, you have to ditch libertarian ideology.
This is how by rejecting irresponsible Libertarians, we can forge a "Purple" compromise, a lasting, responsible compromise. |
|
|
