Indian River County, Florida – and Sebastian River High School, in particular – have been in the national news this week because of a story that started small and then went viral. The story is about an 18-year girl allegedly having sexual relations with a 15-year old female classmate.
As an evangelical Christian, an ordained minister and a strong social conservative, my position on this issue may surprise you.
I do not think the 18-year old senior in question should be prosecuted.
Yes, I know that the law states that an 18-year old is considered an adult and individuals under the age of 16 cannot give legal consent to having sex. But unless I am misinterpreting that law, it was written to protect children from predatory adults – not to shield two classmates from each other simply because one happened to turn 18 and the other is an underclassman.
…I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults—I’m not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn’t mention the word marriage, then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is. We just don’t have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don’t we not define them by marriage? Why don’t we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don’t have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the southeastern part of the country, we don’t have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral.”
Don’t just react; think about it for a moment.
For most of human history, “marriage” was strictly a property contract with a religious twist. Women were property during this period, and the exchange of land/title/dowries for the bride was standard procedure. Then, in mid-19th century, American common-law marriages started to decline as states transitioned to marriage licenses. These licenses were issued primarily for some “good” public policy reasons (preventing polygamy) but also a few very objectively awful reasons (preventing interracial marriages in certain regions of the country).
The relevant question: though we’re obviously better off now that women aren’t property, has marriage itself been any healthier for having transformed from a contractual relationship to one regulate by way of a license? Not according to all available indicators…
My gut reaction? I’ll tell you what I told my Facebook friends…
The substance of the gay marriage issue is one thing. The ignorance and hypocrisy displayed by many of you people is another. Why aren’t you equally concerned about government’s intrusions into your wallet? Email box? Gun rack? Doctor’s office? Or dare I say, an unborn child’s skull? Our constitutional rights continue to erode on a daily basis in a thousand significant ways. So why do you believe that the boudoir is the only place where government needs to butt out?
During the 2012 campaign, Save Jerseyans, we observed Democratic operatives expertly developing divisive stories and messages surrounding social issues to discredit Mitt Romney and his leadership in his campaign for the White House. And it worked.
The Obama Campaign was very successful in capitalizing on various gaffes made by Romney, turning any little thing he said into a campaign ad, and moreover, a referendum on the entire GOP which led to an epic defeat and a political “autopsy report” released by the Republican National Committee last week.
The New Jersey gubernatorial race is a little different, but Garden State Democrats hope voters here are just as easily moved. In your state news cycle we have seen, virtually out of nowhere, a major push to ban “Gay Conversion Therapy” as a part of the state’s larger anti-bullying campaign. This bill is sponsored by Assemblyman Tim Eustace (D-38), himself an openly gay politician running for reelection in one of the more competitive legislation districts, one which both state parties consider winnable this fall.
Back in 2004, Save Jerseyans, your Blogger-in-Chief was an undergraduate at Washington, D.C.’s Catholic University of America when a couple other friends and I interned at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
It was an amazing experience for a wide-eyed young conservative nerd to interact with so many distinguished politicians, media personalities and career activists in one place.
It was also a very different time in the Republican Party, and I discovered a healthy level of intellectual diversity on display from the right-of-center CPAC attendees. Libertarians, neocons, paleocons, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives from across the country mixed, drank, shared cabs, and downed hot dogs while discussing equally hot races in long book signing queques.
The common thread among the CPAC patrons? A healthy disdain for large, active, expensive and intrusive federal governance.
We all had slightly different ideas regarding what that meant, but this fundamentally united conservative coalition helped defeat a far-left Democrat, John Kerry, just eight months later. I worked with many of the same folks on the ground in Ohio for President Bush! And while some at CPAC ’04 weren’t thrilled with the incumbent Republican’s spending habits or Patriot Act, you need to remember it was happening trillions of dollars ago, well before Barack Obama ran up more debt in his first 1 1/2 years in office than President Bush accrued in eight full years.
Mr. LaSalvia and I discussed the upcoming election, key races, and the interesting challenges associated with advocating for Republican principles/candidates as a gay conservative/libertarian in an era when gay marriage is a topic of much debate.