Some pro-life and defense of marriage leaders support the Romney/Ryan ticket. If you ask them about Paul Ryan, they’ll tell you that he’s the most positive reason to vote for the GOP Presidential ticket (as distinct from voting against Obama.) They’ll more than hint that he’ll be an effective voice for these causes in a Romney Administration.
I’ve written before about my lack of confidence in Ryan as a champion of moral principle. I admit that I find it impossible to get past his proven admiration for the infamous atheist Ayn Rand, even if we assume that its mostly confined to her advocacy of capitalism. Apparently he believes that it’s best to defend capitalism on the basis of an understanding of human nature that makes no reference to God. Yet they say he’s a devout follower of Jesus Christ. Go figure.
There’s a problem with pretending that, despite this problematic background, Ryan will be an effective, articulate champion of the moral perspective essential to the survival of American liberty. Ryan himself gave us an illustration of the problem just a few days ago. In an interview with an NBC affiliate in West Palm Beach Ryan said:
I talked to a lot of good friends of mine who are combat leaders in the theater, and they just didn’t think the timing of this was right to do this when our troops were in the middle of harm’s way in combat,” said Ryan. “Now that it’s done, we should not reverse it. I think that would be a step in the wrong direction because people have already disclosed themselves.”
“I think this issue is past us. It’s done. And I think we need to move on…
After reading this I commented (on Twitter): “Ryan: Reversing Obama on gays in the military=”step in the wrong direction.” So Obama’s decision=the right direction?” I believe the logic of that remark is ironclad. But that means that it’s fair to say that Paul Ryan believes Obama’s decision to command the acceptance of open homosexuality in the military was a step in the right direction. I’ll bet the self-pro-claimed pro-life defense of marriage leaders touting Ryan aren’t headlining that fact as they stump up votes for the Romney/Ryan ticket.
Truman ordered desegregation of the military in 1948 (E.O. 9981), just two years before I was born. Though it took some time to implement, his order made acceptance of segregation part of the standing orders of the U.S. military. It was, of course, the harbinger of racial desegregation throughout American society, which was the intention.
The intention of Obama’s order is again to make the military the vanguard for the enforced acceptance of homosexuality throughout American society. When Ryan says that this is a step in the right direction, he is quietly admitting that he and Mitt Romney share Obama’s intention. Of course, if asked Ryan will proclaim his respect for the God endowed natural family; say that he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, and in general pay lip-service to the defense of marriage. But doesn’t his embrace of Obama’s agenda for homosexuality in the military reveal that lip-service as a cynical vote-getting ploy?
You won’t see the point of that question if you’ve never thought through the basis in moral and political principle for standing against abortion and homosexual marriage. On this blog I have several times explored the thinking involved (Legalizing homosexual marriage impairs unalienable right, The Annihilation of Marriage- Part one, The Annihilation of marriage-Part II). Apparently, Paul Ryan has never done so. Otherwise he would realize that imposing acceptance of homosexuality by force of law involves abandoning the natural law basis for justice. It requires validating the notion that homosexuals have a right to their behavior that others are obliged to respect (even though there is no natural law basis for that claim of right.)
But this notion of an equal right to homosexual behavior is precisely what would logically forbid the government to withhold from homosexual relationships any legal status or privilege accorded to other sexual relationships. By agreeing that Obama is on the right path, therefore, Ryan abandons the moral and political basis for withholding from homosexual couples the title and privileges of marriage to which others lay proper claim as a matter of God-endowed right.
As a Roman Catholic Paul Ryan should be well aware of the relationship between the natural law and God-endowed natural right. If so, does his agreement with Obama’s order forcing military personnel to accept homosexual behavior mean that he does not apply natural law reasoning to his political decisions? If he does not apply natural law reasoning to political decisions, does he reject the Declaration of Independence, which appeals to “the laws of nature and of natures God” as the basis for America’s right of self-government? If he rejects the Declaration, does he also give up the claim of unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, the Declaration validates? Finally, if he gives up the claim of unalienable rights, what is the political basis of the demand he claims to support, the demand that the unalienable right to life of all humans be secured by law and government as part of the purpose for which, as the Declaration says, all governments are instituted?
If this is an example of Paul Ryan’s competence as a pro-life advocate and defender of the God-endowed natural family, does it inspire confidence or support? His statement about Obama’s decision on gays in the military actually demolishes the logical foundations for the pro-life, pro-family movement as a political cause. Doesn’t this suggest that he is ill equipped to be an influence for good in a Romney administration? In fact, he may be incompetent even to avoid being used to mask the pursuit of a moral agenda mortally hostile to the principles of justice which are the foundation of America’s constitutional self-government.