Sometimes the ‘wingnuts’ have the right approach

This letter is in response to the singular “Valley Voices” column by Charles D. Hayes, “Wingnuts of America, I salute you.” I do not require much of the people I hang out with, except that they are not boring. Charles appears to be an erudite individual and probably a fun guy. I believe he is not boring.

From Charles’ column, it appears that he is proficient at setting up straw men to rhetorically slay. In addition, he apparently follows the time-honored debate tactic of using ridicule, exaggeration, demagoguery and character assassination when he does not have enough logic and facts. He ridicules many caricatures of populist ideas with silly remarks, but at least two of them are worth a response.

First, he mentions the mother’s “right” to choose to kill her unborn child. The debate over permissive abortion is similar to that of the issue of slavery 150 years ago. Then, the pro-slavery people claimed that it was a discussion over what one should be able to do with their own property (i.e. the slave then — a developing child now). If you did not “like” slavery (abortion now), then don’t have one.

Opponents of slavery, similar to pro-life people today, were told to “mind their own business.” It was also a “states’ rights” or federalism issue. If your state wanted to be able to own and kill slaves (or babies), so be it. Like the pro-abortion advocates of today, the pro-slavery folks followed the time-honored strategy of all tyrants in defining their intended victims as subhuman in such a way as to make it possible to rule that these persons had no human rights. Those who deny that humans come from their mothers’ womb must believe the stork or the Tooth Fairy brings them. They certainly did not take high school biology.

Most of the abortion advocates today appear to think their opposition, “wingnuts like me,” as trying to impose their morals on others. They fail to see this issue as the pre-eminent human rights battle of today. Abortion providers, like the slave owners of yesteryear, are also driven by a profit motive and accept that sacrificing a child is worth it to protect a lifestyle.

Second, concerning same-sex marriage, Mr. Hayes again misses the main policy question: what is marriage? The seminal issue here is whether or not the civil government has the prerogative of defining which sexual relationships are certified as “marriage,” or if marriage is in fact a reality that existed prior to our giving it a legal definition.

In most cultures of the world, marriage is viewed as the conjugal, life-giving union of a man and a woman with its intrinsic connection to bearing and raising children. While many other sexual unions are possible, including homosexual unions, only one comprehensive interpersonal union between one man and one woman is recognized as being a state-approved marriage. These traditional standards have been with us for a couple of millennia. The U.S. federal government went through this in the late 19th century when Congress would not allow Utah to enter the Union until it abandoned polygamy.

I am sure that Mr. Hayes, like me, would have a tougher time giving the legal recognition of marriage to temporary, polygamous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous or bestial unions. We are hearing more frequently now the voices of advocates who believe that it is entirely consistent to allow some these “other loving relationships” to be legally and morally the equivalent of traditional marriage. Certainly Mr. Hayes must struggle with these inconsistencies. I do.

Most of us “wing nuts” have a predisposition toward personal freedom and liberty. We are largely silent about people having sex with other consulting, unmarried adults. Just don’t ask us to give it the “good housekeeping” seal of approval, i.e. state recognized marriage, and don’t you dare mess with any children.

I do hope Mr. Hayes keeps active in the public policy discussion. We need his voice, but I encourage him to not be so supercilious and to take on real enemies rather than the caricatures of his own making. I will be delighted to march shoulder to shoulder with him in the profound issues facing our state.

Sen. Fred Dyson represents Eagle River and parts of the Mat-Su Borough.