The Perils Of Marriage And The Slippery Slope Argument As A Logical Necessity

Two different conceptions of marriage have arisen lately originating from two conflicting premises over which the debate on same-sex marriage rages. We analyze this with respect to the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.

The first premise holds that the marital relationship is presumed to be one that is, basically, sexual in nature and linked to biology and procreation. This presumption is well entrenched in Western culture and its history, as well as in the histories and cultures of other civilizations. The legal understanding of the marital relationship, then, has been based upon this cultural understanding, which in turn has drawn upon the scientific understanding of the sexual relationship between men and women as it concerns their biological roles and procreation. That is why marriage law, as well as a good many other laws, have never treated the sexes as equal, because scientifically speaking, they are not.¹

This position under Equal Protection analysis necessarily precludes the equality of same-sex couples to opposite-sex couples, however, for the following reason: Insofar as marriage is an individual right that permits one individual to marry another, then in order for same-sex couples in a romantic, sexual relationship to be equal or similarly situated to opposite-sex couples in that same relationship, it would be necessary that men and women in their romantic, sexual relationships be sexually equal and similarly situated to each other. But they are not. The biological roles, the functions they serve, and the situations of men and women are distinct, different and not equal. Thus, insofar as marriage presumes a sexual relationship, and men and women in a sexual relationship are not equal to each other, then same-sex couples cannot be equal to opposite-sex couples, and thus, cannot not pretend to marital equality under the Equal Protection clause.

In order to establish equality between the sexes would require another basis than the romantic, sexual relationship, and same-sex marriage advocates have seized upon the abstract principle of "equality before the law" to do this.

However, because of the sexual inequality of men and women, and coupled with the necessity to establish legal equality between them in order to validly argue under the Equal Protection clause the eligibility of a person to marry a same-sex partner, the argument premised on "equality before the law" must exclude gender and the sexual relationship from any presumption about the marital relationship. It has to assert, instead, that marriage is merely a civil contract covering two people in a domestic relationship. That is, it turns marriage into "just any, old, ordinary contract", whose only purpose might be to allow married couples to enjoy the rights, privileges and benefits of being married couples, as some have asserted,

But this stratagem of denaturing marriage of its presumptively sexual nature by eliminating any considerations of sex and gender,  rendering romantic, sexual relationships irrelevant, and considering only the civil status of persons,  creates a dilemma that is made evident with this question:

What is so special about couples in a non-sexual relationship that they should be entitled to a special legal status conferring so many rights, benefits and privileges?

This question has no good answer except one: Nothing!²

What are the implications for the future of marriage if it is based on the second premise? Evidently, it will make polygamy and intra-family marriage much more likely, because it turns out that there is nothing any more special about couples in a non-sexual relationship than there is for three or more people or close family members in a similar, non-sexual relationship that any of these should be entitled to a special legal status conferring its many rights and privileges. So, if couples are arbitrarily accorded the right to marry for no special reason at all, then under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, other relationships must be entitled to this same right on the same basis that they, too, are nothing special at all.³

In summary, a legal understanding of the marital relationship that excludes gender and sex in order to assert the equality of the sexes, such that it must deny any presumption of a romantic and sexual nature to the marital relationship, precludes a scientifically based understanding of the marital relationship that necessarily does include gender and sex, and recognizes the inequality of the sexes. And conversely, a scientifically based understanding of the marital relationship that must necessarily include gender and sex, and recognizes the inequality of the sexes, precludes any legal understanding that excludes gender and sex, and asserts the equality of the sexes in order to achieve the goal of establishing equality among same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

In a nutshell, the marital relationship based on the scientific understanding of the sexual relationship, and the legal understanding of marriage equality, are mutually exclusive and incompatible, and can coexist only if logic and reason are discarded.

The situation, then, is that we either retain the presumption of the sexual nature of the marital relationship, in which case marriage remains exclusively to opposite-sex couples, or else we eliminate that presumption in order to establish legal equality between men and women in order that persons might acquire a legitimate right to marry a same-sex partner. But desexualizing marriage by eliminating that presumption will, also, make marriage a right to a much broader class of human relationships, including intra-family relationships and polygamous or polyamorous ones. Or, this could be the basis of eliminating civil marriage altogether. Once marriage is no longer linked to the sexual relationship and procreation, it should logically lose its governmental interest.

That’s it. It’s either one of those three rational alternatives, or discarding reason and logic altogether.

******  Footnotes: *********

¹ The presumptively sexual nature of the marital relationship is, also, the basis for excluding persons of close parentage from marriage, as well as persons who have not yet reached the age of sexual maturity, that is, adulthood

² To invoke the romantic natures of the relationships of same-sex and opposite-sex couples when comparing their situations, and how these might be similar or equal, would provoke an inquiry into the nature and role of gender and sex, such that a contradiction arises when gender and sex must first be knowingly eliminated in order to establish the legal equality between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, then later on, must be conjured up when convenient, in order to argue for the equality or similarity of their respective romantic relationships. It is this sort of disdain for logic and reason that has been the pattern of late, and which has marked all of the court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage.

³ This argument is a fallacy, of course, and intended facetiously to mock the many vapid fallacies that pollute the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.

Marriage Isn't The Fundamental Right You Think It Is

We have all heard that marriage is a fundamental right. No government can stop two persons from "marrying" each other. However, government licensing of civil marriage IS NOT a fundamental right when no license is required to exercise that fundamental right, which, in this day and age, is the case. What is this fundamental right to marry? Historically, in our our culture and civilization, it has been understood, basically, as the right of a man and a woman to live together legally in a sexual relationship and have children. The US Supreme Court has affirmed this principle in all cases concerning marriage. This has been extended in some jurisdictions to include most any persons irrespective of gender.

As a marriage license is no longer required to exercise the fundamental right to live together legally in a sexual relationship and have children, then civil marriage, which is a statutory scheme conferring special governmental rights, privileges and legal conveniences – and another animal entirely –  is entirely at the state's option. No state is obligated to license and provide the statutory scheme that is civil marriage, as these neither permit nor deny the fundamental right of persons to live together legally in a sexual relationship.  To argue that the fundamental right of marriage imposes an obligation on the states to license and provide a statutory scheme that legally recognizes and approves the sexual and romantic relationships of persons in a committed relationship is an evident contradiction.

So, marriage in the sense of persons living together legally in a sexual relationship and having children must be understood to be the real fundamental right of marriage, and not the right to a license and a statutory scheme. As licensing of this fundamental right is no longer necessary to provide legality, nor an access, nor a barrier to its exercise, providing a license to civil marriage and its incidences cannot be interpreted to be an obligation on the states. If a state does exercise the option to license people's sexual or romantic relationships, then it is the state that decides, within the constraints of the state and federal constitutions, the terms and conditions of licensing. 

To see another way of why obtaining a license to civil marriage and the rights and privileges this procures is not a fundamental right, let’s take these texts from Loving v. Virginia and Skinner v. Oklahoma and substitute in the place of "marry" or "marriage" the phrase "[obtain or obtaining] special governmental rights, privileges and legal conveniences", which is the essence of civil marriage today. One should quickly see how preposterous this conception of  the fundamental right to marry really is:

"The freedom to [obtain special governmental rights, privileges and legal conveniences] has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"[Special governmental rights, privileges and legal conveniences] is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Taking a citation from the recent Wisconsin ruling, we get this:

Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 384 (“[The] right to [obtain special governmental rights, privileges and legal conveniences] is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”) 

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-640 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of  [obtaining special governmental rights, privileges and legal conveniences] and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”) 

Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 (referring to [special governmental rights, privileges and legal conveniences] as “fundamental freedom”)

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (right to [obtain special governmental rights, privileges and legal conveniences] is “central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause”)

 In Loving, 388 U.S. at 12,[T]he Court went so far as to say that [special governmental rights, privileges and legal conveniences] is “one of the basic civil rights of man." 

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888) ([special governmental rights, privileges and legal conveniences] [are] “the foundation of the family.”) 

This is utterly preposterous and laughably so! But if one were to substitute something of the order of "living together in a sexual relationship and founding a family" in place of "marriage" or "marry", then there would be no absurdity whatsoever. Let's try that:

"[living together in a sexual relationship and founding a family] is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

This makes sense; the others do not.

Denying a license to civil marriage is not an infringement of the fundamental right to marry when the exercise of this fundamental right does not require a license in the first place. 

Why Polygamy Is Inevitable If Same-Sex Marriage Becomes The Law Of The Land

Sometime after same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, polygamy will inevitably follow. Why? Because there will be no one to oppose it. There will not be the organized opposition from conservative organizations, churches, civic groups, legislators and pundits rising up to lobby for constitutional amendments or legislative measures seeking to preserve the historic tradition of marriage, because there will be no historic tradition of marriage left to defend. And they will not be joining with gays to defend the gay definition of marriage for all the evident reasons, and also, because gays won't be doing this anyway as there is really no deep cultural or historical attachment to what will be a veritable domestic partnership that is marriage in name only.

After the polygamists, there will be others, perhaps persons of close parentage, perhaps polyamorists. And there will be no one to oppose them. 

The Inequality of Sexual Relationships: Not All Couples Are Equal

The arguments underlying the recent court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage have all been similarly based on certain premises and understandings evident and implied. The underlying understanding of marriage throughout all civilizations and cultures across the ages is that the marital relationship arises from, and is based on, nature, biology, the natural sexual roles of the two sexes and procreation. 

A basic premise of the same-sex marriage argument relies on abstractions of number and gender, making same-sex couples equal to opposite-sex couples. This would be a valid premise, however, only if the genders, male and female, were sexually equal to each other. But they are not: women get pregnant and bear children; men do not. Men sire children; women do not. Each gender has different and distinct sexual roles and biological functions. Thus, the premise is absurd and the entire argument fails right from the outset due to that fact.

Equality between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples can be achieved only if the age-old understanding of marriage cited above is redefined and replaced with another understanding, as it is currently being done: that of a state sanctioned, civil contract pertaining to a domestic relationship. The basis of nature, biology, sex and procreation are eliminated from this understanding. 

So, the understanding of marriage pertains either to nature, biology and sex, in which case same-sex couples are not equal to opposite-sex couples, insofar as men and women are not sexually equal to each other; or, that men and women are equal to each other as established by statute and political will, but then, marriage could not pertain to nature, biology and sex where the sexes are unequal. The idea of the equality of same-sex couples to opposite-sex couples essentially redefines sex out of the marital relationship.

The implications of eliminating biology and sex from the marital relationship go beyond same-sex marriage, as the state would no longer have any legitimate reason to deny the right of marriage to polygamous unions or the unions of person of close parentage and other domestic relationships currently denied marriage. Marriage under that circumstance would make it, effectively, a domestic partnership that should be available to all domestic relationships, since it could not be presumed that the relationships, therein, will have the same consequences as the sexual relationship between men and women.

Judges, who are only human, are not necessarily far-sighted or attuned to the logical and material implications of their rulings. A dose of humility is called for, and judges should have an attitude of humility before they overturn millennia of human understanding and tradition.

The Implications of New York “Marriage"

So, New York has effectively eliminated marriage. Same-sex “marriage” has now created a breach in the institutional wall, a vulnerability than can be exploited to allow other domestic relationships to acquire the status of “marriage” as well. The implication of this is that, in principle, any domestic relationship among adults must have the same, equal entitlement to “marriage” as any other domestic relationship. New York style “marriage” must no longer be limited even by parentage or association. Why? Because marriage has been based historically and legally only on the one particular relationship in nature that directly implicates biology and sexual reproduction. This is the sexual relationship that is possible only between a man and a woman.

New York and other “same-sex marriage” states, by offering legal status within the existing institution to relationships that are not based on or related to biology and sexual reproduction (i.e., non-sexual relationships), have chosen to ignore this basis. But, then, because of constitutional constraints, they are now in the position of having effectively excluded themselves from the option of ever assuming that the nature of the conjugal relationship may, indeed, be sexually reproductive. Why? Because, within the context of the statutory scheme that is marriage, it cannot be legally assumed without contravening US constitutional law, that, under the same circumstances, the conjugal relationship is based both on the relationship that directly implicates biology and sexual reproduction and, also, that it does not. It will have to be either one or the other. The basis of these state’s “marriage” statutes cannot be both without running afoul of federal constitutional protections.

The reason for this is because discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal in the US, and to even assume that the nature of the relationship where it concerns some couples is sexually reproductive (for example, where it concerns opposite-sex couples), but it is not where it concerns some other couples (e.g., same-sex couples), can only be achieved by impermissible classifications. It would require observing and taking into account the gender composition of couples, and in “same-sex marriage” states, the state must be blind to gender. Thus, to uphold the principle of equality and the rule of law, the sexual genders of domestic partners must not be taken into account, and neither must any assumptions about the nature of their relationship be permitted. “Same-sex marriage” states may only assume that the relationship between persons wanting to marry is a consensual, domestic one, but they may not be permitted to assume that it is one related to biology and reproduction. All adults in a domestic situation, then, who desire the legal status of “marriage” must have that entitlement as these states would have no conceivably important or legitimate governmental interest to exclude any of them.

Furthermore, to continue limiting “marriage” only to domestic relationships when these constitute an association of two persons, and to exclude those domestic relationships that are an association of more than two persons, impermissibly discriminates on the basis of association for no discernibly good reason, and infringes on that right.

There is no longer any reason, then, why New York and other states that have offered a legal status to non-sexual relationships should continue to deny the same legal status to persons of close parentage or to associations of more than two persons, since there can be no legitimate assumptions about the nature of these relationships that would hinder them from establishing a domestic relationship that would entitle them to the same legal status.

Put simply, there is nothing wrong or illegal about two or more people living together, whether these be friends, family members or lovers. If a legal status is offered to some people living together, then the principle of equal treatment under the 14th amendment requires that this same legal status must be offered to all people living together.

Same-sex marriage states have effectively instituted legal partnerships for domestic relationships and have eliminated marriage as it is related to sexual relationships.

These are some of the implications of same-sex marriage.

The Rational Acts of Anders Breivik

Talk about Anders Breivik being an insane lunatic is rubbish. The man is not insane. His murderous act, though utterly deplorable, was quite rational if one understands his premises. Anders Breivik was quite rationally attacking, in a kind of opening act of war, those whom he saw as the true enemy of Western culture and civilization: the leftwing progressives, the multiculturalists and globalists, the promoters and enablers of multicultural immigration, the ones who are engaging in the process of tearing down the edifice of historic Europe in order to rebuild a globalist, utopian vision of it, as he, himself, makes very clear. Thus, he perceives his victims as traitors to Western culture and civilization, and the penalty for treason is normally death.

The reason he is not insane is because of this distinction: one might characterize Hitler as a deluded madman because an important target of his persecution and attacks, the Jews, was a dubious one at best, with no credible connection to the problems that were facing Germany. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and communists, in general, were deluded more by envy than madness, and they waged their class warfare based on historical class distinctions, targeting property owners who controlled land and resources, the historical aristocracy and merchant class, which evolved in their jargon into “capitalists”, and opposing these to the landless peasants and workers. In both these utopian visions, it is doubtful that any of these classes were true obstacles to a more perfect world.

Anders Breivik may have been less ambitious, but his target was spot on. His attack was waged on those who embrace an ideology that has put into place a policy that runs contrary to the preservation of, and undermines, historical Western civilization; an ideology that sets willfully in its sights the deconstruction of an historic, culturally Christian Europe and the replacement of this with a universalist, secular, humanist one.

I believe that he may have understood that Muslim immigration was being used as a wedge by leftwing, multicultural globalists to lever their one-world, secular, humanist utopia into existence. It was a means through which they would undermine European national identity by establishing the norm of cultural equivalency, where no civilization or culture is superior to any other, and to replace national identity with a global one, so that people would identify themselves first and foremost as “global citizens,” a term used by U.S. President Obama about himself in a 2008 speech in Berlin.

Are his premises incorrect? Were not the targets of his actions truly the enemies of what he envisioned for Europe? If so, then Anders Breivik may have been a very frustrated man, but he cannot have been insane. He clearly identified the enemy and waged an attack on them. It was a very rational act for someone making war.

What is deplorable is the means that he used to wage his war. He could have done it upon the battlefield of ideas, through persuasion and the democratic process. But we cannot know his level of frustration and how he may have calculated his act, whether or not his calculations will create the circumstances that will enable his vision to be realized, or whether these will end in failure. Only time will tell.

One thing is certain, however: his actions have put the spotlight more emphatically not just on the problem of Muslim immigration and integration, but more importantly, it has put it on the entire multicultural, globalist project that has done so much to create this problem in the first place.

THE SOLUTION TO SOVEREIGN DEBT

What do people do who have debts and no income? They sell off their jewelry, their furniture, their car, their house or whatever other assets that they might have.

Countries that are facing financial collapse might do the same thing: simply sell off the assets of the country. One way the US could pay off its debts is to sell off federal lands. States and cities facing bankruptcy might sell off their assets. Japan, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and any other country facing impossible financial situations and debt might just sell off parts of the country. The real estate value of these countries should easily cover their debts.

Now, why didn’t the geniuses in government not think of this?

WHAT PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND ABOUT GOVERNMENT

It takes a motor to make a vehicle go; it takes brakes to slow it down or bring it to a stop. Both are vitally necessary to the proper usage of a vehicle.

If one were to make an analogy to a vehicle, then government would be the brakes. And this is where people get confused if they think that government can can create jobs and make the economy go. Government is not the motor that drives the economy. It is the brakes that slow it down. The motor is the private, productive sector.

The government can only “create jobs” and make the economy go to the extent that it lets up on the brakes and allows the motor that is the private sector do the real job of making the economy go.

The policy of too many governments to make the economy go, like the current one in the US, is to apply more brake; that is, more taxes, more regulation, more government oversight and more government intervention. Simply put, more government. 

This is simply wrongheaded, if not insane. It must stem from the myth that government is responsible for everything and capable of doing everything.

Brakes have their functions, but doing everything is not one of them.

GAY MARRIAGE FINALLY EXPLAINED

In order to clearly understand the debate over same-sex marriage, it is necessary to understand the theoretical framework in which the issues are framed. The following article aspires to do that.

TWO THEORIES ON MARRIAGE

The first theory that will be discussed is the theory of marriage as a “love license” which, in the words of Judge Vaughn Walker of California’s Proposition 8 notoriety, is granted by the state in “recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.”

The love license theory emphasizes and puts first the happiness and fulfillment of adults and the state’s important role in helping to achieve this. It holds that the maximum achievable number of happy adults is best for the general well-being of society, that this will have a positive effect on the future of society, and that the government’s role must be to promote this goal. This theory is wholly embraced by the advocates of same-sex marriage and is their foundational premise.

The second is the theory of responsible procreation. This theory holds that the union of a man and a woman is an important part of responsible procreation and raising children because, among other things, it also sets the important example for children to follow what is historically recognized as the best relationship for procreation and parenting. It holds that well adjusted citizens, which are essential to a successful and enduring society, are the product of good parenting and that this is best achieved by a mother and a father in a monogamous relationship. It holds that the government has an important role in promoting this ideal and that this will best serve the well-being of any society that hopes to endure.

Evidently, if the opposite-sex union is the best model for procreation and parenting, then same-sex unions and others must occupy some inferior place for that purpose. This may be perceived by same-sex couples to mean that their unions are not as good as opposite-sex ones, which for the purposes of procreation and parenting is true. But if marriage does not concern procreation and parenting, as the adherents of the love license theory affirm, then same-sex unions cannot possibly be inferior to opposite-sex unions when the theory does not recognize procreation and, thus, would exclude this as a basis for comparison. Removing the standard of procreation and parenting has the effect of equalizing these relationships. It is only as measured against procreation and parenting that the same-sex union proves inferior, but this should not bother same-sex couples as they would not be comparing themselves to opposite-sex couples on that basis anyway. It is on the basis of love and commitment that the comparison is made, and these would be equal, but with one exception: according to the love license theory the only instance when marriage would be about procreation is when gay couples want to have children. It is never about procreation, however, when it concerns the state creating classifications based on the gender of the persons in the relationships that are to benefit from the government entitlement that is civil marriage. In that case, marriage is only about love and commitment.

It is precisely because same-sex couples subscribe to the love license theory that they perceive an inequality in treatment by the government and suffer badly the idea that their love relationships are inferior to the love relationships of opposite-sex couples when the latter are granted the status of marriage and they are not.

Thus, while the second theory explicitly invokes procreation and parenting as a necessary part of good social policy that is institutionalized by marriage, the first theory regards marriage more generally as a social welfare program for adults designed to promote their happiness and fulfillment and whose only link to procreation and parenting is merely in the deluded minds of the overwhelming majority of the world’s people as it has existed down through the ages. Except, of course, when having and raising children are to serve as life-style accessories to gay couples in very much the same way that owning a beautiful and expensive home, having a designer wardrobe or driving a SUV would be. These would all be to further the "state interest" of promoting adult happiness and fulfillment.

SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THESE THEORIES

The consequences of the responsible procreation theory are already well known, as it has been the one that has been operative throughout human history and across all civilizations. So, it is really only the love license theory that bears closer examination and discussion as this one is very new.

The position of the proponents of the love license theory on marriage can be formulated as "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents."

This is how it had been officially worded in the judicial ruling of Perry v. Schwarzenegger by one of the strong advocates of same-sex marriage, Judge Vaughn Walker. This position thus removes procreation and parenting from official state recognition as these seem to be deliberately no where mentioned and are striking for their absence.

Procreation and parenting, however, occur in a natural institution predating human civilization. Where it concerns human beings, responsible procreation theory affirms that marriage is a civilization’s official recognition of what is already a natural institution. This natural institution exists in nature and is governed by its laws. It exists in the animal kingdom in different forms. It exists among birds and bees, gorillas, monkeys, frogs, worms, dolphins, cats and dogs. And human beings as well. But any official recognition of the relationships among the lower life-forms in this natural institution has not and never has been granted to them by governments. Governments do not officially recognize the relationships among animals where it concerns procreation and parenting and neither has any ever granted to these relationships any officially recognized status. But they have done this where it concerns the relationships of human procreation and parenting.

Unfortunately, the love license theory of marriage takes away any official recognition of the human relationships in this natural institution. The official recognition of the relationships responsible for human procreation and parenting evaporates into nothingness and ceases to exist in the same way that the official recognition of the relationships responsible for procreation among birds, and bees, cats and dogs, frogs and worms does not exist. Certainly, men and women will continue to procreate and raise their children — there are still nature’s imperatives to respect — but their relationships in doing that will be officially invisible, indeed, officially non-existent, and they will be doing this outside of any official recognition or status…… just like the animals.

The love license theory is simply one that is anti-historical, anti-social, anti-civilizational and anti-human. If any political movement and its adherents can be said to be on the wrong side of history, the love license theory advocates are it.

Another undesirable consequence would be the creeping advancement of small, incremental tyrannies. Because the love license theory of marriage specifically establishes official governmental recognition and approval as part of the definition of marriage, and as how government in the American democratic system is the people, there would come to exist the notion, if not eventually the obligation, that people do officially approve of homosexual unions. It is one thing in a democratic system to legally recognize a particular status; it is something else entirely to approve of it and legally force this on the people. It is thoroughly unacceptable that a government supposedly “of the people, by the people and for the people” institute a policy of approval in direct opposition to the very will of the majority, as in the case of the recent trial on appeal over the California Marriage Amendment, or to even impose this on a minority, as this would be a direct infringement on the right of conscience. This is a government that would be setting itself apart from the people as a separate entity, a separate person, that could just as easily act in opposition to them and, if history is any guide, likely will.