The science of constructing a commonwealth, or renovating it, or reforming it, is, like every other experimental science, not to be taught à priori. Nor is it a short experience that can instruct us in that practical science; because the real effects of moral causes are not always immediate; but that which in the first instance is prejudicial may be excellent in its remoter operation; and its excellence may arise even from the ill effects it produces in the beginning. The reverse also happens; and very plausible schemes, with very pleasing commencements, have often shameful and lamentable conclusions. In states there are often some obscure and almost latent causes, things which appear at first view of little moment, on which a very great part of its prosperity or adversity may most essentially depend. The science of government being therefore so practical in itself, and intended for such practical purposes, a matter which requires experience, and even more experience than any person can gain in his whole life, however sagacious and observing he may be, it is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society, or on building it up again, without having models and patterns of approved utility before his eyes.
(Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed. L. G. Mitchell [New York: Oxford University Press, 1993], 61 [first published in 1790])
Note from KBJ: Apply what Burke says to the issue of homosexual "marriage." The institution of marriage is "an edifice which has answered in [a] tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society." Progressives would pull down this edifice "without having models and patterns of approved utility before [their] eyes." Could anything be more presumptuous? Could anything be more dangerous? We need to move very slowly in this area, for much, including the welfare of children, is at stake. If homosexual couples want the right to make medical decisions for each other, they should seek that right through the legislative process. If homosexual couples want rights of survivorship, they should seek that right. If, after long experience with these individual rights, the consequences seem to a majority of people worthwhile, or at least tolerable, a next step can be taken, say, civil unions (which confer a bundle of rights and responsibilities rather than individual rights and responsibilities). What is the rush? Why are progressives so impatient? Let change occur at its own pace, endogenously, incrementally, in response to the felt needs of those affected by the change. Please don't call this reactionary. Conservatives are not opposed to change; they know as well as anyone that change is inescapable in a living organism such as society. They merely insist that change be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
