Category Archives: Culture of life

The Republican case for Traditional Marriage: a response to Maura Flynn

The Republican Party is in the midst of finding itself again. There is of course disagreement as to how to get there, and that can be a good thing. The primary struggle is whether to reaffirm it’s conservative soul or to meander into the middle of things. But there is also disagreement among conservatives as to what defines conservatism.

The Reagan coalition of traditional social issues, limited government, and a strong military is in danger of unraveling. There is a push within the conservative camp to drop social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

Maura Flynn is one such person who has made a Republican case for gay marriage featured on Big Hollywood. This is in response to her argument. I ask you to also read it – to give her a just hearing.

Maura introduces this issue:

One need only read the comments on this site to know that there are two fundamental schools of thought here. Some of us believe that to be conservative is to defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small. Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce “traditional” values.

For our purposes here, a list of those values isn’t relevant.

Now, that’s quite a statement! I wonder what Maura would have felt about controversial issues like slavery, woman’s suffrage, and civil rights?

I am always cautious of folks who try to define people and I find her definitions a little offensive. You see, I am one of those “traditional values” conservatives. I believe in defending our freedoms and liberties that are so rare in the world today. My parents escaped from communist Hungary while my mother was three months pregnant with me, wanting to insure that I had a future in THE land of freedom – of which I am in deep gratitude.

To keep the light of freedom strong we must “defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small.” But I am also committed that these same individual liberties must apply to all Americans including the unborn, that the traditional family is the building block of society and is essential in preserving our national liberty, and care for the poor and those in need which promotes individual liberty without slavery to the State.

What I don’t think Maura understands is that while she is not in the “traditional values” camp, it doesn’t mean her position is without the “values” label. In her support of gay marriage, she is in fact a non-traditional values supporter. There is a value, ethic, or morality in every decision, action, or piece of legislation. It’s not whether or not “values,” everyone is in a “values” camp – it just matters what camp they are in.

So, what is Maura’s case for gay marriage? The summation of her argument is this:

Looked at from this perspective, gay marriage isn’t a complex issue. Science aside, one needn’t believe that homosexuality is moral in order to understand that nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage.

I know she misses the point that there are already government restrictions on marriage. We know that a person who marries people must be registered with the state, and it is very much involved in the matters of divorce.

But let me say that overall, I agree with Maura – and her position will be the number one point in my case for traditional marriage!

Please also understand that my intention is the support of the institution of traditional marriage, and not in anyway reflective of the gay community itself.

1) Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage

Thank you Maura! I strongly affirm that the government doesn’t have the right to regulate marriage, which also includes redefining marriage. Marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a women, in all times, cultures, and all places. It is not up to the State to control and redefine our social institutions.

Maura states that conservatives should defend freedom and preserve individual liberty, but never states the basis of this freedom and liberty, and who is the granter of them. This makes all the difference in the world: and all the difference in our approach for a Republican case for traditional marriage.

Which takes us to point two.

2) The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God

Our freedoms are the fruit of Western Civilization, which determined that God is above the State, therefore freedoms are granted by God and not the State. Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence that the justification “for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle[d] them.”

Jefferson’s appeal to Natural Law and Nature’s God is the foundational reason for our existence, the understanding of ourselves and our freedoms.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This same Natural Law and Nature’s God who is the granter of our freedoms also defines that marriage itself is between a man and a woman, and along with the fruit of that relationship (children), is the foundation of the family in every culture, everywhere, and at all times.

3) The traditional family is the foundation of our society and therefore our freedoms – it needs our support now more than ever

In order to foster and maintain our freedoms, the traditional family must be the building block of our society. Only the traditional family has the ability to foster children and perpetuate itself. But there is more: the greatest solution to poverty and therefore self reliance is – the family! A loving and stable marriage is the greatest gift that you can give to your children. The instillation of religious faith, the provision of love and discipline, the teaching of what is right and wrong, modeling a strong work ethic, and the development of integrity and character – will give children advantages that money can never buy.

But children need both a father and a mother. It take two to make a child, it also takes two to raise a child. A child’s self esteem is tied directly to a father’s love and acceptance, and a mother’s love and nurture.

But it does go further than that: a stable and loving family is also a great deterrent to dependence and encroachment of the State within our culture. This is the reason why those who want to advocate the State within our culture, advocate policies that break down the traditional family.

4) Legalizing gay marriage will result in tyranny

This doesn’t mean the gay community will be the source of this tyranny. But there will be those (like the ACLU) who will use gay marriage as the issue in their attacks against churches, synagogues, and mosques.

As we have already seen in Massachusetts, the Catholic Church is no longer involved in adopting needy children to loving families because of their position on gay marriage. This will continue, and there will come a time when churches, synagogues and mosques will be forced to recognize gay marriage or pay the price.

4) Legalizing gay marriage will result in the ever declining spiral of redefining marriage

In the years and decades to come, there will be a declining spiral in the redefinition of marriage. There are already polygamist organizations lobbying that if gay marriage is legal, why not polygamy? I firmly believe that polygamy will be legal in states like Nevada and Utah – and why not? If you can redefine marriage, who then controls the definitions?

There will come a time that any grouping of people can be considered a “marriage,” until it will become absolutely meaningless.

5) The traditional family is a winning issue!

Support for the traditional family as the definition of marriage is overwhelming. In every state that put the issue up for ballot, it has won – even in California. Conversely, in every state where gay marriage is legal, it was the result of judicial decisions or legislation.

Barack Obama of course is a very savvy politician – and he supports traditional marriage.

So why are there conservatives so willing to surrender on this issue? I know there are many reasons, but I think there is one that stands tall from all the rest: they simply do not want to go through the wrath that Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin for that matter – had to endure.

I have learned from Ronald Reagan that to be a conservative is not just having the right ideas, it’s having the courage to act on those ideas. I encourage my fellow conservatives to do the same. I hope that I will never have to say – “I never left the Republican Party – it left me.”


Leave a comment

Filed under Culture of life, Traditional Marriage

The Obama road to serfdom and the need for nationalized health care (and unrestricted abortion for that matter)

When I think of President Obama’s path for our country I am reminded of the movie, The Matrix. You know the story: computers are in control. The sky is scorched because of the struggle between humanity and the machines, and the only sustainable energy the machines can use to stay alive (alive?), is to use people as human batteries from the womb to the grave.

How do they keep the masses in control? Their minds are controlled by a computer program (the Matrix), making them believe that they are living normal lives. So while they are in captivity and servitude, the reality they perceive is otherwise.

Liberal and progressive elites must be in control. They honestly believe that we can’t live without them. But instead of using ideas to influence others, they rather shove legislation down our throats to achieve that control through the State.

Why does Obama need control of health care in his road to serfdom ( and unrestricted abortion for that matter)?

The State must sustain itself. It must have votes in order to stay alive, so it must make as many people dependent on it as possible. Thus the creation of a dependent class, whether through welfare, social security, medicare and now – nationalized health care.

National health care accomplishes two things:

1) it creates another dependent class, and therefore secures votes to sustain the State.

2) it provides the State a way to control the number of enrollments on health care. Let’s face it: the State can’t afford everyone. So, if a person is unable to contribute to the State, and if their health care is too costly – they simply will not receive health care.

The State must also have unrestricted abortion. This also accomplishes three things:

1) abortion helps to control population growth and the costs of entitlements.

2) in the end, elites want to make sure that minorities will remain minorities. Just take a look at the presence of Planned Parenthood in minority neighborhoods. Thus, while utilizing victimization that ensure votes, abortion provides that minorities remain victims.

Event though the Democrats view illegals from Mexico as future Democratic votes, they will take steps to keep the Hispanic population as a minority with the promotion of abortion.

3) contraception and abortion promotes sex outside of marriage, and therefore devalues marriage. 80% of those in poverty are single parents and children living in single parent homes. The poor will remain poor. Thus providing a permanent dependent class that ensure votes.

We need health care reform. The U.S. has the highest quality health care in the world, and customers are highly satisfied with it. But we need to have that excellent health care available to everyone.

But reform must never come between the doctor and the patient, and the government must never have the authority to decide who receives what operation. There must be a free cooperation of patients, health care providers, the free market and government.

Obama’s health care plan will take no prisoners – it will be designed to eliminate competition to wage total control from womb to the tomb. In the end, everyone loses. The federal government is wasteful, inefficient, intrusive, and impersonal. It will decide who will receive care and when, but it will also decide who will not.

Do we want the likes of a Pelosi, Reed, Frank or Dodd make our health care decisions for us?

Check out this website and share with others – Listen to the real-life stories of the victims of government-run health care

UPDATE! 6/12

The Public Plan Deception:

UPDATE! 5/31 – Dem Congresswoman Admits Obama Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Health Insurance Industry

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture of life, Nationalized Health Care

What? Did Obama say that? Did he say, “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being?”

Jim Blazsik

Here is a quote from the President in his address at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, on Thursday February 4th.

“But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”

Let me say, finally! With all my writing opposing Obama’s promise to pass FOCA, his removal of the ban in using federal funds promoting abortion globally, and this ridiculous Stimulus Bill that will lead us to serfdom – I can finally say, that this is something that I can enthusiastically agree with!

Please, President Obama, apply this wonderful statement to the innocent human beings in the wombs of their mothers! They are the ones who are unable to speak for themselves, and they are the ones who are unable to protect themselves.

Let this not be mere rhetoric, but let this be the cry for each baby – as they depend on us to protect their right to life.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture of life