Posted on 08/07/2003 6:27:45 AM PDT by The Rant
With his statements regarding the issue of gay marriage, President Bush has missed a golden opportunity to rid the political forum of some of the issues that seem to bog down the conservative movement, especially the Republican Party, during elections. The issue of gay marriage and whether or not homosexuals should be in the clergy are not issues of a political nature although the liberal-left would like them to be. They are moral issues that are questions for individuals meant to be made on an individual basis. If he would have greeted the gay marriage issue from this unique and simple vantage point instead of having asserted the moral ideology of his faith into the Oval Office it all could have been different come November 2004.
The liberal left, not unlike the ultra-conservative right, likes to drag these “moral litmus tests” to levels that are completely inappropriate, in an arena that should be devoid of morally based special interest. Time after time we have seen the liberal camps in all facets of our political world questioning whether someone supports abortion, is tolerant of gay rights, if they support homosexuals being members of the clergy or if they concur with the idea of affirmative action and then politically disemboweling them if they do not own the same contentions. We see it affecting confirmation proceedings for federal judges, Supreme Court nominees and cabinet heads when they should be questioned on their competency instead. It is a political minefield for anyone running for office and it has started to creep into the mainstream thinking of the American people courtesy of the alphabet media’s fixation with liberalism in the American culture.
Issues that are based in morality are ultimately subject to the beliefs of the individual. Morals, or the lack of them, are usually taught in the home being passed on from generation to generation, the cumulative knowledge of experiences by all in the hope that the next generation will turn out better than the previous. These are beliefs that we use on a daily basis to make decisions about what is right and wrong. But we need to be cognizant of the fact that others are granted the same freedom to create their own sets of morals in which they believe, sometimes not in symbiosis with what we believe. Thus is the nature of the problem we are experiencing courtesy of the liberal left in the United States.
Now, I have no problem with people being moral. In fact I wish people embraced morality with more vigor. It’s not hard to understand why if you watch an hour or more of television a day. But there comes a time when one has to practice what they believe without having to assert their beliefs on society as a whole. Are you gay? Yes? Well, I say good for you. I hope you enjoy your life. I say live and let live. It isn’t for me but who am I to say that if you are gay you are something other than a peace loving, upstanding citizen. What I will object to is when a gay-rights group tries to belittle me for not having an open enough mind to tolerate two or more drag queens having what amounts to sex on top of a float going down Main Street, USA during a day of celebration that excludes most of mainstream America. What I do object to is the liberal-left’s moral contention that someone who isn’t even old enough to drive a car, get into an R-rated movie or drink a beer, that someone who isn’t old enough to be emancipated should be set aside as special because he or she thinks they are gay. What I do object to is appropriating tax dollars to open gay high schools thus creating the opposite of diversity, a liberal buzzword, when the real problem is bullying in all schools.
Further, I will object to elected officials telling me that because I do not embrace the idea of abortion as a birth control method for the less than privileged that I am violating someone’s rights. Hey, it is my tax money too. I have no problem with someone coming to grips with their own situation and deciding that having an abortion is the correct thing for them. I do however have a problem with pro-abortion groups saying that the government should subsidize abortion clinics with our tax dollars. It is a legal procedure and the law should remain unchanged but that is where the political agenda should end. Anything further than keeping the procedure legal and safe is to embrace a definition of morality and that would be to show favor over one idea of morality over another.
There are those who believe that by not subsidizing abortion clinics and doctors who perform the procedures that we are limiting the access to those less fortunate than the mainstream. This is ridiculous. The whiny left is obviously talking about those who are afflicted with poverty. The government is already subsidizing most of those afflicted with poverty. They can take that funding, of the people, by the people and for those afflicted with poverty and fund their own abortions should they choose one is needed. It is not a situation that is exclusive to those who are afflicted with poverty. It is a situation that transcends every monetary class. Bottom line, those who champion the procedure should be the ones to pay for it. As was said earlier, the procedure is legal and that is where the government’s obligation has to end otherwise the morality of the issue starts to play favorites.
All that being said, the issue of morality in politics is a frightening one. When a political movement oversteps its bounds and starts to dictate to the mainstream populace what their definitions of morality are, in essence they are denying the individual of their freedom of choice, they are denying the individual their free will to make decisions about what is best for them. They are essentially forcing their morals onto others by forcing the political process to adhere to their definitions of morality. We are seeing this in the liberal-left and their love affair with gay-rights, affirmative action, abortion and many more issues that are becoming the litmus test for who will succeed and who will fail in their bids to attain power in this country. It shouldn’t be that a good administrator, a good legislator or a good judge should have to embrace the morals of the liberal-left in order to serve the public of this nation. Let’s face it; the liberal-left is the minority in this country by validation of the electoral process. Why should all of us be forced to adhere to their morality?
Yes, President Bush could have turned the corner on the morality issues in politics if he would have just come out and said, “Personally, my faith keeps me from endorsing the idea of gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean that the law should discriminate against two human beings who give their lives to one another. When you look at it, it is a moral issue, don’t you think? It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue. It’s an issue individuals should decide for themselves. The government shouldn’t decide it for them.”
If he were to have said that all of this nonsense would have been over. Now we have to listen to the liberal-left asking the same invasive, inane and inconsequential questions that they always do: “Do you support or oppose abortion”…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Salvato is a political media consultant, a freelance writer from the Midwest and the Managing Editor for www.TheRant.us. He is a contributing writer to The Washington Dispatch. He has appeared as a guest panelist on The O’Reilly Factor and his pieces are featured on various other sites.
What Bush did, I think, was brilliant and moral: he said what marriage was. Although he counched his comments in the "speck in the eye" passage from the Bible, by mentioning "sinners" in the same context as homosexuality, he left no question that homosexuality is a sin.
And that's the definition of a leader. Someone who makes clear his position, no matter how unpopular with the media.
Content: Morally relativistic bilgewater.
Intent? Don't know eonough about the author to hazard a guess.
I try and stay away from intentions anyway and instead focus on the substance of the words.
Pure hogwash.
Yes, President Bush could have turned the corner on the morality issues in politics if he would have just come out and said, ?Personally, my faith keeps me from endorsing the idea of gay marriage, but that doesn?t mean that the law should discriminate against two human beings who give their lives to one another. When you look at it, it is a moral issue, don?t you think? It?s not a political issue; it?s a moral issue. It?s an issue individuals should decide for themselves. The government shouldn?t decide it for them.?Da, da. We want amoral leadership. Politics void of morality. Morality reduced to questions of subjective evaluation, personal taste etc. That's precisely what we need. Why, it's all so simple! So very, very simple. Simplistic, one might say. Impracticable, yes. But it's an ideal worth groping for, however clumsily, blindly, at whatever cost to ourselves, our communities, our very souls. I say yes and amen to this author's stand, because I personally choose to endorse his inconsistencies and inaccuracies, no matter how badly articulated, how lamely argued.
Yeah...man is an economic animal. Let's just stick to grooming, feeding and watering him.
And let's forget that every major political cause in American history from the Revolution to the Civil Rights movement was based on religious, i.e. moral, principles.
Gay marriage could very well end up being a wedge issue for the Demoncrats. Every candidate for president will be asked about the constitutional amendment, and it will be political death to oppose it.
This one's a political no-brainer for the Republicans. The people like to see some moral backbone in their leaders even if they themselves are secular.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.