Replies

Again, so by your logic we should abandon everything to RATs who will everything in their power to deconstruct traditional families? I don't get it.

You don't seem to understand yet that both parties have been supporting the same family policy agenda for about the last 15 years -- they just wind their rhetorical spin differently in an attempt to please different audiences. Traditional family, from a legal perspective, was deconstructed, burned, and dragged off to the trash dump some time ago -- the Mass courts order to recognize same-sex "marriage" became inevitable in relation to the new government marriage thing. It wasn't something they just suddenly invented out of the blue.

I'm going to write more articles on this subject, because I understand how few people know what's happened, and that you're not getting any help from the "mainstream" media. You're also not getting any help from socially conservative groups that have defined themselves as the "core of the Republican Party." I hope that my article "Divorced Dads: Family Champions" makes that clear -- their legal position is exactly the same as that of the homosexual lobbiests. Now in order to preserve their socially conservative ideas, they need a constitutional amendment. It never would have come to this in the first place if they hadn't been just as anxious to replace traditional marriage in a "free country" with government sponsered, government controlled social policy -- and to redefine family as something that arises out of a government license rather than a natural human phenomenon.

In any case, the Republican Party isn't out to save anything. They're not in the mood to reverse the trend to fix the problem. And they're not going to even consider doing the right thing unless not doing it is coupled to a credible political threat.

And once again, while this is an interesting discussion, I'm not a politician or a political leader. You're pressing me to define a specific political agenda. You're pushing beyond the scope of my article. So, it's only fair that you respond point for point. What's your idea? Do you favor supporting a party that has a policy agenda that opposes your beliefs and well-being?

Uh, Roger, I have discussed, at length, my political views regarding viable options open to us at this time. If you'll recall, I responded to your article that concluded that the best course of action was to do nothing. Since that time I have endeavored to get you to clarify that position and you have been fair evasive since. Up until now, you've been long on the 'what's wrong' end, but short in the practical outworkings.

It is your turn to respond...

What would you have all of us conservatives do in order to turn things around?