Posted on 07/09/2007 4:40:12 PM PDT by Delphinium
Matt Salisbury of Nampa has declared his intention to challenge freshman GOP Congressman Bill Sali in the 2008 primary. This means Republican voters will have a choice next May, between an incumbent who subscribes to the party’s platform on the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage, and one who apparently does not.
While Rep. Sali has been a staunch defender of life in the womb and a staunch defender of the concept that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, Salisbury evidently takes a different view.
Salisbury was quoted by the Associated Press as someone who believes that politicians should “stay out of your bedroom and out of your social mores.” Veteran political observer Randy Stapilus says, “From that you’d conclude: Not a social conservative.”
A favorite mantra of homosexual activists is that the government should stay out of our bedrooms, which is their way of saying that people should be allowed to engage in the sexual practices of their choice with the full support of society and the law.
But this is on its face an absurd proposition. Child molestation and rape often occur in bedrooms; certainly Mr. Salisbury wouldn’t want to say that the law should have nothing to say about that. And if he says we should have laws against rape and child molestation, then he is saying that the law does in fact have an appropriate interest in what goes on in some bedrooms some of the time.
So once again we must consider what kind of sexual behavior should be endorsed by a society and what kind should not. Inspired by the Judeo-Christian tradition, Western law has always affirmed that the only kind of sexual intimacy that should be affirmed and protected in law is sexual intimacy between a husband and a wife.
Mr. Salisbury apparently has a different view, and will certainly be asked to clarify and amplify as he enters the campaign season.
Also, it is absurd to say that government should “stay out of your social mores.” This is just another way of saying the government should not legislate morality. But in truth, morality is the only thing government should legislate and in fact the only thing it can legislate.
Everyone argues for favored legislation, even smoking bans in bowling alleys, on the grounds that it represents the right thing to do, or the fair thing to do, or the just thing to do, or the compassionate thing to do. What is that but an argument for legislating morality?
So “morality” is going to be legislated one way or another. The only question is whose morality is it going to be? Will American law, as it always has been, continue to be rooted in the time-honored standards found in the Judeo-Christian tradition, or will it be rooted in shifting and fluid cultural opinion?
Who is this guy?
As Fred Thompson says, “the platform doesn’t mean anything, never has”
After the 2nd paragraph, the writer veers off into the old straw man argument pushed by the socons. Is Salisbury pro-life and against the homosexual agenda or not? If he is, then the writer doesn’t have a point. If he isn’t, then of course he should be opposed. But it’s obvious that Salisbury isn’t kissing the ring of the socons in ID who want to look through everyone’s keyhole.
Just gotta get in a dig at Thompson, even on a completely unrelated topic and thread, huh? I may not agree 100% with Fred, but I agree with him on most things, and at least he has a chance to win, as opposed to Duncan "1%" Hunter.
http://idahochooseslife.org/commentaries/
So it sounds like to me Salisbury doesn't have an official position on abortion/homosexual agenda but the Idaho Chooses Life is insinuating that he does based on his comments.
This is a textbook example of how the pro-life movement shoots itself in the foot.
Subscribing to the party’s platform was in the 1st sentence of the article. Reminded me of Fred. Sorry.
I’m far from Idaho but I like Bill Sali and he certainly hasn’t comitted any firing offenses. I’ll contribute a couple of bucks to him if need be.
I’d rather save it for the general.
I have no idea. I’ve never heard of him, unless he’s a male version of Sheila Sorenson or something (read: a RINO excrement disturber).
Thanks for posting this. I believe it’s because of you that I’m a fan of Bill Sali, who won big even when the polls showed he was behind on election day.
Bryan Fischer, as is his wont, goes WAY too easy on this guy.
I find this guy’s sudden appearance scene to be VERY fishy.
Hey, you know how it goes. If you can’t win as a liberal Democrat, run as a Republican. That’s how we got Rudy McRomney.
And how NY got Michael Bloomberg for that matter.
This is one of the reasons so many fine folks have been working so hard to close the primary in ID...and why the RINOs have been fighting us tooth and nail.
If he has made pro-abortion and/or pro-homosexual rights statements, then he shouldn't be elected dogcatcher.
Saying that he wants the gov't out of the bedroom doesn't mean he supports the liberal agenda.
The “gov’t out of the bedroom line” has become a liberal code-phrase for a pro-gay/pro-abort stance. It originated with Goldwater, who WAS a liberal on that, unfortunately.
If Salisbury hasn't made any official statements on abortion or homosexuals, then all you're doing is taking the remarks out of context.
Well, you know the phrase, “where there’s smoke...”
Only the Democrats, liberal RINOs and the teeth-gnashing party establishment want Sali gone, and if this fella is running against him, we know exactly for whom he is the candidate for.
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.