homosexuality

Stupid Things People Say About Conservatives

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, civil unions, Constitution, homosexuality, Jim Doyle, law, letters, liberalism, me, Wisconsin

Unlike the Reporter’s distinguished clientele, Jay Morris’s response to my civil unions editorial manages to remain calm and address things I’ve actually written.  Still, our Harvey Milk fan’s attempts to show I am “disgruntled” and “didn’t really do any research” fall flat:

Unfortunately, Mr. Freiburger apparently has not reviewed what is required in Wisconsin to obtain a “marriage license,” including the facts that: (a) once applied for, the license only has a 6 day waiting period before being effective; and (b) that only one person need reside in Wisconsin for at least 30 days.  Thus, the “scant” requirement to obtain Domestic Partnership benefits in Wisconsin far exceeds the requirements to obtain a marriage license and more benefits than provided by the Domestic Partnership laws.

I fail to see the relevance here.  I’m not claiming these new civil unions are easier or harder to qualify for than civil marriage; I’m saying exactly what my original point sounded like: it will be easy to scam these civil unions.  Dane County Clerk Bob Ohlsen, while not predicting fraud, recently said, “even for those who already get benefits for their partner through their employer, there is a huge advantage to applying to the registry.”  You could say that people can scam civil marriage, too, but the reality is that it is much more common for non-romantically-involved people of the same sex to live together than those of opposite sexes.  In any event, I sincerely apologize to Mr. Morris for not devoting a larger share of my 600-word limit to a side issue.

Even when debates with liberals aren’t vicious and juvenile, they can carry a distinct air of surrealism—Mr. Morris strangely claims that my comments about “the so-called rights gay couples are allegedly denied” show that I “neglected to review Wisconsin law at all,” since the marriage amendment “includes a ban on any relationship between same-sex couples that is ‘similar to’ marriage.”  Perhaps our friend shouldn’t be so quick to cast stones over insufficient research, inasmuch as he apparently didn’t even read the piece he’s rebutting in full—in which I discuss the “2006 Marriage Protection Amendment, which prohibits the state from recognizing ‘a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.’”

Mr. Morris attempts to prove the amendment threatens gays by quoting Wisconsin’s former (disgraced) Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager.  What he doesn’t mention: after the election, the AG was singing a different tune from what she said as a Democrat candidate:

In one of her last official acts, outgoing Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager has declared that Wisconsin’s recently enacted constitutional ban on same-sex marriage does not prohibit public or private employers from providing domestic partner benefits.  In a six-page opinion released Wednesday, Lautenschlager also told Madison City Attorney Michael May that the constitutional amendment does not strike down anti-discrimination protections for domestic partners.  Lautenschlager wrote that “it can reasonably be inferred” from the language of the amendment “that neither the Legislature nor the people intended to invalidate domestic partnerships when they adopted this provision.”

Also intolerable to our friend is the fact that gay couples seeking to arrange benefits themselves via wills and power of attorney pay much more than the cost of a marriage license.  First, I still maintain that, while full replication of everything civil marriage offers may be impossible, gay couples still have access to far more than the gay lobby, such as the lying charlatans of Fair Wisconsin, would have you believe.

Second, I again reiterate my point that many of these benefits “were created to aid couples raising children on just one parent’s income, and are thus irrelevant to gay couples (as well as to dual-income straight couples).”  To be completely honest, I think it would be interesting to do a full review of civil marriage in America and reassess every benefit, and see which should be preserved, which should be changed to apply only to single-income couples or couples with children, and which should be done away with entirely.  So I hope you’ll excuse me for not feeling guilty for denying gay couples some provisions I don’t necessarily believe straight couples need either.

Third, as I’ve also said time and time again, it’s certainly possible to change laws and streamline processes for achieving these things in amendment-compatible ways.  A few years back, Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson endorsed just such a measure in Colorado.  I note that Dobson hasn’t received much goodwill from the gay Left for his efforts.

Jay has one last complaint about my “so-called article” (what does that even mean?  Guess I spoke too soon about maturity…): “the rule of law is always up for debate – particularly when the law violates other laws, like equal protection clauses of the primary source, The United States Constitution.”

I’m still trying to decide whether or not this is a weak attempt to dodge my point, or if Jay is really this obtuse.  His so-called analysis (see how dumb that sounds?) appears to confuse “laws” with the principle of “the rule of law.”  The former means any given law on the books, be it a constitutional provision, act of a legislature, or duly-enacted referendum.  Of course these are “always up for debate;” I never suggested otherwise.  The latter is the principle that the process by which we make and change laws is something to be respected, that we (to quote myself again, since Jay apparently missed it the first time) “cannot pick and choose which of its provisions to enforce and which to violate, no matter what they may personally think about them.”  Don’t like a law?  Get it repealed.  But as an American, living under the protection of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, you have no moral right to simply ignore what it says.  That goes double for those in public office, like Governor Jim Doyle, who swear [PDF link] “to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability.”

No matter how much I despise abortion and wish to see it banned, I don’t want such a ban to come via the Supreme Court.  Because I respect and value the rule of law.

However draconian limitations on how close to Planned Parenthoods pro-lifers can protest may be, you won’t see me violate them.  Because I respect and value the rule of law.

Regardless of what I may think of any given tax—because I think it unjust, excessive, or I disapprove of the purpose for which it is raising funds—I would never dodge it.  Because I respect and value the rule of law.

Jay Morris gave it the good old college try, and delivered a response a cut above most of my critics.  But as we see, that’s still not saying much.

The Liberal Playbook: Gay Marriage

Calvin Freiburger anger, blogosphere, civil unions, conservatism, dishonesty, education, FdL Reporter, Fond du Lac High School, homosexuality, hypocrisy, letters, liberalism, me, moonbats, propaganda, religion

The Reporter has published my latest commentary on civil unions in Wisconsin, predictably bringing angry liberals out of the woodwork.  It’s interesting to note how predictable, one-note, and disinterested in what’s actually said, these guys generally are, and it’s important for conservatives to know what logical fallacies, sleights of hand, and personal attacks to expect when stepping into the ring with a liberal.

Take, for instance, the assumption that religion plays a leading role in my opinion, despite never being mentioned.  Liberal orthodoxy dictates that virtually no conservative opinion, especially on social issues, can possibly be held in good faith, so there must be an ulterior motive—in this case, hatred of gays and religious dogma.  Liberal orthodoxy further dictates that the slightest hint of religion (real or otherwise) in an opinion or discussion is something to be feared and immediately disqualified from consideration.

The other main objection is that, without civil unions, gays are denied equal rights.  I reject this premise entirely, for several reasons, the short version being just as I said in the article: “Many of the so-called rights gay couples are allegedly denied, such as hospital visitation and power-of-attorney related issues, are either already available to gays, easily achievable without creating new government relationship statuses, or were created to aid couples raising children on just one parent’s income, and are thus irrelevant to gay couples (as well as to dual-income straight couples).”  Moreover, I say “so-called rights” because most marriage benefits are not “rights” at all, but rather provisions offered as part of a contract.

I made clear that same-sex marriage was not the issue at dispute in my letter—the main topic was this measure’s constitutionality.  However, you’ll find that same-sex marriage advocates tend to struggle with the concept of “staying on topic,” and will completely skip your argument, instead jumping straight to why you’re evil for not supporting gay marriage.  If you refuse to let them change the subject and insist on staying on topic, you will be mischaracterized as either ducking the question or admitting defeat.

Regardless of whether or not you actually said anything demeaning towards homosexuals, no matter how much you insist you also want gay people to be able to visit their ailing partners in the hospital, you should still expect condescending lectures about how gays are people too, how homosexuality is predetermined (both propositions I accept, by the way…not that these armchair psychiatrists care), etc.  You will be psychoanalyzed with utter certitude, your opinions attributed to fear, hatred, or ignorance.  References to violence against gay Americans, black segregation, and even al-Qaeda will be thrown about with reckless abandon.

How do they know?  They just do.  They care, you don’t.  Bigot.

Also be prepared for raw hatred & childishness, such as casual references to “half-baked turd[s] of imflammatory mush” (this gem, incidentally, is from the author of the Daily Kos entry linked above, and once responded, badly, to another of my letters, noteworthy for its hypocrisy: she claims she doesn’t “want to write in anger.”).

You may even have outright lies told about you, and you may see long-simmering grudges boil over—bravely aired behind veils of anonymity, naturally.  “FDL54935” says:

Mr. Freiburger got his 15 seconds of fame since his parents went WAY overboard on a school issue. The man (Calvin) is one of the weakest writers in this community. If my sources are correct, he is barely making it through community college. I know times are tough and this is an issue that needs to be debated, but please limit editorials to those with an IQ over 75.

The issue to which our zip code refers is the case when a Fond du Lac High School teacher complained about my saying “God Bless America” over the school intercom, which the administration subsequently lied about.

Now, maybe Mr. Code was misled by news outlets that falsely reported my family was angry over the school’s speed in handling the matter, rather than their dishonesty.  Maybe he’s been lied to by propagandists whose sham reporting completely distorts the incident.  Then again, perhaps he’s the one doing the lying…after all, he’s angry enough about it to lie about my education, citing “sources” that probably don’t exist.  The real school I attend isn’t a community college, is nothing to sneeze at, and I think making Hillsdale’s Dean’s List for the second year in a row is a little better than “barely making it through.” (By the way, if you have the audacity to defend yourself by citing such facts, you can probably expect to be accused of bragging at some point, too.)

Hmm, it almost makes you wonder whether or not FDL54935’s got some kind of personal connection to the Fond du Lac School District…(crazy thought, I know.  The educational community is much too professional for that sort of thing, right?)

Hatred, anger, condescension, childishness, demonization, and persecution are all the rage (no pun intended) among the modern American Left, including the gay marriage movement.  For some liberals, I suspect, the root cause may be an insecure need for self-affirmation; for others, it is a manifestation of the liberal impulse to delegitimize opposing speech as soon as possible, to give it as little consideration as possible.  The Left wants to intimidate, not deliberate.

Don’t let them.  Don’t let yourself be shamed or silence by a movement that’s not exactly pure as the new-fallen snow itself.  Never apologize for believing that marriage matters.

Undermining Constitutionalism in the Name of Fairness

Calvin Freiburger civil unions, homosexuality, Jim Doyle, law, liberalism, Wisconsin

Thanks to false stereotypes about social conservatives peddled by so-called agents of “tolerance,” I’m sure many liberals expect us to explode into flames over the insertion of same-sex domestic partnerships into the state budget, as if bigotry were our motivation.  Sadly, they’ll have to settle for reasoned argument and serious concerns instead.

With its requirement that participants live together for a scant 30 days to qualify, the measure is begging to be scammed by any two people sharing a residence, not just gay couples.  But that’s not why Wisconsin should be offended.

Many of the so-called rights gay couples are allegedly denied, such as hospital visitation and power-of-attorney related issues, are either already available to gays, easily achievable without creating new government relationship statuses, or were created to aid couples raising children on just one parent’s income, and are thus irrelevant to gay couples (as well as to dual-income straight couples).  But that’s not why Wisconsin should be offended, either.

Wisconsin should be offended because this action was unconstitutional, and the Democratic lawmakers and governor who enacted it, knew it.  It violates the democratically-enacted 2006 Marriage Protection Amendment, which prohibits the state from recognizing “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals” (the WI Constitution has no “Unless We Really, Really Want To” clause).

Governor Jim Doyle and Democrat apologists claim that, since these new unions have only 43 of civil marriage’s 200-plus benefits, they are not “substantially” similar to marriage and thus constitutional.  Nevertheless, every politician in Madison knows the clear intent of the law—to keep Wisconsin from creating same-sex marriage by another name.

There are many important considerations in the debate over same-sex marriage and civil unions: equality, the best interests of children, religious liberty, and more.  Exploring them could exhaust many Reporter pages, but one principle should never be up for debate in a constitutional republic like America: the rule of law.

Free societies have constitutions to limit what governments can do to their people.  We have an amendment process for when we decide our constitution needs to be changed, but unless and until it is amended, a constitution is the law of the land.  The entire concept of a constitution is that government officials cannot pick and choose which of its provisions to enforce and which to violate, no matter what they may personally think about them.

No matter how unfair or oppressive you believe the marriage amendment to be, I ask you to heed this warning: if you allow our leaders to get away with ignoring the constitution on one issue, you are, in effect, endorsing the principle that any constitutional provision may be ignored if a leader claims he has a good enough reason.  That’s a terrifying prospect, and precisely what our Founding Fathers sought to prevent.

Abraham Lincoln famously remarked that “reverence for the laws” should “become the political religion of the nation,” a basic principle that should unite us all and preserve our liberties.  Jim Doyle and the lawmakers in Madison who allowed this to pass have made clear how little regard they have for the rule of law, and have demonstrated they are unfit to hold the offices with which we have entrusted them.

Hypocrisy? Nope

Calvin Freiburger AFA, blogosphere, culture, eHarmony, gay mafia, homosexuality, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, hypocrisy, lawsuits, McDonald's, scandal, thugs
In response to my last post, a previously-banned commenter submitted a link to a WorldNetDaily article about the American Family Association’s successful efforts to pressure McDonald’s out of supporting the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. His point (delivered ever-so-charmingly, of course) was apparently that our side does it too, so what right do you have to complain?
–
There’s a big difference, though, and a pretty obvious one. AFA organized a boycott. They spread awareness of McDonald’s policies to which they objected, and persuaded people to do business elsewhere. In contrast, eHarmony’s critics threatened them with litigation, backed by the Attorney General of the state of New Jersey. The McDonald’s case was ultimately resolved by McDonald’s own customers making clear what they expected out of a business to which their hard-earned money was going, whereas, in the eHarmony case, one man decided to use the force of law to bludgeon them into submission. If you can’t see any difference here, you really need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

eHarmony Surrenders to Gay Mafia

Calvin Freiburger eHarmony, evil, gay mafia, homosexuality, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, hypocrisy, Internet, law, thugs, tolerance
Thugs, dirty thugs. I don’t want to EVER hear another liberal pay lip service to freedom:
–
Online dating site eHarmony will create a service for same-sex matching in a settlement of a 2005 complaint that the company’s failure to offer such a service was discriminatory.
–
Under terms of the agreement with the New Jersey attorney general’s office, eHarmony Inc. will start the service, called Compatible Partners, by March 31.
–
“With the launch of the Compatible Partners site, our policy is to welcome all single individuals who are genuinely seeking long-term relationships,” said Antone Johnson, eHarmony vice president of legal affairs.
–
The company and its founder, Neil Clark Warren, admit no wrongdoing or liability.
–
“Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the attorney general, since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable,” eHarmony attorney Theodore B. Olson said.
–
Under the settlement’s terms, eHarmony will post photos of successful same-sex couple matches on the company’s Web site and in promotional material. The company has also agreed to revise statements on its Web sites, handbooks and other publications to indicate that it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
–
The settlement also requires eHarmony to pay plaintiff Eric McKinley $5,000 and to pay the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights $50,000 to cover administrative expenses.
–
I have an idea: why don’t we make a list of all the gay dating sites out there, and start pressuring them, under threat of litigation, to start catering to straight romances as well? Answer: because we understand that they’re not our websites & businesses. Too bad the other side of the spectrum doesn’t share that respect for liberty, and that the folks at eHarmony weren’t willing to fight for their rights.

The State & Marriage

Calvin Freiburger 2008, blogosphere, California, culture, gay marriage, homosexuality, marriage, Obama
Boots & Sabers regular commenter Mr. Pelican Pants has a great explication of the case for traditional marriage on this post about Obama and Proposition 8 in California:
–
1. No one has the “right” to marry anyone – straight, gay, whatever. Marriage is not a right afforded to anyone.
–
2. The institution of marriage is a social tenet and institution to serve one, fundamental purpose: the perpetuation of the human race.
–
3. Marriage, as a legal contract, is sanctioned by the states. Thus, the states should have the ability to decide who may and may not be allowed to be legally recognized as a married couple. Anyone is certainly free to “marry” anyone they want. Just don’t expect the state to officially recognize that marriage.
–
4. Back to point #2 on pro-creation, while gay couples may certainly adopt a child, or use artificial insemination to create a child, the fact remains that, at a minimum, three people are needed to achieve this act of pro-creation. As a society, we believe that no more than two people should be needed.
–
5. Marriage is not about hospital visits, health care benefits, or income tax breaks. Those are not rights, but rather legal side effects that have been created over time to maintain the traditional two-parent, man and woman, marriage. Thus, any gay couple claiming to be denied those rights is on very weak ground, as those are not rights, and as stated previous, marriage is not a right either.
–
Finally, the problem with Obama’s argument is that a. he wants it both ways; and b. he is not properly describing the problem. The reason for the constitutional amendment, as it was here in Wisconsin, was not to “deny people from being with someone they care about”, but rather reaffirming the statutory guidelines for marriage, so a judge can not arbitrarily and unilaterally make a decision of what he/she believes was the intent of the Legislature when the Legislature crafted the statutory marriage language.
–
The people of the state have their interests vested and represented in the appropriate state Legislature. Whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, the majority of state residents, over a very lengthy period of time, believe that a marriage between one man and one woman is the most appropriate functioning unit to promote the family. Representatives in the Legislature have responded by crafting language that meets that long held belief.
–
But where gray areas may exist in statute, is where many pro-gay marriage individuals make their challenges. Which then leaves a justice of the court in the position of trying to decide what the Legislature meant when those words were crafted.
–
The constitutional amendment is appropriate, as there is generally no dispute or controversy as to what the Legislature intended. In addition, because it requires adoption by the people of the state in a referendum vote, the intent of the people is reaffirmed.
–
The very process of constitutional ratification upholds the sanctity of a democratic society, one which may not be tinkered with by a single, activist justice who believe he/she is in a better position to decide the will of the people.

The Atheist Ethicist: Just Another Propagandist

Calvin Freiburger Alonzo Fyfe, atheism, blogosphere, Christianity, dishonesty, homosexuality, propaganda, religion, shellfish, stupidity
We interrupt Atheists Crying Wolf (no, I haven’t forgotten it; I promise Part II is coming!) for a special bulletin: the “Atheist Ethicist’s” credibility has hit rock-bottom.
–
In this post, Alonzo Fyfe peddles a number of anti-Bible talking points, including the “abomination” of eating shellfish:
–
The eating of shellfish is an abomination because – well, have you ever looked at a shellfish? They’re disgusting. My wife has a hard time with peel-and-eat shrimp. So, of course, eating those things must be considered an abomination…
–
Current bigotry against homosexuals is not something that people get out of the Bible – something that people disapprove of because the Bible calls it an abomination. If people got their morality out of the Bible then they would be just as intent on protesting the eating of shrimp as they would homosexual sex.
–
It doesn’t take much to find out Fyfe hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about here. Neil at Eternity Matters explains the issue very well in a detailed-yet-accessible post. You should read it all, but here’s his quick summary:
–
The short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination. They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts. The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament.
–
Curious about how he’d spin his way out of this, I posed the question to him in the comments section (yeah, that’s me under “Anonymous”). In response, not only did he refuse to defend his own claims, he actually argued that the original context was meaningless. After all, it only gives Christians “room for rationalization and self-deception.” Pot, meet kettle.
–
The exchange is stunning in how completely Fyfe dismisses the basic legwork that any reputable commentator, philosopher, historian, or theologian would do before making serious claims about serious subjects. He speaks without any regard for the truth. His writings will continue to satisfy his hardcore secular groupies, but I don’t think many other people are going to recognize him for the ethicist he isn’t.

Cultural Crusader

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, conservatism, culture, gay marriage, homosexuality, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, pro-life
Yesterday, Mitt Romney delivered a powerful speech in front of Massachusetts Citizens for Life:
–
It is an honor to receive this award.
–
I recognize that it is awarded for where I am on life, not for where I have been.
–
I respect the fact that you arrived at this place of principle a long time ago.
–
And I appreciate the fact that you are inclined to honor someone who arrived here only a few years ago.
–
I am evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit.
–
I follow a long line of converts — George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Hyde, Ronald Reagan. Each of them has made meaningful contributions to this cause.
–
It is instructive to see the double standard at work here. When a pro-life figure changes to pro-choice, it hardly gets a mention. But when someone becomes pro-life, the pundits go into high dudgeon.
–
And so, I am humbled and grateful to be welcomed so warmly and openly tonight.
–
And as many of you know, you were always welcome in my office when I was Governor.
–
Together we worked arm in arm. And I can promise you this — that will be the case again when I am President.
–
I am often asked how I, as a conservative Republican, could have been elected in Massachusetts. I tell them that there were three things that helped account for my improbable victory.
–
First, the state was in a fiscal crisis. A meltdown, of sorts. Beacon Hill couldn’t get budgets done on time. Another big tax hike looked like it was on the way. I promised to balance the budget without raising taxes. And, as you know, together with the legislature, that’s what I did. We eliminated a $3 billion shortfall. And by the time I left, my surpluses had replenished the rainy-day fund to over $2 billion.
–
Second, we were in a jobs crisis. Massachusetts was losing jobs every month. People were afraid. I went to work to bring jobs back to our state. From the end of the recession, we added 60,000 new jobs. And, we finally got our economic development act together — it was in large measure responsible for the economic growth that we continue to experience even today.
–
And third, I think that values also played a role in my campaign success. My opponent said she would sign a bill for gay marriage. I said that I would oppose gay marriage and civil unions. My opponent favored bilingual education. I did not. I said that to be successful in America, our kids need to speak the language of America. And as you will surely recall, my opponent wanted to lower the age of consent for an abortion from 18 to 16 — and I did not.
–
And so, social conservatives, many of them Democrats and Independents, joined fiscal conservatives to elect a Republican.
–
That being said, I had no inkling that I would find myself in the center of the battlefield on virtually every social issue of our time.
–
The first battle came when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, by a one vote majority, found a right to same sex marriage in our constitution. I’m sure that John Adams would be surprised.
–
The Court said that traditional marriage as we have known it, “is rooted in persistent prejudices” and “works a deep and scarring hardship … for no rational reason.”
–
No rational reason? How about children? Isn’t marriage about the development and nurturing of children? And isn’t a child’s development enhanced by access to both genders, by having both a mother and a father?
–
I believe that the Court erred because it focused on adults and adult rights.
–
They should have focused on the rights of children. The ideal setting for the raising of a child is a home with a loving mother and father.
–
Many of you joined the effort to stop, to block or to slow down this unprecedented Court decision. We took every step we could conceive of, within the law.
–
First, we pushed for a stay — denied.
–
Then, we fought for an amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman — lost the vote in the legislature by only 2 votes.
–
We upheld the 1913 law that prohibited out of state gay couples from marrying here, thus preventing Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage.
–
And in the final analysis, we went to work to secure a vote of the citizens, a battle that took us to court, with a win. And now we are just one step away from putting it on the ballot.
–
The issue now is whether a single vote majority of the Court will be allowed to trump the voice of the people in a democracy. If it is, then John Adams would truly be astonished.
–
By the way, we all learned that the phrase “slippery slope” describes a very real phenomenon. The implications of the marriage decision quickly went well beyond adult marriage. Efforts were made to change birth certificates by removing “mother” and “father” and replacing them with “parent A” and “parent B.” I said no to that. And parents of a child in 2nd grade were told that their son is required to listen to the reading of a book called the “King and the King,” about a prince who marries a prince. The school’s rationale was since gay marriage was legal, there was nothing wrong with such a policy.
–
And then another slide along the slippery slope. The Catholic Church was forced to end its adoption service, which was crucial in helping the state find homes for some of our most difficult to place children. Why? Because the Church favors placements in homes with a mother and a father. Now, even religious freedom was being trumped by the new-found right of gay marriage. I immediately drafted and introduced legislation to grant religious liberty protection, but the legislature would not take it up.
–
I have taken this message to Washington, explaining the far-reaching implications of gay marriage and the need to support a federal marriage amendment. I testified before Congress. I wrote to every US Senator. Unfortunately, several senators from my own party voted against the marriage amendment.
–
The fight is not over.
–
In the midst of that battle, another arose. It involved cloning and embryo farming for purposes of research. I studied the subject in great depth. I have high hopes for stem cell research. But for me, a bright moral line is crossed when we create new life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction.
–
That’s why I fought to keep cloning and embryo farming illegal.
–
It was during this battle on cloning and embryo farming that I began to focus a good deal more of my thinking on abortion.
–
When I first ran for office, I considered whether this should be a personal decision or whether it should be a societal and government decision. I concluded that I would support the law as it was in place — effectively, a pro-choice position.
–
And I was wrong.
–
The Roe v. Wade mentality has so cheapened the value of human life that rational people saw human life as mere research material to be used, then destroyed. The slippery slope could soon lead to racks and racks of living human embryos, Brave New World-like, awaiting termination.
–
What some see as a mere clump of cells is actually a human life. Human life has identity. Human life has the capacity to love and be loved. Human life has a profound dignity, undiminished by age or infirmity.
–
And so I publicly acknowledged my error, and joined with you to promote the sanctity of human life.
–
And my words were matched with my actions. As you know, every time I faced a decision as governor that related to human life, I came down on the side of the sanctity of life.
–
I fought to ban cloning.
–
I fought to ban embryo farming.
–
I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation.
–
I fought for abstinence education in our schools.
–
And I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that gave young girls drugs without prescription, drugs that could be abortive and not just contraceptive.
–
That is my record on life as your governor.
–
It was fought against long odds. You know, you go up against those same odds every day. I always appreciated the strong support I received from you, the pro-life community, for these actions.
–
But not everyone agrees with me. You can’t be a pro-life governor in a pro-choice state without considering that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. And I certainly believe in treating all people with respect and tolerance. It is our job to persuade our fellow citizens of our position.
–
The problem is there are some people who believe that their views must be imposed on everyone. More and more, the vehicle for this imposition is the courts. Slowly but surely, the courts have taken it upon themselves to be the final arbiters of our lives. They forget that the most fundamental right in a democracy is the right to participate in your own governance.
–
Make no mistake: abortion and same-sex marriage are not rights to be discovered in the Constitution.
–
I think Chief Justice John Roberts put it best at his confirmation hearing, when he described the role of a judge. Chief Justice Roberts said, “Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them…and I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”
–
Now that’s the type of Justice that I would appoint to the court.
–
On the tenth anniversary of Roe v Wade, Ronald Reagan observed that the Court’s decision had not yet settled the abortion debate. It had become “a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.”
–
More than thirty years later, that is still the case. Numerous court decisions have not settled this question, but have further divided the nation. And Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society.
–
This cannot continue.
–
At the heart of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decisions should ultimately be decided by the people themselves.
–
We are a decent people who have a commitment to the worth and dignity of every person, ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose.
–
So these are the challenges that face the next President: strengthening our country and our families, protecting marriage and human life and preserving for our children the true blessings of liberty.
–
These are noble purposes, worthy of a great people.

ONE Rotten Recruiter

Calvin Freiburger homosexuality, hypocrisy, military, racism
Upon seeing the resume of Corey Andrew on CareerBuilder.com, an Army recruiter named Marcia Ramode chose to pick a fight with him via email in which she made pathetic racial & homophobic slurs against him.
–
There’s no question that Ramode needs to be fired. But can we please forego the liberal opportunism that followed it, like Andrew Sullivan’s comment that “It seems as if some in the military have taken Peter Pace’s recent remarks on homosexuality and run with them”? This was one nut, and if she got the homophobia from General Pace, where’d the racism come from?
–
But remember: there’s NO LINK WHATSOEVER between the Democrat Party and liberal punks who slash the tires of Republican vans. Bad apples only reflect poorly upon the whole on the Right.