Albuquerque - New Mexico has captured both the ire and admiration of many in the past couple weeks with five of the state's counties commencing the issuance of same sex marriage licenses. A very vocal segment of society likes to equate this as the civil rights triumph of our modern time while others see this as a major government overreach and another example of the social moral decay of this generation. The stigma that divides society on this issue has left the darkness of taboo and entered front and center the forum of ideas in American politics.
The marriage equality movement is one of the most organized and vocal political movements to successfully mobilize and win the public narrative in recent memory. The bipartisan endorsed 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was recently deemed unconstitutional and overturned by a right of center United States Supreme Court. Liberal California's Proposition 8 which created an amendment to the California state constitution defining marriage as between a man and woman was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. Appeals Court, a decision also supported by the Supreme Court earlier this summer. Politicians are quick to calculate and accommodate the changing social norms in order to stay in step with those who most effectively shake the cage of American political discourse. Presidents Obama and Clinton both formerly articulating that they believed in the traditional definition of marriage have now come in full support of marriage equality and have been followed by many elected officials who advocate for the same position. This is not surprising as many elected officials, both Republican and Democrat, seem to follow and use the changing contemporary social traditions to govern rather than the principles of the U.S. Constitution.
Most Republicans have taken a socially conservative stance on this issue citing biblical references and religious dogma in defending their position in supporting traditional marriage. The same Republicans often articulate small government sentiments when considering other social and economic policies yet they conveniently use big government to push a specific social agenda on society. This unfortunate inconsistency has limited the credibility of the Republican party with a growing population of independent and young voters, the same voters who are increasingly influential in elections and policy. It would do Republicans well to shed these past inconsistencies and face the current issue with a more constitutional question, "Why is the government involved in an institution of the church in the first place?"
There are few Republicans who are articulating this concept. One is the Dona Ana Republican Party Chairman David Clements. In a recent press release Chairman Clements hammers out a narrative that Republicans should follow.
"Republicans instinctively defend our core values by referring to natural law concepts acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or more authoritatively the Bible. For example Republicans routinely appeal to the Bible as the source of authority to defend the definition of traditional marriage. In particular, Genesis 2:24 and Mark 10:6-7.
Yet, we hamstring ourselves by fighting secularist-progressives on their battle ground. Namely that our fundamental rights come from the government and not our Creator. Though well intentioned, we have welcomed the government into our marriages by promoting subsidies and tax breaks in order to promote the nuclear family. This has unintended consequences. By providing government benefits to some and withholding from others, we provide the very legal foothold progressives need to establish grounds for lawsuit based on discrimination. In this writer's opinion, when we remove marriage from government control, we save it. If government has to be involved, it should only be at the State level in accordance with the Constitution.
Progressives want conservatives to base our arguments on ever-changing societal norms and "tradition" instead of the Constitution and natural law. Why? Because progressive reforms can infiltrate, endure and become the new "tradition." When Republicans are complicit in creating meaning never contemplated by the authors of the Constitution, we lose our intellectual ammunition and end up accepting the change, for better or worse.
Republicans, it is only with an intellectual revolution and a reclaiming of the Constitution that we can effectively fight for religious freedom, marriage, property rights, and free speech. Truth is our strongest weapon. Arm yourself with the truth and change the battlefield."
Clements strongly articulates the constitutional narrative that conservatives, libertarians, and republicans should adopt when responding to the question of marriage equality. Most Americans are disenchanted with the obscene government intrusions and constitutional abuses that have been recently revealed by whistle blowers like Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, and others further strengthening the case against more state involvement in our personal relationships and lives. Government involvement in the licensing of marriage to anyone has invited the current controversy of semantics to take place. Regardless of society's definition of marriage, our governments should only be involved in the issuing of civil unions or partnerships for all. Those who wish to be married must enter that institution with the blessing of ceremony by their chosen religious or spiritual community.
This subject is painful for many to discuss as we all have gay friends, family, and associates. We truly achieve equality by calming our emotions, ending the shouting matches and having a respectfully tempered discussion with the objective to understand one another. We must not allow social divisions like this fracture our families and communities. There is a solution for all and that solution can be found in the "intellectual revolution" that Clements speaks of.
The marriage equality movement is one of the most organized and vocal political movements to successfully mobilize and win the public narrative in recent memory. The bipartisan endorsed 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was recently deemed unconstitutional and overturned by a right of center United States Supreme Court. Liberal California's Proposition 8 which created an amendment to the California state constitution defining marriage as between a man and woman was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. Appeals Court, a decision also supported by the Supreme Court earlier this summer. Politicians are quick to calculate and accommodate the changing social norms in order to stay in step with those who most effectively shake the cage of American political discourse. Presidents Obama and Clinton both formerly articulating that they believed in the traditional definition of marriage have now come in full support of marriage equality and have been followed by many elected officials who advocate for the same position. This is not surprising as many elected officials, both Republican and Democrat, seem to follow and use the changing contemporary social traditions to govern rather than the principles of the U.S. Constitution.
Most Republicans have taken a socially conservative stance on this issue citing biblical references and religious dogma in defending their position in supporting traditional marriage. The same Republicans often articulate small government sentiments when considering other social and economic policies yet they conveniently use big government to push a specific social agenda on society. This unfortunate inconsistency has limited the credibility of the Republican party with a growing population of independent and young voters, the same voters who are increasingly influential in elections and policy. It would do Republicans well to shed these past inconsistencies and face the current issue with a more constitutional question, "Why is the government involved in an institution of the church in the first place?"
There are few Republicans who are articulating this concept. One is the Dona Ana Republican Party Chairman David Clements. In a recent press release Chairman Clements hammers out a narrative that Republicans should follow.
"Republicans instinctively defend our core values by referring to natural law concepts acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or more authoritatively the Bible. For example Republicans routinely appeal to the Bible as the source of authority to defend the definition of traditional marriage. In particular, Genesis 2:24 and Mark 10:6-7.
Yet, we hamstring ourselves by fighting secularist-progressives on their battle ground. Namely that our fundamental rights come from the government and not our Creator. Though well intentioned, we have welcomed the government into our marriages by promoting subsidies and tax breaks in order to promote the nuclear family. This has unintended consequences. By providing government benefits to some and withholding from others, we provide the very legal foothold progressives need to establish grounds for lawsuit based on discrimination. In this writer's opinion, when we remove marriage from government control, we save it. If government has to be involved, it should only be at the State level in accordance with the Constitution.
Progressives want conservatives to base our arguments on ever-changing societal norms and "tradition" instead of the Constitution and natural law. Why? Because progressive reforms can infiltrate, endure and become the new "tradition." When Republicans are complicit in creating meaning never contemplated by the authors of the Constitution, we lose our intellectual ammunition and end up accepting the change, for better or worse.
Republicans, it is only with an intellectual revolution and a reclaiming of the Constitution that we can effectively fight for religious freedom, marriage, property rights, and free speech. Truth is our strongest weapon. Arm yourself with the truth and change the battlefield."
Clements strongly articulates the constitutional narrative that conservatives, libertarians, and republicans should adopt when responding to the question of marriage equality. Most Americans are disenchanted with the obscene government intrusions and constitutional abuses that have been recently revealed by whistle blowers like Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, and others further strengthening the case against more state involvement in our personal relationships and lives. Government involvement in the licensing of marriage to anyone has invited the current controversy of semantics to take place. Regardless of society's definition of marriage, our governments should only be involved in the issuing of civil unions or partnerships for all. Those who wish to be married must enter that institution with the blessing of ceremony by their chosen religious or spiritual community.
This subject is painful for many to discuss as we all have gay friends, family, and associates. We truly achieve equality by calming our emotions, ending the shouting matches and having a respectfully tempered discussion with the objective to understand one another. We must not allow social divisions like this fracture our families and communities. There is a solution for all and that solution can be found in the "intellectual revolution" that Clements speaks of.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment