What Next???

Homosexual "marriage" will be on the agenda as the Presbyterian Church USA begins its biennial meeting this weekend in California, where same-sex weddings became legal this week.

Delegates to the General Assembly will be asked to rewrite the church's Book of Order to allow Presbyterian ministers to conduct wedding services for homosexual couples. The church constitution currently defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman.

Pastor Parker Williamson, a leader of conservative Presbyterians, says homosexual rights get more support from the denomination's leaders than from people in the pews. "That support from within the staff infrastructure of the denomination really does give it quite a megaphone," says Williamson, adding that he would "not be at all surprised" to see pro-homosexual demonstrations during the meeting. "After all, we're going to be in San Jose, an area that's very gay-lesbian friendly," he remarks.

In April, the denomination's highest court found that a lesbian minister who officiated at weddings for two lesbian couples was guilty of misconduct, but gave her the lightest possible punishment.

They Are Finally Getting It

There are some empty seats on the environmental bandwagon that's careened through Congress these past few months. It took soaring gas prices and angry constituents to bring members to their senses, but a growing number of them are politely excusing themselves from the extreme "green" team to advocate offshore oil drilling. Yesterday, President Bush stepped into the ring, calling on Congress to do its part to bring about some relief at the pump. While it will do little to end consumers' pain in the short-term, ending the moratorium on coastal drilling would be a step in the right direction. It is a step that requires the cooperation of both the administration and Congress. As the Wall Street Journal puts it, "Like launching a warhead, both keys must be turned."

First, the President has to rescind the executive order put in place by his father that blocks "coastal oil exploration." The burden would then rest squarely on Congress to give the go-ahead for offshore drilling. Rather than play his card and put the burden on Congress, President Bush held back, missing a golden opportunity to flex his political muscle and galvanize public support. Of course, the most frustrating part of the present energy crisis is that Republicans could have prevented this when they held a solid majority in the House and Senate. Instead, the GOP yielded to an extreme environmental view that pits nature against people, forcing families to choose between filling their tanks and filling their stomachs.

While it may have taken leadership a few years ago, Congress only needs to follow now because the American public is already there. According to a recent survey by the polling company inc., citizens favor U.S. drilling and lower gas prices over an environmental agenda by a 3-to-1 margin. I am not overly hopeful that Congress can even follow the public's lead on this. The response of the Democratic leadership to the $4.00+ a gallon gas prices has been to call for the nationalization of refineries. It is clear; voters are going to have to drive this issue in Washington.

Source: FRC, Wall Street Journal.

Permanency

While Democratic leaders try to impose new taxes, President Bush renewed his campaign to slash them for good. Yesterday, on the five-year anniversary of the President's prime tax relief package, the White House hammered home the need for tax cut permanency. Without it, a typical American family of four making $60,000 a year could expect another $1,900 in taxes on top of an already bloated tax bill. Unfortunately, President Bush has only a few months to make a compelling case for permanent tax relief, knowing that a new administration could abandon the idea altogether and let the cuts expire in 2011 as scheduled. If Congress refuses to act, the effect on the economy could be devastating. Of course, the Democratic leadership complains that it "can't afford" permanency while simultaneously pushing Americans to pay $4.8 trillion in the suffocating environmental web of Lieberman-Warner. Contact your leaders and encourage them to give the family a break and pass lasting tax relief!

And Then There Were Two

After an unpredictable primary season, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) finally put the exclamation point on his candidacy last night by capturing enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. Today the race begins in earnest to decide in whose hands the future of our nation rests. Representing the Democratic side is a one-term U.S. Senator who is possessed of vast rhetorical skills. For all of Obama's references to unity, he is lukewarm about nothing. There is no better proof of it than the size of the frenzied, standing-room-only crowds he draws in every city he visits. Barack's intensity is infectious, and his language is soothing, but his votes and views have earned him the rating of the most liberal U.S. Senator. Last week he told conservative South Dakota, "I am not pro-abortion." Not only has he voted in favor of abortion, partial-birth abortion, and abandoning babies that survive botched abortions, Obama has voted to force taxpayers like you and me to pay for it.

In the GOP corner is a decorated war hero who possesses an impressive track record on social issues but a reluctance to speak openly about them. Will John McCain now start drawing distinctions with Obama by returning to the GOP's core values fiscal and social responsibility? To be successful, McCain must breathe new excitement into his campaign by rallying values voters, who are registered as Republicans, Democrats and Independents, around a conservative, pro-life, pro-family, pro-American platform. Yesterday, when California finalized the marriage protection amendment for the November ballot, Sen. McCain had a golden opportunity to distance himself from the Democratic front runner on what may be a deciding issue in the general election. But instead of driving a stake in the ground for marriage after two weeks of near-silence on the issue, John McCain's statement was, "I welcome the news that the people of California will have the opportunity to decide on the question of the definition of marriage..."

While you can fault President Bush for some things, he has never been indifferent on life, marriage, faith, and family. His final message in Ohio on the eve of a victorious 2004 reelection campaign was about the values that are vital to our families. He stood in Wilmington before a boisterous crowd and said unapologetically, "I stand for marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society. I stand for a culture of life in which every person matters and every being counts. I proudly signed the ban on partial-birth abortion. I stand for the appointment of federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law... My opponent voted against the ban on partial birth abortion. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. There is a mainstream in American politics, and [my rival] sits on the far left bank."

The Two Faces of America

As America enters a grand debate over public policy, I think it's vital that we also maintain our focus on personal character, particularly as it pertains to the values we esteem in our leaders and legislation. This week, columnist Peter Schweizer made headlines for his article, "Conservatives more honest than liberals?" In it, he chronicles a series of recent polls and surveys that point to America's state of moral confusion and the ideological discrepancies that appear to be fueling it. In the National Cultural Values Survey, the Culture and Media Institute compared the answers of what they termed "Orthodox" respondents (those who consider faith in God the most important ingredient for a good and moral life) to "Progressive" respondents (those who reject religion and follow their own moral compass).

When researchers posed a series of questions to these groups, the inconsistencies were startling. On adultery, a behavior almost universally condemned, 35% of Progressives said, "There are some situations where [it's] understandable," compared to 3% of Orthodox. To the statement "Sex between unmarried adults is always wrong," 68% of Orthodox responded yes, while only 3% of Progressives agreed. Almost half (45%) of Progressives said it was okay to break some laws because "they are outdated or breaking them doesn't hurt anyone," compared to 13% of Orthodox. Asked if it was okay to cheat the federal government on taxes, 49% of Progressives said it was okay, while less than half the Orthodox (21%) concurred.

A survey by World Values took things a step further and compared the values of self-described liberals and conservatives. On nearly every subject, "very liberal" respondents were more likely to abandon integrity in favor of personal interest. Compared to "very conservative" participants, they were more likely to approve of buying "stolen goods," lying to Uncle Sam, accepting welfare benefits they don't qualify for, and drinking a can of soda in a store without paying for it. This "honesty gap" could mean a couple of things. Either conservatives really have more character than liberals, or they're simply more conscientious about maintaining their image of adhering to standards of right and wrong.

Source: FRC.