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."
1 comment:
He shouldn't distance himself. Well intentioned or not, the Supreme Court of California is misguided. California is filled with great folk who hate telling their neighbors "no." If for no other reason, the court should have taken the citizens whose rights they are sworn to uphold seriously.
Instead, by a miracle of modern government: they've renamed "water" "wine" and taxed us on its new higher value. When the California Supreme court uses the "right to marry" from its own constitution as justification for exalting civil unions, it does not pass the laugh test. Sadly, though, California judges want to use this legal chicanery to take even more of the laws that govern our commerce, our education, and our daily lives out of our hands.
Not only has the California Supreme court laid the basis for a never ending nightmare of bad laws, they have done so arrogantly. They have defied the will of the people of California and deprived us of due process and of our civil rights. Moreover, they have deliberately delivered their flailing blow at the heart of the California Constitution, that same constitution they have sworn to uphold. This is from the California Constitution, Article 2, Voting, Initiative and Referendum, and Recall. Section 1: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." The people of California did vote, and the representatives of the people made California's laws concerning civil union the most enlightened in the land. We are a good and decent people our laws are just. Because of the presumption of this court, we are now all burdened by the task of amending a good document to state that which it has already stated plainly.
For the sake of Massachusetts, a state without a liberal a constitution as California's, we should recall these judges and amend our constitution. The grounds for the recall: judicial arrogance -- depriving the people of California due process. Our civil union laws are kind, liberal, and generous. By refusing to stay the enactment of its tyrannical ruling, this court has made it plain that it has ruled in a California case with the express purpose of affecting the laws and courts in OTHER states. We owe those victims of our courts the decency to act decisively.
The silly analogy about water and wine given above is meant to disparage the courts, not civil unions. Equality before the law is a fine value we should all pursue. In cases of gender equity, the courts take special notice of the differences of gender to assure a level playing field. This is also true, many times, in seeking racial equality. I would hope that the gay community recognizes that the purpose of recalling these judges and amending the constitution is not, as far as I am concerned, an anger with them. All Californians are protected by a balance of powers and the proper exercise of judicial and legal powers. We are all the victims of this court which has ignored the will of the people of California for its own purposes. Even if you are a member of the gay community and voted against proposition 22, I hope that you feel part of the entire California community, a community that strongly believes in participatory democracy and the right to free speech. I also ask for your vote in properly amending this constitution.
Post a Comment