Mike, I'm pro-gun and pro-freedom.
But if you don't want to take the GOP down the rat-hole in the name of purity - refuse as a minister and as a church leader (if that is your belief regarding Gods will) to perform same-sex or interracial marriages - some may find your action vile but you are true to yourself and your faith.
HOWEVER, as a political leader recognize that marriage is none of the business of the *federal* government and only doubtfully and in a limited fashion that of the state governments. Within broad limits, what consenting adults want to formalize their relationship with other consenting adults is....the business of those consenting adults.
After all, Luke 6:42. And then I might suggest that this is an issue that is between God and the participants in such unions (and He is fully capable of issuing any congratulations or condemnations necessary).
Pragmatically, it is just not logistically possible to deport the entire population unlawfully present in the U.S. to their various homelands - and when something is physically not possible, one doesn't need to argue about its other facets. Further, continuing to drive a wedge between the GOP and immigrants is not in the best interests of the nation or the party. Secure the border - then lets talk about how to reform immigration policy.
Regarding abortion (life) find me a logically and factually supportable position on when life begins (heartbeat? pain perception? or?) and perhaps we have something to talk about - but neither "always good and a right" nor "always bad and never a right" are reasonable positions.
In today's world the GOP can either be theologically pure (and scare off many folks of Tea Party, moderate, or libertarian bent) OR the GOP can start winning. Not both.
Given that you appear to suggest hanging a lead life jacket about the neck of the GOP...and the alternative is the Democratic party as led by the Obama faction - I really can't support your efforts at a pragmatic level as a man who wishes his nation well.
As a gay man with hopes of achieving equality before the law in this lifetime, I have some small issues with your stance on same sex marriage and am thus prevented from supporting you at yet another level.
Gotta agree in all respects. I would eliminate ALL governmental recognition of "marriage" (after all, it's a social and religious custom), and substitute a contractual relationship between two* consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation or even sexual interest. If two hetero same-sex business partners who are confirmed bachelors (or players) with no firm family ties to others wish to protect their reliationship by registering as "life partners", fine.
ReplyDeleteFinding a scientifically supportable line to state when legally protected life begins is rather straightforward -- there's about a half dozen fairly clear places a logical line can be drawn, not including the blind binary choice of "fertilization" (what most religious persons mean when they improperly say "conception") and "breathing external air" (which is what fanatical pro-choicers mean when they refer to late term abortion). Segmentation (which is the initiation of true individuality, as twinning is no longer possible), brain wave activity analogous to how we identify end-of-life, detectable heartbeat, statistical viability (which is what the Roe v. Wade decision actually protects most firmly), etc.
I'm with you on immigration. Some form of amnesty is necessary, solely due to logistics(if only "after the border is secure, and between the dates of X and Y, we will not hold your prior illegal residency against you when you apply for a proper visa, but we may impose consequences short of blocking your application, and we may decline and deprt you if, aside from immigration and labor violations, you were breaking the law). And frankly, once the broders are secure and we don't have to worry about future floods of illegals, I'm perfectly happy to let those already here and not a safety threat to get in the back of the application line, behind everyone who was following the rules. By and large, illegal aliens don't sneak here because they are lazy and unproductive. . .
*(I'd say "two or more", but pragmatically, when tax goodies are attached, limiting each partnership to two people who are not in a similar relationship with anyone else is a supportable fraud prevention measure. But, with "marriage" treated as a nongovernmental affair, poly relationships aren't a problem -- although they couldn't all be collectively "life partners" under the law, they could still be spouces, and could team up in sets of two to register as life partners. . . )