If you like the Illinois GOP, you’ll love Mitt Romney, Part 3.
Some of my friends here in Illinois, after reading parts 1 and 2 of this series, might wonder why I’m so harsh, so “negative.” The answer is simple. I’m not interested in being nice or gentle with those who stand in the way of the re-establishing limited, Constitutional government.
An integral part of Constitutional government is religious liberty. While social liberals (including many libertarians) would like to pretend otherwise, the First Amendment is a part of the U.S. Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In an opinion column of modest length it’s impossible to delve deeply into what the Framers had in mind when they adopted the Amendment. Delving deeply shouldn’t be necessary but unfortunately an entire school of thought has arisen in the past century dedicated not only to re-interpreting the words of the Constitution, but just as important, dedicated to ignoring what the Founding Fathers had to say about the importance of the Christian religion in the maintenance of civilization in many other writings.
If Republican primary voters were to nominate Mitt Romney they’d be nominating a man who doesn’t understand morality and human behavior, and thus cannot grasp the concept of religious liberty. And yes, this is supremely ironic for a guy who is a member of the historically controversial Mormon religion.
You cannot be for the advancement of so-called homosexual “rights” and for the protection of religious liberty. Those who are confused think that the direction of a person’s sex drive is equivalent to race and thus entitled to the protection of non discrimination statutes. But their confusion doesn’t negate the reality that human behavior is what morality addresses, and religion is all about morality.
I’ve written at length about the fact that much of the debate over homosexual “rights” is actually set on a faulty foundation – many of the articles can be on this page. Laurie Higgins’ writing on the topic is the definitive work explaining the error-ridden thinking of those who are confused about this issue. Examples of and/or excerpts from her work are found here and here.
If Republican primary voters want their party to join in the cause of the radical social left and alienate informed values voters, they need only nominate Mitt Romney as their standard bearer.
Here’s the exchange that took place during a Republican debate last month:
MODERATOR Andy Hiller: Governor Romney, I’d like to remind you of something you said in Bay Windows, which is a gay newspaper in Massachusetts in 1994, when you were running against Senator Kennedy. These are your words: “I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party, and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.” How have you stood up for gay rights? And when have you used your voice to influence Republicans on this issue?
Mitt Romney: Andy, as you know, I don’t discriminate, and in the appointments that I made when I was governor of Massachusetts, a member of my cabinet was gay. I appointed people to the bench regardless of their sexual orientation, made it very clear that, in my view, we should not discriminate in hiring policies and legal policies…
But — but if people are looking for someone who — who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me.
MODERATOR: When’s the last time you stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights?
Mitt Romney: Right now.
The man is running for president and doesn’t understand that the phrase “sexual orientation” is ridiculous*? (*See below.) The man is running for president and believes that Americans should be prevented by law from making moral judgments about the behavior of others? I expect that level of ignorance from Democrats and political consultants, but not from Republican presidential candidates.
In addition to what Laurie Higgins and I have written, I’d also recommend that people read “The Born Gay Hoax” by Ryan Sorba.
If a majority of Republican primary voters believe we can restore our economy while at the same time green-lighting moral depravity, then I guess the nation will have to learn the hard way what I’ve outlined in a series of articles about the connection between the economic and social issues.
For those who are still confused, I’d encourage them to go to school on the issue. The Internet has left only laziness or hubris as reasons for continued ignorance.
* PLEASE READ:
Laurie Higgins explains the problem with the term “sexual orientation”
The term “sexual orientation” is a biased, political term created to equate heterosexuality and homosexuality. While homosexual activists and their ideological allies believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are flip sides of the sexuality coin, others believe–rightly–that homosexuality is a disordering of the sexual impulse.
“Sexual orientation” also connotes the idea that homosexuality is biological determined, immutable in all cases, and inherently moral, all of which are controversial assumptions.
Whereas homosexuality is constituted merely by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts that many consider immoral, heterosexuality is constituted by subjective desire, volitional acts that no one considers inherently immoral, and by biology and anatomy. And in terms of biology and anatomy, everyone is heterosexual.
Homosexuality is not merely one of several healthy and moral manifestations of sexuality. Rather, it is a disordering or perversion of the sexual impulse.
Our side needs to understand this and stop using the term “sexual orientation.”