Search This Blog

Monday, January 9, 2012

Election Season

For all the talk about the two New Hampshire debates flooding the internet, print, and airwaves, I'm a little disappointed in the focus. I'm not at all surprised; it's the nature of leftist media to look for things to laugh at, for good one-liners, for heated exchanges, etc. But there is little to no substance reported. For that, you must turn to the transcripts or videos of the debates.

These debates have consistently shown the candidates attacking the left for the self-defeating policies of the Obama administration. These debates have strongly articulated conservatism. For the first time in my life, I've heard the social issues in my party articulated well. Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich all have my applause and commendation for that. They've successfully explained the difference between rights and laws, how the issue of gay-marriage is much deeper than it appears at the surface because of the implication it has on religious adoption services and family services who can not operate in places with legal gay marriage, the difference between discrimation against gays and support for gay marriage, the attack on the family as the fundamental functioning unit of society and how this institution of marriage, the sanctity of the family, and all Christianity are under attack to some degree by the policies of our current administration.

There were other substantive parts worth your time as well. Ideas for reigning in congressional corruption, smart foreign policy, smart economic policy, rebuilding our nation economically, growing jobs, etc. The most important part I'd say, of those, is the idea that right now we're propping up and bowing to oppressive regimes and tyrants for oil while we have more than enough of our own.

If we opened up our own resources, prices would drop, costs of living and doing business would drop, we'd have energy independence and wouldn't be economically vulnerable to Iran closing the straights of Hormuz, we'd leave those oppressive regimes short of cash for funding their terrorist organizations, we'd grow jobs and wealth at home, we'd be able to pay off our enormous federal debts, etc.

They didn't talk about this, but we'd also be using oil extracted in a more environmentally-friendly way than from the countries we're buying from. The arguments against oil expansion in our country are weak. I'm convinced that Obama caters to the environmentalists not because he really cares about the environment, but likes the power it gives him. With Americans suffering financially from the high price of oil and subsequent high cost of living and doing business, more Americans turn to the government for help. He's creating dependencies and continuing dependencies to make the transition to socialism seem obvious.  Fellow Americans, don't fall for this! Our freedom and prosperity are at stake. This election is far more serious than meets the eye. So many factors and issues combine to make this the most important election season we've faced since probably Lincoln's reelection during the Civil War. Please read up on each issue, reading both left and right so you understand exactly where we are and where we're headed.


  1. Does a gay family not count as a family?

  2. Short answer is no. Of course they're a unit of some sort, but they cannot and will not ever be a fundamental unit of society simply because of biology. Families (children) are naturally brought into this world by the union of a man and a woman. The conservatives, including myself, believe that marriage is sacred and should be devoted to raising children to become contributing, good members of a civil society. Again, this is not to say that conservatives or myself discriminate against gays. We don't. I invite you to watch the debates and read the LDS publication, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

  3. I respect your religious convictions, but your argument is flawed in two ways. First, while churches should never be required under law to perform same sex ceremonies in their sanctuaries, to deny gay couples the same rights and protections that marriage provides under state law is by definition, discrimination. Second, your argument implies that infertile straight couples are also not families b/c biology prevents them from bringing children into this world through their union. Does an infertile couple who adopts children or has no children, not count as a family?

    Thank you for opening your comment section. I enjoy reading your opinions, even though I don't often agree with them. Oh, and I watch every single debate.

  4. We may have to agree to respectfully disagree. While I understand your logic, I do not consider gay couples to be a family in the traditional sense while at the same time I do consider couples without children to be families- I was giving a short answer, as you may recall. And I strongly support adoption as a means of bringing children to those couples, but I still don't personally support adoption by gay couples, because of the tenets of my religion stating that the family, begining with the union between a man and a woman, is ordained of God. Again, please read the LDS publication, "Families: A Proclamation to the World." It's in the archives on this blog as well as

  5. Agreed that we will agree to respectfully disagree. Your religious tenets and our country's freedom of religion allow you the right to believe that gay couples are not a family. However, that freedom does not allow you or anyone else to create legislation that denies them the same rights and protections as their straight counterparts. Legislating that belief makes them second class citizens, which is something that we as a country have determined is unconstitutional since all citizens are created equal.

  6. Is marriage really a right? Civil unions do everything before the law that marriage does. A law that makes it more difficult for religions to give service in various ways to protect a few doesn't sound convincing to me. Is it the right of gays to go around trampling on others' rights to prove a point?

  7. Does that mean you would support civil unions in all states? See! This is how compromise is reached - through a civil and respectful discourse. Yes, I do think that marriage is a right, and a civil union is the equalivent of "separate but equal", which obviously is not favorable to me. But governing is done by compromise and meeting in the middle. No side should ever have it all. Changes often come in small steps instead of giant leaps anyway.

    I don't think that allowing gays to be married tramples on my rights or marriage, in the eyes of the state or God, but that's a matter of opinion. The inequality of the current situation is a matter of fact.

  8. Where it tramples isn't so much on individuals directly as the religious groups that benefit individuals. Such as those adoption services which can no longer be provided by the Catholic Church in states where gay couples may legally adopt.