Tag Archives: Social Conservatism

News

Why Christians and social conservatives should vote for Rick Santorum

1 Comment

Mary sent me this article from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum has taken the Obama administration to task for its role in eroding traditional views on sexuality to make way for a more pluralistic view.

During a campaign event in Muscatine, Iowa last month, Santorum took on a questioner challenging his marriage views by expounding on the benefits of a traditional household for children and society, and blasting the “hate” branding used by gay rights leaders and media against marriage defenders.

Santorum said that he learned radio conservative pundit Bill Bennett’s wife, who runs an abstinence program called Best Friends, had been pressured by the Obama administration not to use the word “abstinence” or uphold the traditional family as better than other lifestyles.

“The Obama administration has said to them, they can’t use the word abstinence anymore. They can’t use it, because of course that is a cultural artifact of a bygone era, and therefore you can’t promote that,” said Santorum. “You can’t promote traditional marriage, because it’s one of a variety of different lifestyles, and it’s no better or worse than any other lifestyle, which is simply not the case.”

“I love it when the left says, quit trying to impose your morality on us,” he continued. “What’s that? that’s their morality, and they’re now imposing it on us.

“The idea that this is a morality that may not be based in faith does not make it more legitimate than one that may be based in part in faith. But in their eyes, it is different. They want to drive faith and moral conclusions that come from faith out of the public square of the public law, and replace it with their values.”

In a recent discussion with Dr. James Dobson, Bennett had said that his wife Elayne had been told by the Obama administration that they “strongly prefer that she not use the word ‘abstinence’” in her program, which received public funds.

Santorum went on to defend marriage as a fruitful union uniquely suited to raising children that society is best served by defending, and blamed its erosion beginning with the no-fault divorce movement of the 1960s and 70s.

“We have seven children, and I can tell you that my wife brings a very different thing to our children’s growth and development than I do, because we’re different. It’s not just we’re different because we’re different people, we’re different because we’re husband and wife, male and female, and there are different attributes and qualities that go with that. Yes, true: the way God made us.

“So what we need is a society that promotes that. … other relationships are important in society: my relationship with my aunt, my relationship with my friends … but they don’t have the unique benefit that men and women bonding together for the purposes of marrying, having, and raising children and nurturing them to be successful citizens of our country. That’s why we should focus and promote marriage as something that is a good.”

He also took a moment to criticize those who were poised to label his position or statements “hateful” because he defended marriage, something he said doesn’t mesh with the values America promotes.

“Everybody’s trying to impose their values. … Come into the public square make your case as to why same-sex marriage should be the law of the land. I have no prob with that at all. Make the argument,” he said. “But accept the fact that other people who disagree with you don’t hate people who disagree with them, they just happen to believe that marriage is a good that should be preserved.”

I think there really is only one social conservative activist left in the Republican Primary. Rick Santorum. He knows how to debate social issues well enough to spot the self-refuting rhetoric of the “tolerant” left. The left wants to impose their moral relativism on society, and Rich Santorum will fight them. If you are sick and tired of being labeled as hateful because you think that traditional marriage is best for children, then vote for someone who can make the case for you.

The Christian Post says that social conservative stalwart Gary Bauer has endorsed Rick Santorum.

Excerpt:

Social conservative leader Gary Bauer endorsed Rick Santorum at a campaign event in South Carolina on Saturday.

In a Sunday press release, Bauer said, “the main ‘pillars’ of Senator Santorum’s governing philosophy – smaller, constitutionally-based government, lower taxes, a strong and confident American role in the world to keep our nation safe, a commitment to defending America’s families and defending the sanctity of life – is exactly the blueprint to put America back on the right track.”

Bauer was previously president of the Family Research Council and helped build that organization into the top advocacy organization and think tank representing social conservatives. Bauer also served in the Department ofEducation under President Ronald Reagan. Currently, he heads Campaign for Working Families and American Values.

Here is Rick Santorum’s speech at the Right to Life convention in 2011.

Part 1:

Part 2:

If you are a pure social conservative, there here is the candidate ranking for you:

  1. Rick Santorum
  2. Newt Gingrich
  3. Rick Perry
  4. Ron Paul
  5. John Huntsman
  6. Mitt Romney

Santorum is the best, and Gingrich has a good voting record. Perry would be OK, but he can’t persuade anyone in a debate. The rest are all social liberals. Mitt Romney would be the absolute worst candidate on social issues. And that’s why the Republican establishment and the news media are pushing him as the nominee.

Related posts

News

If Ron Paul were President, 16 to 28 states would keep abortion legal

6 Comments
Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?
Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?

From the Weekly Standard. (H/T Triablogue)

Excerpt:

“[Ron Paul] has an outstanding chance of winning in Iowa,” according to Bob Vander Plaats, who served as Mike Huckabee’s 2008 state campaign chairman. “There’s a lot about Ron Paul that people like,” Vander Plaats says, pointing to Paul’s “almost prophetic” vision of our economic problems and his commitment to do away with “politics as usual.”

But Paul could face trouble with values voters in Iowa, where 60 percent of GOP caucusgoers are evangelical Christians. Vander Plaats says his socially conservative umbrella organization, the Family Leader, has ruled out endorsing Paul because “sometimes [Paul’s] libertarian views trump his moral compass.”

“On abortion, [Paul] believes that’s a states’ rights issue, we believe that’s a morality issue,” says Vander Plaats. In a post-Roe v. Wade world, “We don’t believe abortion should be legal in Maine and illegal in Iowa.” (Paul voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, but expressed deep reservations about voting for a federal law on abortion.)

“We’re very concerned” about Paul’s position that the government shouldn’t recognize civil marriage, Vander Plaats continues. The group also balks at some of Paul’s foreign policy views. ”Even though we may agree with him that we’re not called to be the policeman of the world, we do believe we’re called to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel,” says Vander Plaats. “And we do believe [a nuclear-armed] Iran is a definite threat not only to Israel, but to our freedom as well.”

[…]Vander Plaats says he doesn’t think very many Iowa voters are aware that Paul thinks it should be up to states to decide whether or not to protect human life. But now that Paul leading in the Iowa polls, his positions may come under greater scrutiny.

Here’s a 2006 USA Today article listing the states that would make abortion legal under Ron Paul’s plan.

Excerpt:

•Twenty-two state legislatures are likely to impose significant new restrictions on abortion. They include nearly every state in the South and a swath of big states across the industrial Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania to Ohio and Michigan. These states have enacted most of the abortion restrictions now allowed.

•Sixteen state legislatures are likely to continue current access to abortion. They include every state on the West Coast and almost every state in the Northeast. A half-dozen already have passed laws that specifically protect abortion rights. Most of the states in this group have enacted fewer than half of the abortion restrictions now available to states.

•Twelve states fall into a middle ground between those two categories. About half are in the Midwest, the rest scattered from Arizona to Rhode Island.

[…]The 22 states likely to enact new restrictions include 50% of the U.S. population and accounted for 37% of the abortions performed in 2000, the latest year for which complete data were available.

The 16 states likely to protect access to abortion include 35% of the U.S. population and accounted for 48% of the abortions performed.

So Ron Paul, far from being pro-life, would allow abortion on demand in 16 to 28 states, many of them the most populous states in the union – like California and New York. I understand that he calls allowing abortion in 16 to 28 states “pro-life”, but voters have to think and decide – is that really pro-life? Is it really pro-life when the number of abortions per year will drop from 1.1 million to 550,000? Is that pro-life? (Assuming that the people in the pro-life states don’t just cross the border to get an abortion elsewhere – which is false, of course). Paul’s position is that he is personally pro-life, but he thinks that other people should be allowed to decide if an unborn baby can be killed or not, at the state level. Isn’t that pro-choice though?

Similarly, Paul would allow states to redefine marriage to be anything they want it to be, since he thinks that the definition of marriage is an issue that states should decide. That’s his view. Is that pro-marriage? Does that position take seriously the need for children to be raised by a mother and a father?

Commentary

Ron Paul on the issues: Ron Paul’s positions on abortion and gay marriage

19 Comments

Ron Paul on gay marriage

Let’s look in this article from the Advocate to find out Ron Paul’s views on same-sex marriage.

Excerpt:

Paul was asked whether his libertarian views on such controversial issues — mainly his belief that personal liberties should not be encroached upon by the federal government — could help him attract socially conservative voters. Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so.

“If you do not protect liberty across the board, it’s a First Amendment–type issue,” he said. “We don’t have a First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So, for people to say that, ‘Yes, we have our religious beliefs protected, but people who want to follow something else, or a controversial religion — you can’t do this’ … if you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. But there are strict rules on freedom of choice of this sort, because you can’t hurt other people, you can’t defame other people, but yes, you have a right to do things that are very controversial. If not, you’re going to end up with a government that can tell you what to eat or drink or whatever.”

Gay conservative group GOProud released a statement in support of Paul and the other politicians seeking the party’s nomination.

“[We] thank Congressman Ron Paul for rightly making the case that marriage and family laws should be decided at the state level, not by the politicians in Washington,” the organization said Friday.

That’s Ron Paul’s view of marriage.

Ron Paul on abortion

Here’s what Ron Paul wrote about abortion.

Excerpt:

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It’s a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It’s equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal “right to abortion” exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

What states would legalize abortion if Ron Paul allowed states to decide whether abortion should be legal?

Here’s the map:

Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?
Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?

That’s Ron Paul’s view of abortion.

You can read more about Ron Paul’s troubling views on social issues on Caffeinated Thoughts.

But there’s more. Here’s Ron Paul’s view of the Middle East. He is indifferent to Iran having nuclear weapons. Especially troubling, given the recent terrorist attack on American soil, which implicated the elite Iranian Quds Force.

UPDATE: A commenter adds:

It’s more accurate to say that these are Paul’s views on how states should go about answering these issues. His personal views on these issues are quite clear, that he ascribes to the natural view of marriage and abhors abortion. However he advocates relegating these issues to individual states because of his overriding commitment to a limited federal government and because he believes the constitution does not enumerate such decisions to the federal government for it to answer such questions for all states in the union.

This is true. But if the man becomes President, a lot of unborn babies will still be killed in states that he allows to legalize abortion, and a lot of children will still grow up without a mother or a father, in states that he allows to redefine marriage.  So despite his personal views, the net effect of electing him will be that abortion is permitted in some states, and same-sex marriage, too. So clearly, Ron Paul is not as pro-life or as pro-marriage as other candidates like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum.