Sunday, July 03, 2011

MD-Sen: Allan Kittleman Must Go

We have long argued that Republicans in Maryland cannot win by being Democrat-light.  Aside for the fact that Rinos don't inspire a following and fail to galvanize voters to their cause, they are automatic losers.  Once we adopt the views of the opposition, we have lost, period.  As such, even if we somehow enjoy electoral success, it is irrelevant because, in essence, we are not winning anything.

Nevertheless, that is the type of party which state Senator Allan Kittleman wants us to be.  He is advocating that we accept the most extreme positions of the Democrat Party, including the redefining of marriage to include...well, just about anything.  Kittleman is asserting that we must take cues from the Republican traitors in New York who voted for gay marriage.

It is very sad that we've descended to such moral decadency that we have Republicans who are advocating for such immorality - the degree to which has never been suggested until this generation.  While homosexuality has existed for a long time, nobody ever had the audacity to suggest that such a relationship constitutes a marriage.  One need not be overtly religious to appreciate that the basic legal definition of marriage is a special bond between one man and one woman.

If we are going to attenuate the meaning of marriage to the extent that it can include two men, why not change the other components of marriage, such as the number of parties involved?  Why not recognize polygamist marriages, or man-dog relationships?  I love my one-year-old son to death; can I marry him?  The concept of marriage is really not an enigma, except to those who are biased by their libertine beliefs.

The bottom line is that nobody is regulating the behavior of individuals, no matter how morally licentious it is.  We are merely upholding the basic definition of one of the most fundamental concepts since the dawn of times.

Alan Kittleman has the nerve to sully the definition of conservatism and individual liberty by suggesting that our ideology of freedom compels us to support gay marriage:

“I think I’m being a very consistent Republican by saying I want freedom economically, I don’t want the government’s overbearing regulations on businesses, I want people to be able to do things in their business life without a lot of government intrusion, but I feel the same way about their personal life,” Kittleman said. “And so I think me being in favor of same-sex marriage is consistent with my Republican philosophy that the government shouldn’t be telling people what to do.”

Again, for the millionth time, a homosexual relationship is not a marriage.  Kittleman and his ilk refuse to address the issue at hand.  Nobody is seeking to govern people's private behavior, although the nation was founded on bedrock values in which homosexuality stands as an anathema to our beliefs.  But let's forget about that for a moment.  This is not an issue of liberty.  It is a matter of honoring a sacrosanct relationship and legal definition that has been so basic to humankind since creation.  You could talk about liberty until you turn blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that unicorns don't fly, and a gay relationship is not a marriage.

All Americans, including gays, have the full liberty to get married; nobody is stopping them.  Additionally, nobody is preventing them from acting out their immoral impulses in private.  It is they who want society to change the basic definition of marriage - something that is totally intractable.

It's interesting how Kittleman originally claimed that he only supported "civil unions."  In January, Kittleman introduced a bill recognizing civil unions.  At the time, he noted, “I believe that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage.  I think the government should be involved in civil unions.”

However, as we have warned for years, the propagation of civil unions is merely an obfuscation of a politicians' desire to redefine marriage.  Well, if nothing else, Kittleman's predictable vacillation proves our point.

If Kittleman has such a desire to join those who seek our moral destruction, why not join the Democrat Party.  We already have one party that is engaged in an inexorable battle to reshape the character of this great nation.  We need a choice, not an echo.

Besides, as we have seen all too often, there is no such thing as a social liberal who is a strong fiscal conservative.  If you follow the voting records of the 535 members of Congress, you will find that, with few exceptions, it is an extinct political breed.  When you have a small God, you have a big government; when you have a big God, you have small government.  The vacuum must be filled with something.  Consequently, secular humanists will fill that vacuum of religious values with the "religious values" of big government.

Accordingly, it is no surprise that Kittleman is a big government statist, along with being a social liberal.  Earlier this year, during the legislative session, Senator Kittleman introduced a nanny state amendment to the bill banning reading of text messages while driving.  His amendment, which was thankfully defeated, would have banned all eating and drinking (non-alcoholic) while driving!  What happened to intruding on people's personal lives, Mr. Kittleman?  Or, does your doctrine of freedom only cover a libertine world view -  and not a libertarian one?  It is amazing to think that this guy was once the Senate Minority Leader.

There are only 12 - yes, 12 Republican senators in the Maryland legislature.  Is it too much to ask that they all share our core values and basic understanding of fundamental concepts?  There is plenty of room in the Democrat Party for those like Alan Kittleman.

No comments: