We have long argued that Republicans in Maryland cannot win
by being Democrat-lite. Aside for the fact that liberal Republicans fail
to 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 Delegate Wade Kach (RINO-Baltimore Co.) 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.
Earlier today, Kach announced that "as a proud member of the party of Lincoln, I believe that we as legislators should be more concerned with relieving the tax burden of families than telling them how to behave in their own homes."
Kach is using the typical illusory parlance that is associated with the pro-gay marriage forces. He is falsely charging that opponents of gay marriage are telling people how to behave. That is absolutely false. The reality 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.
Again, for the millionth time, a homosexual relationship is not a marriage. Kach 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 is also preposterous and shameful to intimate that Lincoln would support something like gay marriage. It's 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.
Nevertheless, that is the type of party which state Delegate Wade Kach (RINO-Baltimore Co.) 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.
Earlier today, Kach announced that "as a proud member of the party of Lincoln, I believe that we as legislators should be more concerned with relieving the tax burden of families than telling them how to behave in their own homes."
Kach is using the typical illusory parlance that is associated with the pro-gay marriage forces. He is falsely charging that opponents of gay marriage are telling people how to behave. That is absolutely false. The reality 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.
Again, for the millionth time, a homosexual relationship is not a marriage. Kach 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 is also preposterous and shameful to intimate that Lincoln would support something like gay marriage. It's 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.
Moreover, 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 Kach is a big government statist, along with being a social liberal. Among many fiscally liberal votes that Kach has cast in the legislature, he voted for Maryland's cap and trade law in 2006. What happened to intruding on people's personal lives, Mr. Kach? Or, does your doctrine of freedom only cover a libertine world view - and not a libertarian one?
If Kach 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.
Only 30% of the Maryland House is comprised of elected Republicans. They have absolutely no power. 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 Wade Kach.
Accordingly, it is no surprise that Kach is a big government statist, along with being a social liberal. Among many fiscally liberal votes that Kach has cast in the legislature, he voted for Maryland's cap and trade law in 2006. What happened to intruding on people's personal lives, Mr. Kach? Or, does your doctrine of freedom only cover a libertine world view - and not a libertarian one?
If Kach 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.
Only 30% of the Maryland House is comprised of elected Republicans. They have absolutely no power. 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 Wade Kach.
No comments:
Post a Comment