Late last week, an Iowa-based organization known as The FAMiLY LEADER (no typos, that's how they spell it), asked Republican presidential candidates to sign a pledge called "The Marriage Vow- A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and FAMiLY". The Organization, which was founded by Conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats, bills itself as a "courageous voice in the churches, in the legislature, in the media, in the courtroom, in the public square…always standing for God’s truth". Supposedly, candidates cannot get an endorsement from the organization unless they sign the pledge.
The pledge itself is, quite frankly, frightening and shamelessly dogmatic. It promotes transforming America into a theocratic state that is guided by Biblical teaching rather than the Constitution. The pledge, which can be read in its entirety here, is made up of two major parts. The first, and arguably most offensive part, is a self righteous declaration in defense of "faithful monogamy". In other words, marriage between one man and one woman. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that opinion. However, The FAMiLY LEADER's reasons for supporting this stance are quite ridiculous. Apparently, "faithful monogamy" is "at the heart of a designed and purposeful order...upon which our concepts of creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend". Well, if you truly believe in the exact wording of that nonsensical statement, single people and gays are destroying the very fabric of our society. So the next time you see a gay or single friend, make sure you inform them that they are throwing a wrench into the "purposeful order" (I'm being sarcastic, of course.). This portion of the pledge also includes racist and homophobic language. Here is, by far, the most disgusting and incendiary of those statements:
"A child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother or father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the nation's first African-American President."
Wow. Basically, they just said that African Americans would better serve the "purposeful order" if they were still enslaved. Are these people living in the 19th century? It sure sounds like it.
The second part of the pledge, titled "The Candidate Vow”, is comprised of a shopping list of degradations to the Constitution that The FAMiLY LEADER wants to put into effect. This list includes:
- Supporting DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act)
- Banning some forms of divorce ("quickie divorce, they call it)
- Crusading against, and potentially banning, pornography
- Banning Sharia Law
- Silencing critics of anti-gay marriage policy makers
- Fierce promotion of "robust childbearing" for married women
Ironically, that list also includes "fidelity to the U.S. Constitution", a lame attempt to pass off their brand of Christofascism as Constitutionally sound. In reality, their philosophy is more in line with that of the Taliban than with the Founding Fathers.
Ok, so this highly restrictive and clearly theocratic pledge shouldn't be a concern to American voters, right? After all, this petition is being presented to a Tea Party-leaning Republican field. These so-called crusaders against big government, promoters of personal liberty, and advocates of personal responsibility would never sign a pledge that clearly violates those ideals, right?
Think again.
Yikes. Apparently, these two charlatans like to spike their small-government "tea" with religious fanaticism.
Thankfully, there are still those in the Republican Party who reject the hypothetical American Theocracy that many want to usher in. Gary Johnson, a somewhat liberal-minded GOP presidential candidate, recently denounced The FAMiLY LEADER pledge. According to Johnson, the pledge is "offensive and unrepublican" and that it is religious nonsense like this that "gives Republicans a bad name". Here is the best portion of his comments, straight from his campaign website:
“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the “public’s pocket book”.
“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’."
Bravo, Mr. Johnson, bravo. I don't agree with the man on everything, but I truly respect his unwavering devotion to personal freedom. However, I don't think he stands a chance in what is now a religiously charged Republican presidential field. He should consider running as an Independent.
If members of the Tea Party are truly sincere about less intrusive government, they'd be wise to take a good, hard look at the candidates they are supporting. Currently, Michele Bachmann is placing 1st in polling for the Iowa Caucus. Yes, Bachmann may support low taxes, small government, and states' rights. But when it comes to regulating your personal rights, she suddenly becomes an unwavering supporter for intrusive, far reaching government policies. Like a wolf in sheep's clothing, many of these Tea Party candidates appear to be unthreatening, at least on the surface. However, deep inside of them (particularly Santorum and Bachmann) lurk Orwellian theocrats who so desperately want to impose their "fire and brimstone" brand of Christianity on a diverse population. If small-government voters choose to overlook this fact, they may very well be longing for the days of Obama in 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment