Mar 9 2015

The Last Stand: The Issue

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” -Ronald Reagan

There are two fallacies connected with the traditional marriage versus same-sex marriage debate that we will deal with in this column. The first misconception is that love is the basic reason for marriage. The second widely propagated lie is that marriage is strictly a Christian tradition. Both have contributed greatly to the folly and contention we have today.

We should immediately dispense with the idea that marriage belongs to Christianity. Common sense tells us that Christianity is not the only religion that has had its imprint upon the rites of marriage. Not every Empire has been Christian, but every Empire has had a marriage structure by which to insure the stability of their generations in hopes to insure the longevity of their Kingdoms.

The pervasive thought that marriage tradition is rooted in Christianity comes from the fact that the United States is a Nation built on the foundation of a Judea-Christian faith. This must be tempered by the realization that we are a melting pot and not all peoples represented in this Country have their rites and traditions rooted in the same faith. While influenced by the Christian teaching of love, the origins of many of these various marital rites are very different from Christianity.

The proponents of same-sex marriage have tried to affix the label of Christianity to traditional marriage because it makes for a much easier and popular target. It is no secret that the political establishment has long resented and wanted Christianity removed from having any impact on society. Hollywood elites have longed disdained the teachings of morality and fidelity, and corporate tycoons have loathed the constant reminders to check their greed. Emboldened by the populace perception of Christianity as the evil menace to society, homosexuals have seized the opportunity to target and persecute Christians.

The prevailing argument is that homosexuals are loving couples that wish to have a marital relationship and therefore should not be denied this affirmation of love. This idea that a loving relationship is the fundamental basis for marriage is simple not correct. The institution of marriage was not created in any culture to validate a couple’s love and physical intimacy. No, the first and primary reason for the rite of marriage in every civilization throughout time was for the propagation and protection of the most fundamental and basic building block of society: babies.

The idea of a loving relationship as a prerequisite to marriage is a Western concept that has descended down from European lore and exacerbated by the modern Hollywood culture of today. In some Eastern marriage traditions, the idea of love is viewed as “bonus” that may come with time after the vows have been consummated. The one constant in every civilization is the purposing of marriage tradition as the vehicle by which children are brought into the world, raised, and taught the tenants of that society.

Not every marriage structure has demanded that physical intimacy be kept exclusively for marriage as Christianity and Islam do, but all the marriage rites of every civilization have agreed that the primary purpose of marriage was and is procreation. If a society is to survive it must have a stable structure in which to produce and raise children. The issue of marriage is simply about babies.

Even in the face of our hedonistic society the overarching truth still remains, marriage was created first for procreation not for love. It is a societal and religious rite created by heterosexuals for this primary purpose. Homosexuals did not create the rites of marriage represented in our Country and passed down by the various ethnic groups. The cold truth is homosexuals cannot procreate and, therefore, do not qualify for the purpose of marriage. Love does not qualify one’s relationship for marriage.

Marriage was not created for romance, love, or even sexual pleasure. While those ideals are not excluded, the harsh reality is that marriage was created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals who could, if they desired, create children. Marriage is exclusive for that purpose. Sadly, we are willing as a Nation, to target and revoke the rights and liberties of certain people groups based on reasoning that does not even exist.

Mar 2 2015

The Last Stand: The Shoe

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” -Ronald Reagan

The events and circumstances surrounding Barronelle Stutzman have brought into stark clarity the motives and designs of the gay marriage movement here in the United States. It is has never been about marriage equality as some have claimed, but it is about the targeting and removal of all influence and participation by Christians in our society today. Recent polls have show a precipitous drop in support for gay marriage as citizens with opinions on both sides of the debate have been appalled to see the blatant religious persecution of Christians by homosexuals in our Nation. What was once thought the unthinkable has become reality in the United States.

Even as buyer’s remorse has begun to set in for some of the proponents of gay marriage, the die has been cast as the political establishment has gleefully taken up the charge. Christianity with its teachings of moral virtue, demands of purity, and calls to fidelity have long been viewed as an encumbrance to government by the politically elite and scorned and despised by their media allies. Now emboldened by what they perceive as a populace surge of animosity towards Christianity, governmental institutions have handed a regulatory bludgeon to homosexual activists, encouraging them to target their “enemy”, and target them they have.

The crusade against Christianity has swept across the Nation isolating every man, woman, and child who dare to holds opinions that differ with homosexuals. These are hauled into court, their businesses taken away, homes and finances confiscated, sent off to reeducation classes, children are mocked and humiliated in school, and parents threatened to have their children taken away if they don’t recant their beliefs. Why? Their beliefs are unacceptable to the government.

But what of the 1^st Amendment, you ask? Was this Amendment put in place only to protect the views and beliefs of those who are in vogue and popular? Why would there need to be an amendment to protect the speech of those the populace and government found acceptable? In contrast, wouldn’t the purpose our Founders foresaw be to protect unpopular speech, beliefs, ideas, dissidents, revolutionaries, unpopular religions, and the intolerant under the 1^st Amendment? The 1^st Amendment doesn’t protect your right to be nice and accepted. It protects your right to rattle somebody’s cage.

So, how does a minority group of about 1% of the populace receive the power to persecute Christians, who still make up a majority in this Nation? The bane of society today is political appeasement. Not all in the political class are looking for an opportunity to attack Christians; in fact, a majority probably does not. They just lack the intestinal fortitude to do what our Founding Fathers did in the Constitution and Bill of Rights: Say no!

Decisions of law and governance are no longer legislated with a view of its effect upon the Constitution, but rather, the effect upon the emotions and comfort of the aggrieved, unless, of course, you’re a Christian. The government thinks popular opinion views Christians as a punching bag, and why not? The Nightly News tells them so. Punch away!

Government is always playing catch-up. In an effort to be “cool”, politicos always govern based on what polls dictate. By the time the laws engage, the populace opinion has changed and government must oppress in order to enforce its new laws. Governing by popularity is like that hapless friend who is always showing up to the party wearing the “latest” style only to painfully realize that style changed in the last 48 hrs. They never realize that a blue jeans and t-shirt approach can weather every changing fad.

Now as the persecutions increase, Americans are getting that sinking feeling they’ve been duped. Those that are old enough to remember a time when history was taught in schools see the ominous shadow of totalitarianism rising from the mist of tolerance. What if my beliefs are suddenly deemed intolerant by the government? That hollow thud of realization you feel in the pit of your stomach might be the sound of the other shoe dropping.

Feb 23 2015

The Last Stand: The Bait

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” This simple but poignant quote from Ronald Reagan was never more appropriate than the day and age in which we live today. Much of the liberties we have enjoyed in our past now stand alone on the precipice, teetering on the jagged edge of the deep chasm of tyranny.

It is no secret that in some corners of our society the well of tolerance towards those of Christian faith has dwindled to a small stagnant puddle or a dusty dry cistern. The teachings of love, salvation, redemption, yes, that arcane Pilgrim’s Progress towards that Celestial City, are viewed with a thinly veiled contempt or the open disdain that moral virtue is the scourge of civilization and must be removed. The American Christian now finds himself walking through the gilded streets of Bunyan’s Vanity Fair.

If Christians could just dispense with the profession of their faith and betray their convictions there would be no trouble, for this is what political and societal elites are demanding. What seems logical to the self-preservationist is unfathomable to a person of faith. This is the crux of the issue, faith, a belief in something bigger than themselves with vows and allegiances they cannot compromise; therefore, an easy target.

With a humanistic snort of disgust, the elitist feels compelled to remove or reeducate the weak-minded who cling to their obstructive convictions. Obstructive to whom and who are really the weak-minded? When did we become a Nation of such squeamish constitution and so flimsy a skeletal structure that a mere differing belief, disproval or even rebuke of ones actions somehow decimates a person’s freedom and the offender must be punished with the whole weight of the bludgeon of government?

The cry and the hue of late seems to that of liberty, yet the cry of liberty for some has been modernized to say, “Give me liberty and give them death!” Any that hold to the belief of moral absolutes are targeted for removal from influence in society. The “weakness” of conviction must bow to the “strength” of relativism; it’s the natural selection of civilization.

So just as the political rivals of the Hebrew Daniel convinced the King of Babylon to outlaw prayer knowing full well Daniel would not compromise his convictions, the trap has been set for Christians here in the United States. The traditions of procreation, marriage, are sacred within Christianity, as Christians are given a Biblical command to “raise up a Godly seed” and pass on the principles of Christ to each generation. These sacred traditions are now the bait to justify the persecution of Christians in this Country.

A recent political cartoon I happened across mocked the hypocrisy of relativism that is so prevalent in our society today. Two individuals are remarking over recent news. One tells the other that first, a hotel is refusing to have Bibles in its rooms, secondly, a mall is banning prayer, and thirdly, conservatives are complaining that Facebook is screening and blocking posts, all to which the other individual responds that these are a private businesses. It is their right.

When the first individual observes that several businesses have refused to participate in gay-marriages because of their religious beliefs, the other individual is furious and demands that the government punish these businesses. This would be humorous if not for the consequences of the hard irony. Again we have selective liberty, with just Christians targeted for denial of basic liberties and removal from the workplace of society.

Ask Barronelle Stutzman a Washington State florist, who had served a male customer, knowing he was gay, for years without discrimination. When he decided to have a gay marriage, Stutzman declined to do his floral arrangements on the basis of her beliefs, and instead referred him to another florist. This other florist provided the flowers to the man, and other florists even offered free flowers. Still the 72-year-old grandmother was sued, the Washington Courts have taken away her business, and ruled that all her personal belongings are now subject to suit…. because of her beliefs. She was targeted.

Whether you believe in the value of marriage or not, you should believe in the value of freedom. The political disposition of today despises the tenants of faith. Yes, although the tradition of heterosexual marriage is not exclusive to Christianity, Christians hold marriage as one of the fundamental rites that bind the foundation of their faith. While some will find smug satisfaction in the persecutions of Christians and their unshakable convictions, be wary that the bludgeon does not swing both ways.

As we trudge down this tired and over trodden road towards the doom of repeated history, ask yourself this: If a government can target a private business based on the religious beliefs of the proprietor, what is to keep it from targeting others for new things it deems intolerant? Beware of the other shoe! It just might drop. When we allow fools to march in and take away the decency and civility that was once the hallmark of our civilization, we have doomed liberty to die here in her last stand.

Updated: Barronelle Stutzman has been offered a settlement by the State of Washington’s Attorney General. Stutzman would only have to pay a $2000.00 dollar fine and one dollar in legal fees, but she must agree to contribute her services to gay marriages and dispense with her beliefs. The 72 year old florist has written a letter to reject the A/G’s offer. In the letter she states, “Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important.”

Nov 5 2013

The High Value of Integrity

It has been some years now since I decided to step into the murky and troubled waters of politics. I remember the first time I walked into a political headquarters and offered to help in any way I could. To that point, I had viewed politics as a necessary evil and only got close enough to vote. But as I watched the steady downward spiral of this Country and this State I loved, I wanted to help. Perhaps, I thought, we could start to turn things around for our children.

The first politician I met when I walked through that door was Paul Davis. From that day I entered into one of the most honest, straightforward and frank relationships that I have ever been in. Despite my entering the political fray as an outspoken and, at times, edgy activist columnist, Paul was always encouraging to my involvement, though I’m sure my tendency to push the envelope could make one uneasy. Paul has always been direct in his opinion of my opinions. There is no confusion to where he stands on issues and this is why The Maine Conservative Voice is publishing this letter of endorsement to support Paul Davis in the Senate primary race for the new District Four.

Paul Davis believes in fiscal responsibility and small government. He not only believes it, he lives it. He is one of the most frugal men I have ever met.

Paul Davis is a social conservative but it is more than a title to him. He has never betrayed those of faith whose vote he courts by claiming to believe one way and living another way. Paul gives his word and stands by it.

Paul Davis will never sell his vote for campaign favors. He does his best to ally himself with men and women of like conscience, who will work with him to represent his constituents. In the very tough and, at times, ugly business of politics, it’s nice to see someone who is willing to take a stand on principle.

Paul Davis believes that the government should stay out of the private lives of the people, their homes and their businesses. He is a strong proponent of private landowner rights and prefers to keep government out of the private sector. Government has a way of confusing what honest citizens do so efficiently.

Paul Davis’ record speaks for itself. Those he has represented for so many years know him. They know he will listen to them and speak for them in Augusta, like the time he put in a bill to change the regulatory mess that was keeping Chris Clukey from establishing his optometrist office in Dover-Foxcroft or the bill to protect the Sebec and Milo dams, which guard Maine’s only natural salmon fishery in Sebec Lake. They know they can put their trust in him because he has proven over and over again that he values and protects their trust.

It’s time to restore integrity to this Senate District again. It’s time to restore the common sense and honesty to this area. It’s what we value most in Maine. Please join me in supporting Paul Davis to be our next Senator from the new District Four.

Andy Torbett

The Maine Conservative Voice