Saturday, February 4

What was missing from the State of the Union Speech

FRCBlog linked to statements by Tony Perkins, who points out what the President missed on his speech.
The President was vigorously applauded for his many bold and unwavering words about the war on terror. Unfortunately, on a number of critical issues, the same resolve was missing. The President was right in pointing out that activist judges threaten marriage and the overall culture. And parents are rightly concerned about that. However, with a vote on a marriage amendment just weeks away in the U.S. Senate, the President should have called on Congress to act before it is too late. Since last year's State of the Union, in which the President did call on Congress to pass a marriage amendment, the threat has only increased with more judicial activism, including a federal judge striking down a state marriage amendment passed by over 70% of the voters. In the very liberal state of Maryland yesterday, the legislature began hearings on a state marriage amendment spurred on by the recent decision of a Baltimore judge that would, if upheld on appeal, impose same-sex marriage on that state. During yesterday's testimony, even Democratic Delegates grilled the AFL-CIO witness, who testified against the marriage amendment. "If I believe in the right of the people to vote on this issue, have I alienated the AFL-CIO?" Delegate Theodore Sophocleus asked incredulously. The union rep admitted that union members had not been polled on this issue. FRC's Vice President for Policy Peter Sprigg also testified before a packed committee room in Maryland's General Assembly. Some 250 witnesses for marriage lined up inside and streamed outside the hearing room, outnumbering witnesses for same-sex unions by 6 to 1. Marriage is no "wedge issue;" it is a bridge issue. The President missed a great opportunity last night to reach out to the Values Voters who re-elected him last year, and who gave him majorities in both Houses of Congress
Interesting little graph they put together.

Recently I have been hearing a lot of criticism for what is perceived as "one-issue" voters. While I can't deny that there are some voters that are mindlessly "single-issue" voters, and who simply follow the lead of their favorite advocacy non-profit, I think politicians and critics alike are missing one important point. Some of these so-called "single-issues" are more than that. Defense of marriage, for example, has to do with a lot more than just gay rights. It has to do with a primary and important social foundation. The destruction of marriage, by turning it simply into a "government sanctioned welfare program," will have serious and negative consequences on our economy, social fabric, and more. Likewise with abortion and cloning. It has to do with the core values that hold up this great nation. So, no, it is not "single-issue" voting. It is "back to the basics" voting that has long term dividends and is well worth defending and fighting for. So, vote pro-life, vote pro-defense of marriage, and vote for those who will uphold a moral and social standard that will move our great nation forward, not backwards.

These are more than just single issues--they are foundational issues. If a elected politician cannot be trusted to respect life, the foundational human right, how can he respect other human rights? If an elected official cannot be trusted to respect the institution of marriage, what makes you think he will respect the institutions of business, the family, and church? We must see beyond the rhetoric, and vote according to what is important for our society. I think most Americans can relate to this.