Back Again - What Are Social Issues, and How Will They Affect the Election?

If you don't read Eternity Road, you're missing a treat.  One recent post asked:
Just what are the "social issues?" What priorities do social conservatives hold that they feel are being unduly slighted?
Time was, the political topics that escaped economic classification went collectively by the termvice: illegal drugs, prostitution, illicit gambling, pornography. We don't hear that term too often these days. The War on Drugs has been lost de facto;prostitution has proved ineradicable, and in some manifestations has even become somewhat respectable; gambling is mostly done through state lotteries and state-licensed casinos; and pornography, except for child porn, is now protected by law. So that old quinella has been displaced from the marquee of political discussion. What has replaced it?
For many, the social issues boil down to abortion, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and same-sex marriage.  Yes, there are other social issues that are important, maybe even with more ultimate long-term significance, but those seem to be the hot buttons for most of the American public.

Coincidentally, those issues are also ones that will mobilize the voting public out of their seat in front of the wide-screen, and into the voting booth.  Why do they mobilize?  Do they suddenly get their knickers in a twist, and decide to legislate via the ballot-box?


They act in response to initiatives from liberals, who push their agenda to the point that they trigger a response.

In other words, the "average" American is a bit of a centrist, not bothering to get involved in an active way, unless he/she feels that the politicians have pushed a particular agenda beyond a certain point.  Then, the villagers come out with torches held high, and rout Dracula.

Then, predictably, the villagers return to the hovels they sprang from.

It's truly and well, the essence of Americanism.  We've done it since even before we declared independence.  Whether we personally participate in the midnight rout (or daytime voting) is unimportant - we agree with the villagers, and support their efforts.

That's a factor that the liberals that elected Obama and his crew didn't anticipate.  They expected that, once in power, they'd ram through legislation (for our "own good", of course), and we, being the mouth-breathing slackers/fools/taxpayers they assumed we were, would accept the imposition of rules, regulations, and taxes laid upon us by our "betters" - i.e., the liberals.


Didn't expect us to push back!

Didn't expect us to organize!

Didn't expect us to signal a non-proletarian refusal to take whatever they felt like shoveling at us!

So, now we are in the middle of a push-back campaign, filled with amateurs and not-ready-for-prime-timers (Christine O'Donnell is an example), who, nonetheless, are on the ballot.  Who may be elected (assuming the fraudsters don't overwhelm the honest).  Who will, once again, remind the annointed ones elected ones that it is the citizen who pays their salary, and the citizen who expects them to fairly represent their interests.

So, how does this relate to the social issues?

Quite simply, you can lie and play accounting tricks with the money of government, but the one thing you can't do is mess with the American people's sense of what's right, in a values sense of the word.  At this time, the average American is more pro-life than pro-choice, and REALLY doesn't like same-sex marriage.  They don't hate gays, most of us have gay friends and/or family members; BUT, for us, marriage is special.  It's NOT primarily meant as a social recognition of our love; its purpose is protection of minor children, and, by extension, the female parent during the time she is pregnant, nursing, or caring for young ones.

Think about it - do we truly want the government to get involved in our love lives?  Do we want their interference in, really, ANY facet of our lives that is not absolutely necessary?

No.  The only reason for government recognition of marriage is because it has the potential to bring forth children; whether it does or not is irrelevant; it has that potential, therefore, in the interest of protecting minors (those who cannot fend for themselves), government regulates marriage.

Could the government protect children without officially recognizing marriage?  Sure.  But, honestly, it would take a major adjustment of many laws.  I don't see it as a priority.  If gays and their supporters want to change all the laws so that marriage is no longer a governmental concern, knock themselves out.  We may be heading in that direction now; certainly, if the government forces all Americans to "accept" gay marriage, expect that the only result will be for most, if not all, businesses to eliminate marriage benefits.  Expect that families will have to pay more for any health benefits, insurances, and retirement incomes.  It's gonna be VERY costly to have a traditional family.

What you SHOULDN'T expect out of it is any benefit, financial or otherwise, to accrue to gays, married or not.  Won't happen; all of the "bennies" will be eliminated, instead.

Wonder how kindly those traditional families will feel towards the gay marriage activists when that happens?

I really don't care whether the government recognizes my marriage; my main focus is on the meaning of my marriage in the context of my God.



Popular posts from this blog


But...The Founding Fathers Were Young, So...