The Lincoln Coalition

I usually try to stay out of these issues but I read Iowa’s Supreme Court decision that basically affirms gays and lesbian’s right to marry in that state. Who would have thought Iowa would be the fourth state to recognize that defense of marriage in any form is discriminatory and allows the majority to impose it’s prescription of life on a minority.

While the summary of the decision (it’s a quick) is really good reading — it shows how obtuse all of the arguments have been. Some of the little gems in the defendant claims include: promotion of procreation (so if gays aren’t allowed to marry, straight people will have more sex and children), and saving state resources (resources that those the state is trying to exclude pay in the form of taxes) and promotion of optimal environment for children (where the court asks why sexual predators, child abusers, felons and parent that don’t provide child support aren’t included). While all of this falls under the “sky is blue; the sun is hot” category for me, of particular interest is the Court’s opinion on religious opposition to Same-Sex Marriage.  In that portion of the opinion the judges state:

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them . . .  The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions.  Instead, the statute, declares, ‘Marriage is a civil contract’ and then regulates that civil contract . . . .  Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.”

I’ve said many times here, marriage is a contract between two people and it has nothing to do with one’s spirituality and is not bound by religion. This sums it all up, truth be told, that’s the stone in the shoe for those who oppose giving a class of people a right that they enjoy by simply being citizens of the United States: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The sooner people learn and understand that being gay or lesbian is not about deviant sex, teaching it to children or preying on children the better off we’ll all be. When left alone it can be as boring, thrilling and dysfunctional as a relationship between a man and woman.

Let’s get right to the heart of what I feel is wrong with my Republican Party.   The over-simplification of the problem is the Radical Religious Right.  They have hi-jacked the party, and the party assumes that their voice is the voice of us all. (I say it is an over-simplification because there are so many other factors that play into it, but for simplicity’s sake and this blog post,  I’ll just state that those other factors use the RRR as an unknowing tool.)

Ever since Roe vs Wade I’ve based my vote, from the local level to presidential, on one thing, and one thing only.  Abortion.  As I am very strongly pro-life, if a candidate stated he or she was pro-life, they got my vote.  Period.  I am a strong Christian, and believe that life begins at conception.  I also believe that abortion is a sin and morally wrong.  That is a tenant of my faith, and one I absolutely believe in.

A couple of years ago, I realized that Roe vs Wade is the law of the land, and will not be reversed.   We had seven conservative appointed Supreme Court Justices sitting, and nothing changed at all.  As I realized and came to accept this, my criteria changed.  I began to look at the whole candidate before casting my vote.  I am no longer a one issue voter.  The GOP continued to use the promise of “conservative, pro-life judges” to buy our vote, but that promise would be forgotten until the next election cycle.

After this, I began to really think it through to a logical conclusion and had what was, for me, an astounding revelation.   Using the office of President as an example, the POTUS is president of Americans of all faiths, and  those of no faith at all.   No religion should determine government policy and law.  Our forefathers were very wise in seeing this, knowing the dangers it could portend.   Being a nation of diverse faiths, if we didn’t have this separation, who would decide which religion should determine law?   Being a majority Christian nation, some may say that the Christian faith, as the majority, should hold that power.  But which Christian faith?  Or what if another religion should become the majority, should their religion rule?  This sounds a lot like many Islamic countries to me, where politics and power are determined by which segment of the religion can gain power.

So, as a pro-life Christian, I no longer believe that any religious views should determine government rulings and law, not even mine.  Let the decision and judgment be between a woman and her God, where it belongs.  As my daddy used to say, “You can’t legislate morality”.  The RRR wants the tenents of the Christian faith to be law.  They make a lot of noise and get a huge amount of press.  The Republican Party needs to realize that not all Republicans, and not all Christians, think this is a good way to run a nation.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. As we read stories about Proposition 8, and other attempts to ban the equal protection of our fellow citizens, I am eerily reminded of the following quotes:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

(Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3 (1967)

“The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate, and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by positive law and subject to no evasion.”

(Source: Dissenting California Supreme Court Justice objecting to that Court’s decision striking down a state law ban on interracial marriage in Perez_v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 41 (1948), (Shenk, J. dissenting))

Persons wishing to enter into interracial marriages come from the “dregs of society.”

(Source: Advocates in favor of California’s ban on interracial marriage, quoted in Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 25)

“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

“Each [party seeking to marry a member of a different race] has the right and the privilege of marrying within his or her own group.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

“Civilized society has the power of self-preservation, and, marriage being the foundation of such society, most of the states in which the Negro forms an element of any note have enacted laws inhibiting intermarriage between the white and black races.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

(Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May 19, 1996)

I could certainly go on and on, but you get the idea. The same arguments that were being used to justify the discrimination of interracial marriage are being recycled once again, only this time to discriminate against fellow citizens who happen to be in love with members of the same sex, who live in a committed relationship, who wish only to declare their love publicly and to have the same legal protections and Bob and Susan have.

Imagine the horror and decay that would happen to our society…a committed, loving couple living on your block, keeping their yard mowed, shopping together, having their property rights protects, and possibly *gasp* even going to church together.

Some would argue that there is not a valid comparison here because race is something that cannot be controlled, whereas homosexuality is a choice. However, this is not a valid argument. While it is true that a person cannot control their race, who they marry is a choice.  Additionally, although not all scientists accept this, there are many scientists who claim a genetic base for homosexuality. Regardless of whether this is true or not, in both cases, the person that the person marries is a choice.

According to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. When we pick and choose who is allowed to “marry,” are we not denying equal protection to those citizens and giving preference to certain beliefs over others?

And, in a country where the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, why do we allow one group’s religious beliefs govern the lives of others. Food for thought….what if in the future, another religion becomes the majority and believes that only marriages between people and cats should be legal? Where would you be then?

I am reminded a of poem from the Nazi era…

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out…

And to give you a smile as I close, a comedian once said, “Of course I am in favor of gay marriage. Why shouldn’t they be miserable like the rest of us?”

David K. Sayers

If the Republican Party is going to survive, it will have to join the 21st century at some point.  This means two things:

1.  It will again have to become the party of ideas, and these ideas will have to work for a broad swath of Americans (hopefully for all Americans).

The divide-and-conquer strategies the party had gotten pretty good at since the 1960’s culture wars are over.  The demographics that these strategies depended upon just aren’t there anymore, and the groups that the party regularly alienated are slowly becoming the majority in America.  They will continue to be extremely suspicious of the Party’s motives in the coming years.

What does this mean?  It means that whatever changes we make in the way we operate, and in how we implement our philosophy (and in deciding what that philosophy even IS), will need to be drastic and real if we’re ever going to get a second look from those who have written us off.  Cosmetic changes (a black man as RNC Chair; Brian McKnight performing at the Republican Convention) will do nothing other than make us a laughingstock and a party that eventually gets 30 percent of the vote.

A new Republican philosophy must work for Americans and must represent a path to a stronger America.  People need to be convinced that their families and their nation will be better off under our leadership.  Of course, if we can’t adapt to the 21st century and offer a better alternative to Americans, then we probably should not be in this business to begin with.

2.  We’re going to have to use 21st century tools to organize and reach out to people.

This point goes hand-in-hand with #1.  As long as the party continues to alienate the multi-ethnic, increasingly educated younger generations of Americans, we’re never going to be able to attract the armies of young people needed to invigorate the party.  While the Democrats will continue to be be able to depend upon millions of motivated, plugged-in generation x, y, and z’ers to help them appeal to and reach out to others, our party has a huge built-in disadvantage.

We will never be able to become a national party unless we can compete for the affection of the 18-40 year old crowd.  That crowd wants something very different from what our party has become.  This is not the time for tweaking– the party needs to start from scratch and revisit what it stands for.  The party will have to appeal to the imaginations of young Americans who want the nation that they’re inheriting to be the best it can be.

Which brings us to this organization.  If the party is going to drastically change, it will not be because of the efforts of those currently in charge.  It will require pressure from the uneasy fringes of the party– people like us.  Our organization is here to help organize current, former, and (hopefully) future members of the Republican Party who are no longer satisfied with seeing the Party go down the drain.

We have no ties to the GOP leadership, and we have no reason to offer anything other than a blunt assessment of the state of the Party and discuss where we feel the party must go in the future.