Oh, y’all, I was reading over at Pith about the Family Action Council of Tennessee:
… [T]hose who say the Republicans need to concentrate on the budget, education, and jobs correctly note that these need to be priorities…. too. But to assume that the legislature is only limited to dealing with two or three issues is nonsense. Values voters just won’t buy that should the Republicans ignore their issues and concerns. [Emphasis Pith’s]
In fact, Republicans should move SJR 127 and some of the other issues early in the next session in order to be able to concentrate fully on economic issues once the revenue numbers come out in late April. Moving these issues early does not mean Republicans don’t care about the other issues or that these issues are their only priority. No, it will show that they want to be able to focus fully on the economic issues once the revenue picture is clear and they know what they have to work with. Republicans getting these “social issues” off the table when budgetary work is limited due to the absence of revenue numbers is showing that when it’s time to work on the budget, it will be the priority.
And I was sitting here wondering just how indeed the Family Action Council could call themselves the Family “Action” Council and support SJR 127. I’m kind of with Mack at this point; let it pass and then let those “pro-life” people have to explain to their voters how it did nothing to decrease the amount of abortions in the state. “Oh, we’re saving babies. The babies of the future!!!” Yeah, that should go over real well with your constituencies.
And whoa boy! I cannot wait to see this nonsense start flying. Let’s check out their positions:
Where families are healthy, societies are healthy. If we take a sweeping look over the history of civilization, we will find that the family has always been the foundation of societies. Noted historians Will and Ariel Durant have said, “The family is the nucleus of civilization.” Families were designed to be led by one husband and one wife and comprised of their children and dependents. If anything is added to or subtracted from this natural formula, families suffer, children suffer and society suffers. Undoubtedly, bad things will happen to families: death, disease and divorce. But our goal individually and as a society should be to maintain the natural, time-tested traditional family—because this is generally best for the welfare of the greatest number of people. As research demonstrates, family structure does matter: A family headed by a biological mom and dad is the best for children, parents and society as a whole.
Of course, because the readers of Tiny Cat Pants also read the Bible, we know that this is A LIE. Yes, folks, we’re one position in and already they are lying. Biblical families were not one husband and one wife.
But also, look at this language “If anything is added to or subtracted from this natural formula, families suffer, children suffer, and society suffers.” Added to? Is FACT standing in opposition to having your parents move in with you? Sounds like it could be construed that way–as an unnatural addition.
On to position two:
All orphaned, unwanted or unborn children deserve loving homes, and there is no shortage of married couples eager to adopt them. But in our relativistic age, where marriage is seen as passé and gender confusion abounds, some cohabiting couples want to adopt in order to create a family. When the state becomes involved in the “creation” of that family, the vulnerable children who cannot be cared for by their biological parents need as stable an environment as possible. A stable home environment is “in the best interest of the child.” Generally speaking nontraditional couples do not provide the stability and the basis for development of a proper gender identity to the same degree and in the same way as married moms and dads. Experience shows that while moms and dads aren’t perfect, they provide the optimal conditions for a child’s spiritual, psychological and personal development. With so many married couples today on waiting lists to adopt unwanted unborn children, there is no need to conduct a risky social experiment with children by placing them with two parents who have not made a marriage commitment.
Hmm. Really, no shortage of married couples eager to adopt them? This fails the sniff test. If there are children in need of loving homes and if there are married couples eager to adopt them, then why aren’t those kids in homes already? Why, instead, are they sitting in foster care?
And don’t think we won’t be talking about this “development of a proper gender identity” nonsense. That’s just going to require its own post.
Right to Life
Every person has the right to live—not just those who can defend themselves or are likely to have a good quality of life. The value and worth of each person is intrinsic to them and does not depend upon their status economically, racially, physically, or mentally. Thus the strong persons of societies have a moral duty to defend and protect weaker persons like the unborn and the mentally and physically handicapped. Sadly, however, in America approximately 1.3 million unborn children per year lose their lives to abortion.2 And some are even calling for the “active euthanasia” of disabled and sick newborns.3 No person has the right to decide whether another innocent person should live or die.
Blah blah blah. You know what I think of this.
On to four, where it gets really good:
Our founding fathers envisioned a nation that enjoyed freedom of religion—not freedom from it. This is why the Bill of Rights protects not only our freedom to peacefully express our beliefs, but also our freedom to live by them, even in public. Religious liberty was never intended to require elected officials to leave their religious convictions at the door of legislative chambers. In fact, Article 9, Section 2 of Tennessee’s constitution states, “No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments can hold any office in the civil department of this state.” In addition, religious liberty was never meant to give dissenting minorities “veto power” over moral standards that are based on the majority’s beliefs. As George Washington, our first president, declared in his Farewell Address of 1797: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”4 Yet there are some who oppose the free and open exercise of religion in the name of tolerance, not recognizing their own religious hostility as a religion itself imposed on others. It is naïve to assume that an America purged of faith can continue to stand as “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. I’m sorry, but I just love this. We have to endure a whole paragraph about how much they love the United States while at the same time they’re advocating a position in direct contradiction to Article Four, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and celebrate a part of the Tennessee Constitution that is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. What great patriots!
Anyway, Conservatives, I’m eager to hear how excited you are to have a religious test for people holding public office here in the State. By what guidelines will we recognize folks as being religious enough?
But, here’s the real doozy. I mean, because it’s one thing to ask people to vote against the rights and privileges of their friends and neighbors. But it’s quite another thing to ask folsk to vote against themselves.
So, I ask you, Tennessee Conservatives, have you ever had sex outside of marriage?
Sexuality within Marriage
Sex outside marriage weakens family ties, even among consenting adults. Since sex was designed to foster intimacy and trust between a man and a woman, unmarried couples are playing with fire, enjoying sex for a while but trapping themselves in a lifetime of relational and emotional insecurities. Sex was also designed to produce children. Sexually active unmarried couples are putting their children at risk as well since, statistically speaking, cohabitating couples are more likely to split, leaving the child with challenging emotional scars and wounds. As for the husband or wife who is unfaithful to the other—whether through an extramarital affair, addiction to pornography or even a lustful desire for someone else—pain and mistrust will follow, often destroying families. Infidelity is the cause of about 30 percent of divorces today.5 Living faithfully within the boundaries of marriage protects everyone: spouses, children and society as a whole. While government cannot dictate healthy sexual practices, it can encourage a healthy understanding of sexuality by taking steps like promoting abstinence and curbing obscenity and the proliferation of adult businesses.
And I don’t mean to be catty… Okay, I do a little, but come on! You think there’s no one at FACT doing this stuff?
So, think about that, my friends. In order to protect the children, we’re going to have to take steps to make it illegal for you to have sex with who you want when you want.
I do, however, wonder if David Fowler himself will be the one who stands in our bedrooms to make sure we only have procreative, married sex.
I, myself, volunteer to be the one who watches David Fowler watching you have sex, just to make sure he’s only looking on in disgusted, prudish judgment of others and not enjoying it at all in the least.
What could be worse than the nanny state? How about the prudish busybody state?