The Candidates
Featured Archives
There has been a lot of consideration given by the media, with no little head-scratching, trying to figure out why social conservatives, or “values voters,” would, or should, support Rudy Giuliani for President. Polls show Rudy’s getting more than his share of such voters. How can this be? He’s supposedly “too liberal” on social issues. So, how does one explain the apparent disconnect between supposedly supporting conservative values in society, and supporting a candidate for President who doesn’t fit cleaning with those conservative social values?
As one who considers himself a social conservative, let me define what I think “social conservatism” means in its broadest sense.
I believe that our nation, our system of government, and our freedoms were built upon the exercise of personal responsibility. The nation protects liberty, not license, and a society reflecting a “do your own thing” set of values will be coercive to the nation. I agree with John Adams who wrote, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” But I believe, ultimately, that the character of the nation isn’t determined by those in power, but by the character of the people themselves. Of course, the character of the people should be reflected in the character of the people we elect to public office, but the character of the nation cannot, ultimately, be something that is imposed from the top down.
And this is where I probably part ways with many of my socially conservative brethren. Many social conservatives believe that government should reflect traditional, even religious values. I believe that our society, made up of hundreds of millions of people, should reflect traditional, even religious values…but only if there’s a traditional-values consensus within the society. These values cannot, ultimately, be imposed from the top down by government policy or edict. Yet many social conservatives think they can, and should.
Ultimately, however, it isn’t the power of government and politics that will change people’s hearts, and hence the values in our society. And, so, for the important task of forming the values inherent in the society, as a Christian, I trust in the gospel of Christ, and the working of the Holy Spirit, not in the platform of the Republican Party or the values of a few key office holders.
So, why am I, a social conservative, supporting Rudy Giuliani for President? To address it briefly:
On a personal note: I have worked in government relations and politics for the past 35 years. Thirty-five years ago, in college, I came to Christ, expressed faith in who he is and what he did on the cross, so I’ve spent my entire professional career considering how my faith impacts, or should impact, the arena I work in.
A number of years ago, I was asked to speak to a group of students from a number of private Christian high schools who had come to Sacramento for a week-long Model Legislature. I was asked to talk about the role of Christians in politics and government. What I told them is that the role of Christians who are in government is the same as the role of Christians who are lawyers, teachers, doctors, engineers, or greeters at WalMart – to reflect the fruit of the Spirit and the character of Christ; to treat people with respect and deference; to conduct oneself with civility, honesty, and integrity; to approach one’s profession with the spirit and attitude of a servant; to bless one’s enemies and not curse them. If Christians do that, they will have a far greater impact for good in this country, and for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, than they will in pushing any particular political agenda. My observation is that many of my socially conservative brethren have lost sight of this.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:02 pm
## Finally, I think Rudy stands the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton. For me, the most important “traditional value†in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House. In this, I believe that social conservatism should, ultimately, be pragmatic.
Pragmatism is a dirty word! Didn’t you get the memo? Oh, and incrementalism, too: evil, evil, evil.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me you’re arguing that social conservatives should back Rudy, because there are other issues more important in this election than socially conservative issues.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Greg, you start off by saying, I believe correctly, that our political leaders should *reflect* the morals and values of society. However, you then go on to take the liberal POV that what social conservatives really want is to *impose* their morals and values onto a presumably reluctant society. I’m not religious, but am quite socially conservative, and I don’t want political leaders imposing their morals or values on society.I do however, want leaders with a set of morals and values that I feel will lead them to make the right decisions regarding the people of this country. IMO Rudy has shown himself to be completely lacking in the values and morals that I believe are important in a leader, ie. spending tens-of-thousands of tax dollars to facilitate an adulterous affair. The values he does have show him to be a very hard working and successful person, but also a very self-serving one with a penchant for surrounding himself with shady people. I’m affraid that if Rudy were elected President, we as Republicans would have to spend the next 4-8 years defending the numerous scandals that would probably result. No thanks.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Greg,
Since I have, and no doubt will continue often to disagree sharply with the things you write, let me take this opportunity to say that this liberal agrees wholeheartedly with the spirit, if not the specific details of what you write here.
Moral prinicples are essential to living a worthy life, and a moral people is essential to have a good society.
In my view, part of the genius of America is the notion of freedom – that individuals are granted the freedom to live their lives by their own light, to find their way, by their own means, to the good and decent life.
No doubt this arose as an extension of the protestant mindset – that broke with the authority of a centralized church, and placed in the hands of the indivual the responsibility for their own salvation.
Though I disagree with social conservatives on many many issues, I respect all those who seek, by whatever means accessable to them, to find the path to a good and decent life. And I resist with all my strength the attempts by all those who wish to impose their vision of the proper path on others.
Moral values can only take hold in ones heart through successful efforts at persuasion. That is why I find the socon political movements of the past generation so repugnant. They wish to sieze and utilize the power of government to establish that which should only be established by persuasion.
Government is, inherintly, a secular matter. Focused on defending the country, adjudicating civil disputes, and engaging in whatever collective action the populace deems necessary and proper to securing the general welfare of society.
Government also enforces certain rules of behavior – but those are based not on religious principles but on our secular democratic values. Almost all criminal statutes come down to a core principle – do not violate the equal rights of other people.
I can assure all those who may not realize it, that this is the perspective that motivates liberals. We are not anti-religous, even if some of us are not religious. We are anti-government-imposed-religion. When I see socons attending to their own lives and thier own salvation, rather than mine, I can do nothing but smile and say – more power to you. We may have friendly disagreements about our chosen lifestyles, but friends we can be. You live your life, and I live mine.
What a concept!
December 1st, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Tano, hear, hear!
December 1st, 2007 at 4:28 pm
“Because Rudy is the most conservative person in the race.”
This is drivel.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
#4. Excellent post.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
“Because Rudy is the most conservative person in the race.”
This statement is the most delusional, crazed, blatantly false statement I’ve ever seen on a reliable, conservative, GOP blog. A sign of desperation.
How pathetic.
You know what this post translates to?
“Greg Alterton is NOT a social conservative.”
December 1st, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Greg,
“These values cannot, ultimately, be imposed from the top down by government policy or edict. Yet many social conservatives think they can, and should.”
I’m glad to read that you are a Christian, believe the Gospel, and the movement of the Holy Spirit. However, on this point, you are very wrong. Sometimes government is a lagging indicator of public will, but sometimes government very much influences public opinion. Consider:
1. How public support (even in the South) for slavery disintegrated within a generation of the 13th Amendment.
2. How public support for segregation disintegrated within a generation of “Brown vs. Board” and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3. How public support for abortion skyrocketed within a generation of Roe v. Wade. It seems laughable now, but as late as about 1980, something like 40% of Democratic Congressmen were pro-life!!!
You wouldn’t believe how many soft-headed people will consider something okay simply because it’s legal, and history has proven this is often the case. If the government outlawed abortion tomorrow, I guarantee that within a generation, the vast majority of this country (even in the NE and the left coast) would be appalled that it was ever legal. Opinion sometimes influences the law, but it also follows the law.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:30 pm
MR, TLG and I already started the discussion about what constitute as a social conservative under post entitled: Schism. I wish to bring over here what I was saying, as this is the more appropriate place to continue our discussion.
I was saying over there that we are confused who the social conservatives are. There actually are two aspects to it. But before I do that, I must point out something first. Let us be clear that none of the issue is a stand-alone issue. I mean, all issues have some impact on all of the areas of cocerns. Even abortion does have an impact on the economy and security (i.e., how woman having an abortion are 3 times more likely to be depressed, and we know how a depressed person impact the economy). True, they do not matter as much in those areas as, say, tax cut or securing the border. How much a weight an issue has varied greatly among those areas, but still, they do have some kind of impact on each.
Now, the first is, I suppose is called ideology (is it a correct word?). Basically, it is what pops up in your mind when you heard of an issue. Let’s say, we heard the word, “tax cut”. For some of us, we would think in term of number of jobs, in the availablity of cash in market, and so on. That would peg you as a fiscal oriented person. Other, like myself, it is more along the line of, I can donate more to charity organizations, I can provide a better education for my child and I can save for rain check (self-reliance). That would make us a social person.
Then, the second aspect is about how do we approach the issues. If you believe like President George Washington that the affairs are better left to people, then that makes you a conservative. But if you believe the Federal Government should step in, then that make you a socialist. If you believe the state is enpowered to act on it, but not federal, then that’s a federalism for you.
A social conservative, for me, then is a conservative who concerns himself with the society health first. Again, with President Washington, he invoked the name of God often in his speeches; he emphasized that our country stands only as strong as its people being moral; he made pitch every chance he could to make us a better people. He was a social person in sense that he concerned himself with the health of the society, and he was conservative because he made no federal policy concerning it. He worked closely with each state to the health of the society within.
I believe that the social conservatiivism as hated by many of the commenters here actually has been hijacked by the social socialists. They are for the Federal Government programs, and however you spin it, that makes you a socialist – period. No Child Left Behind is horrible in that it makes it more difficult for states to offer educational choices. Welfare programs are terrible in that it take away the ability of people to assist their neighbors, as favored by the founding fathers. The judge activits in federal courts have taken away many of the state rights (big one being Roe vs Wade).
I am a social person because I first concern myself with the welfare of the society, and I am conservative because I believe that the society ills are better addressed at local and state levels, with no inference from federal government.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Tano,
“Government also enforces certain rules of behavior – but those are based not on religious principles but on our secular democratic values.”
I’ve long suspected that liberals simply dismiss laws they don’t like as “religious” and label those they like as reflective of “objective” laws and values, but in reality their distinctions get quite arbitrary and don’t appreciate that ALL criminal law is rooted in some notion of morality- that is, of what is right and what is wrong. Not that ALL wrongs are illegal, but all things illegal are illegal because they are wrong.
So I have a quick quiz for you. For each of the following real and hypothetical laws, please tell me if they would qualify as laws based on “religious principles” or laws based on “secular democratic values.”
1. Laws regard age of consent and statuatory rape.
2. Legal drink age.
3. Laws outlawing prostitution.
4. Regulations of pornography, and the content of public advertising and broadcast media.
5. The regulation or outlawing of abortion.
6. Anti-discrimination laws, including bans on segregation, even on private property.
7. Laws against public indecency.
Thanks.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Greg, like you, I too do not think the Federal Government can do much to make the society better with its policies. In fact, it already has too many policies that inferent with the society’s ability to solve the problems in its our own way. Furthermore, the Federal Government, especially its activist judges, already have too many hands in everything at all level. So, for me, I believe that the President, first, should see to that those policies are taken away, and second, to use his pulpit to help our society.
You argued that Rudy is the best person for us social conservatives. I must disagree. First, there is an issue of his personality which is too aggressive and self-centered. He being thrice married cannot emphasize on the goodness that is family nor is he a light on how we must work together among ourselves.
True, we saw some amazing results in New York City during his terms, but he has not say much about how he went around to achieve them. So far, it has been about results, results and results with him. Unfortunately for him, it was not all to his credits. For example, the big factor in reducation of crimes was the economy growth (dot com boom) and the increase in police force. The force expansion program actually was implemented by his predecessor, and they started to graduate from academies after Rudy sworn in as the mayor. I will give him some credit in that he did hire some good police chiefs and comissioners, and he helped them with their focus. But it is not wholly his. He also did get half of participants off the welfare program but it was again helped. He has not gone into specifications on how he got those off the welfare program. I am still waiting to hear.
Yes, I have been waiting the whole year to hear of his plans; what he actually did in NYC. From those days, what I have heard was all about his media spotlights and court fights. I have not seen a single policy he started in NYC that he intends to use this time around. I have not heard him talking about plans he will copy this time around. I have not heard him explaining us what he will do as the president. It has been about the results, results and results that he saw during his term as mayor. Well, other than his Stats, which anyone can emulate. I am referring to social issues here, not his war on terrorism plan or such.
That is my problem. I do not see him as a person who would concern himself with social issues. I cannot see him as a Standard which we should aspire for. I will vote first for the welfare of my society, so, yes, I will vote for him over Hillary. But he is not the best person for the social conservatives because he lack personality and he does not share the same concerns as them.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Greg and Tano you claim that Social Conservatives want to impose their pesonal morals on others
but you don’t tell us specifically what youi see as those morals. You must not be thinking about
abortion becasue we consider abortion to be murder, so you can disagree with that value ( you
can disagree that abortion is murder) but only an anarchist would think that if that value is true
we should not impose it upon society. Most of us I think would agree that murder ought to be
outlawed. As far as the marriage issue, the social libertarian position would be for the
government to get out of marriage. Allowing gays to marry is imposing a liberal social value on
society. Therefore, SoCons wanting to see the government not endorse gay marriage is no more
imposing Social values on society than what what putting the stamp of aproval on a gay
relationship vie marriage. Government being involved in marriage is the government getting
imposing social values either way. So what values are you talking about that are being imposed
by SoCons and which Social liberals are not imposing?
December 1st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
MWS,
1,2,and 6 can unambiguously be regulated under secular democratic values.
Children are, objectivly, not fully competent citizens, thus in need of protection from adults and from themselves.
Anti-discrimination is at the core of any equal rights principle.
3,4,and 7 can be regulated to varying extents under s-d values, but not outlawed.
People are free to do what they wish with thier bodies, but reasonable accomodations can be arrived at to allow everyone to feel comfortable in certain areas of the public space.
Abortion is, as always the contentious issue. Under secular democratic principles, abortion can be regulated to the extent that the unborn are recognized as persons under the law – which makes this determination the central issue of the debate. Most of the law recognizes persons only after birth. Some people try to argue that personhood should be conferred at conception. Many cultural and religious traditions recognize personhood at the moment of “ensoulment” – some time around the end of the first trimester. Some significant biological events happen then too. Under the Roe decision, which researched these issues extensively, a compromise was reached centered around that time.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
“Under the Roe decision, which researched these issues extensively, a compromise was reached centered around that time.” So you think the nine justices were especially capable of dealing with those issues and that the American people coundn’t handle them?
December 1st, 2007 at 10:18 pm
John,
I have no problem, in theory, removing government from the institution of marriage.
But government is not going to ever really be removed from this issue, because couples and families are social units, and to the exent that government regulates things like inheritances, or rights of attorney or a whole host of other rights over oneself and one’s property that individuals may wish to grant to their families, then government needs some mechanism to establish who is and who is not a member of a family.
Families are formed by gay couples as well as straight couples, and so long as government recognizes some families, they are obliged to recognize all, equally.
The issue is not really “allowing” people to marry. It is deploying the legal institution of marriage to recognize the families that free people form on their own. Free people do not need permission from the government to fall in love, or to decide to make a life with another person. The government has a need to recognize these social units when they operate as such, and must do so equally.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Absolutely, the issue of abortion is properly dealt with in the courts. The courts exist to adjudicate disputes involving conflicts between the rights of individuals. What must be done is to carefully weigh the competing claims, under the principles laid out in the Consitution and the laws.
The legislature, or the people (aka mob rule) are NEVER tasked with the adjuciation of such disputes, for a very obvious reason. When the issue is one of basic rights, then there are lines that the majority, no matter how large, cannot cross.
A primary function of the courts are to protect the individual from the whims of the majority.
The Constitution creates an environment, a space in which free people can live freely. Within that space, the majority rules on matters that the collective, operating through government, are allowed to deal with. Issues that involve the parameters of that Constitutional space, which the abortion/personhood issue obviously does, are matters for the courts.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“because couples and families are social units, and to the exent that government regulates things like inheritances, or rights of attorney or a whole host of other rights over oneself and one’s property” I’m not an expert on marriage and familly law but why can’t we have a “domestic partnership” that includes the rights to rights of inheritance, seeing the other person in the hospital… and open such a partnership up to any two people? Thus, the governmetnt wouldn’t be giving our rights to gays just because their in a guy relationship – the governemnt would be giving out these rights to any two people who applied for them. The problem I have with gay marrigae and civil unions as they are currently marketed is they are giving rights to people becase they are in a gay relationship, and I don’t think you should get any benefits just because you are in some inapropiate relationship with someone. But if the government could give the rights that you mention to anybody regardless of their relationship than the governement wouldn’t be endorsing any particular relationship and I would be okay with it.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Tano, I understand that their rights which the majority does not have the right to trample, but what makes you think the court is likely to trample such rights than what the majority is? The fact is, the court only gains it power by the constitution. The constitution was enacted by a supermajority. Majorities are how we are ruled in this country, except for a few cases where the court has made extra constitutional rulings. A majority is certainly imperfect in protecting our rights, but what makes you think that the nine men in black robes are going to do any better of a job?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
‘why can’t we have a “domestic partnership†that includes the rights to rights of inheritance, seeing the other person in the hospital… and open such a partnership up to any two people? ”
Thats fine with me, John. We do have such an institutiona already though. Its called civil marriage.
If changing the semantics is important to you, thats probably ok with me. Change it for everyone though.
“Thus, the governmetnt wouldn’t be giving our rights to gays…”
Huh? Giving YOUR rights to gays? What on earth are you talking about?
What rights do you have, that a gay person doesnt have, such that the government is taking it from you and giving it to them?
Government doesn’t give rights anyway (remeber that “endowed by the Creator” stuff?). It is obliged to recognize rights.
I really dont quite understand your objections here. You seem to be a fair minded person, allowing rights for all kinds of couples equally. But you also seem to have an objection when that actually is done.
Recognizing marriages by gays, just like for straight couples accomplishes the very thing you say you would be ok with. whats the problem?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
John,
If you have a problem with the notion of the judiciary deciding conflicts over basic rights, then take it up with Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson. That is the system they created.
Yes, a supermajority can overrule the courts, by amending, or even rewriting the Constitution. But in the normal course of events, the courts exist to adjudicate disputes under the law, and regarding the meaning of the law.
This is a very conservative principle – and one that conservatives have always, until recently, fought to uphold.
I really doubt you would enjoy a world where the basic framework around the laws, not just the laws themselves, could be changed every time a new majority takes power.
Somehow I suspect this will all be clear to you when the Dems take over the WH and hold Congress after the next election. Suddenly conservatives will discover a new found value in having the courts check the overreach of the popularly elec ted branches.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:39 am
“Thus, the governmetnt wouldn’t be giving our rights to gays…†That was a typo I think, it should have said giving out rights, no giving our rights. Of course you’re right that the government does not give rights, it recognizes them. I don’t think a gay couple have a right to have the government recognize their marriage, actually I don’t think anybody really has right to government recognition of anything. It makes some sense for the Government to recognize marriage as it of benefit to society. I really don’t see where a gay relationship is of benefit to society. However, I am willing to allow a gay couple to have hospital visitation rights and so forth… but I don’t want to give it to them because they are a ” gay couple” if we can have partnership deal that any two people( sister – sister, brother – brother …) can sign up for, than I’m cool with that. The difference between this and gay marriage is that with gay marriage the government is giving out privileges to people on the basis of them being in a gay relationship. Therefore, the government is sanctioning a relationship I disaprove of. But if the government opened it up to any two people than the government can be blind as to whether or not they are supporting a gay lifestyle.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 am
“If you have a problem with the notion of the judiciary deciding conflicts over basic rights, then take it up with Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson. That is the system they created.” The idea is that they use the words of the Constitution to make judgments in such debates. I am for the court judging rights as long as they are guided by the constitution. The constitutional theory of liberals these days is that the constitution can changes with society and the courts are the judges as to how it has changed. Becasue of this the courts have no limit to their power. Because you can say society says any number of things, and the opinion of a Supreme Court justice on the values of society and how the constitution has changed is no better than the judgment of the majority of citizens. Also I don’t want the courts to become activists if the liberals gain control. If liberals gain control we should have a liberal country, election should have resauts. Your method of constitutional interpretation doesn’t have anything that would limit the courts, because absolutely everything could be declared a dispute of basic rights.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
“with gay marriage the government is giving out privileges to people on the basis of them being in a gay relationship”
Not really, They are giving the privlege to people on the basis of them being in a relationship, period. A functioning social unit that operates in society like any other.
Gay couples buy homes together, adopt and raise children, function in society the same way straight couples do. Certainly in every way that would be relevant for a government to assess when granting legal status.
On the other issue:
“The constitutional theory of liberals these days is that the constitution can changes with society and the courts are the judges as to how it has changed”
But your position is that the an essential foundational question – who is a person – is to be subject to the (changing) whims of a majority. That is more “liberal” (in the sense of not being grounded in principle but subject to the fashion of the day) than the supposedly liberal position.
The courts may consider the changing sentiments of society (what was “cruel and unusual” in the 18th century is different than today), but the courts do try to square societal sentiment with the actual text of the Constitution and the laws. The legislature, or the people at large have no particular need or desire to align their preferences with the text of the Constitution. So taking these matters out of the hands of the courts and giving it to “the people” would make the problem that you identify far worse.
I think you greatly exaggerate the position of liberals (as do most conservative rhetoriticians). We very much believe in the text of the Constitution. The fact remains though, that the text is general, and how the principles outlined there should apply to the modern world is, necessarily, a matter of interpretation. No rights, for example are absolute. The Constitution states clearly that there should be NO laws restricting freedom of speech, but we do have laws against speech when it comes to national security secrets, or libel and slander or shouting fire in a crowded theatre. How do you square those laws, which everyone accepts, with the text of the Constitution? The courts do that by trying to find a balance between fundamental principles when those principles come into conflict with each other.
Without the courts, these disputes would be fought out in the legislature, with no anchor set of principles to guide the outcomes, and the results would change from election to election.
The modern conservative critique of the courts, that they interpret the law rather than following the strict text, is a sham. Their own approaches represent an interpretation- and they raise these issues only when their particular policy preferences are different than what the latest court decision is. When the courts agree with conservative interpretation, even when that seems at odds with the text of the Constitution, there is no complaint.
Consider the war powers issues. The Constitution is very explicit about almost all powers regarding war being in the hands of Congress, not the executive. The president is commander in chief only, which means he must run the military in such a way as to carry out the policies of the Congress. There is no sense in the COnstitution that the president should have ANY role in deciding when and where we go to war.
If you believe in “original intent”, check out these quotes from the principal author of the Constitution, James Madison:
“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.â€
“War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.â€
And yet, conservatives, who tend to support a strong authoritarian executive (especially when the president is a Republican) are fully happy when the courts acceed to executive war making power.
Anyway, bottom line here: turning the foundational questions over to the legislature and away from the courts would be a very unconservative thing to do. The courts are the guardian of the legal traditions of the country, enshrined in the Constitution. Even if you think they do a bad job guarding that, your solution would make it infinitly worse, by making everything a function of the whims of a changing majority.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
John, I think I see where you are trying to go with your arguments. I think an example would help you – the Catholic Charity in Massauchusetts. They were forced to allow the children be adopted by same-sex married couples because the government put the importance of marriage recognization over the ability of an individual (including an organization or corporation) to dicate who he should serve. This is the problem I am having with many of the gay arguments – that they should have more rights (hate crime, anyone? And don’t forgot the Boy Scouts Association, either) than I.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
SGS,
Whoa. Catholic Charities wants to do government work.
Placing children into a family – with all the legal ramifications that entails.
And they want to violate societal standards regarding non-discrimination.
They want to discriminate against certain groups.
How can that be allowed?
And how can a position that forbids discrimination against a group be considered to be giving that groups special rights?
Would you allow a liberal group to get a government contract to allocate children to families if that group refused to do so for any family that attended a church?
Would arguing against that be considered pleading for special rights for church-goers?
This type of attitude is so infuriating and wrong. Ending the discrimination against a group is equated with giving them something special, when in fact they are merely being treated equally for the first time.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Greg:
This is an encouraging post to read. I too am an Evangelical Social Conservative and am getting a lot of flack from other conservatives on favoring Rudy. This post expresses well where I’m coming from. Thank-you!!!
December 4th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Tano, if the Charities is the only organization, then their discrimination may be a concern. However, there are many adoption agencies the homosexuals could go to. The Charities is a private organization, so why should not it be allowed to be selective? And besides, they do have sufficient data (for example, homosexual are 16 times more likely to modest a child than hetersexual). They do have valid concerns on why they do not want to serve homosexual couples. We cannot ignore science (Tano, you being a scientist should know that sometimes, we need to accept what data is telling us, even if we do not like the results).