Terence,

You are exactly right, there is no such thing as a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual conservative. Anyone who feels they are one should take a long look at what the conservative movement is all about. Such as a Nation founded on by godly men on godly principles cannot stand for abortion and homosexuality, the conservative cannot stray from that.

Where in the Constitution does it impose a requirement that our country be run in accordance with "natural law?"

Dave

Dave- Our Declaration of Independence says," We hold these truths to be self evident...that they are endowed by their Creator..."

There you have it- "natural law" We were founded on Natural law and must continue to honor God's commandments- respecting the innocent life of pre-borns and fostering belief in the sacred rites of male and female marriage!- Just as Terence,above, has said!

I am as conservative in every way as anybody comes. I don't care for GOProud trying to dictate to the new Congress what they can or can't do. Don't want them throwing out DADT.

However, at the moment, we do have more pressing issues. Fix the economy, first. If they don't make that the top priority, voters will toss them out, again. Reduce spending, renew the Bush tax rates, trim the government back to its Constitutional responsibilities in every way possible.

Then you'll have some political capital that can be spent on social issues - and you better spend some of it first on persuading and reasoning with the American people, so that we'll be successful on those issues.

What part of limited, Constitutionally established government allows anyone to dictate how another must live his or her life?

Abortion is different from gay questions. Abortion is the taking of a human life. The proscription against taking another human's life except in the most immediately dire circumstances should not be conditioned on birth or our ability to measure some attribute or response while the person is still in the womb.

When it comes to homosexuals, far too often "conservatives" jump the shark and go off about how God's laws should be followed, etc. Notice how similar that formulation is to the enemy that threatens all civilization with their cultist fanaticism and death worship?

Everyone is equal before the law under our Federal Constitution and the government has only those powers enumerated therein. Last I checked, defining which relationships between consenting adults are permissible wasn't one of those enumerated powers. The States, by contrast, have plenary powers that go far beyond those granted to the Federal Government. If the people of a State choose to treat a homosexual union the same as a heterosexual one, then they are within their powers in such a foolish act. Anyone who doesn't like it has the power to vote with their feet and go to another state.

And no, you didn't miss something; I said that recognizing homosexual unions would be a foolish act.

retiredcoach -

the Declaration of Independence is not the governing document that defines the responsibilities and powers of our federal government. That document would be the Constitution.

Again I ask, where in the Constitution does it mandate that our government be run in accordance with "natural law", whatever that may mean?

Dave

Not only can you not be pro gay conservative, you cannot be a true Christian and be 'pro choice'. What I mean by that is, one of the 10 commandments is thou shalt not kill. You cannot be a true Christian if you pick and choose which commandments are convenient to follow.

That's the beauty of Natural Law, you don't need an official set of government documents or even a religious point of view to understand it. You look at a man, then look at a woman, "the pieces fit". It's the way nature intended it. Everything else is a deviation from the norm that should not be legislated from any government. The same goes for abortion. Stopping a pregnancy mid-stream is a deviation of the process, against "natural law". Most conservatives use their common sense based on the natural law to base their arguments. Their religious beliefs simply support this.

Hmmm, I'd been wondering when this turtle-head topic would finally pop up.

Seems nearly every day now there's more calls like this article that continually attempt to alienate people within the conservative movement they delineate as "less pure" than the rest, and every day it only serves to whittle away at the basis of our support.

The topic line of this article pretty much says it all and the topic itself seems to once more further faction the conservatives into those who perceive themselves as purists .... and the rest of us who don't fit neatly into their mold.

Here's a few clues Mr. Jeffrey:

1. Not all conservatives are Christian, some of us are even atheists.

2. Not all conservatives think there's room, or a need to make any such room in our bedrooms for the government to poke their noses into our personal affairs. If growing the govt. and its socially intrusive tendencies into our personal lives is a conservative policy platform item, that's certainly not what was being said by campaigners just a few short weeks ago .... when they wanted and asked for the conservatives support!

3. Not all conservatives believe the govt. has any say in what a woman chooses to do with her body as this again constitutes federal intrusion into our lives and personal decisions, which conservatives claimed to decry just a few weeks ago too. Or, is that only the case when it means the religious right is getting their say and foisting their "purist" agenda?

This is a wake-up call to Mr. Jeffereys and others of his ilk - There are plenty of us who are conservatives that will not be utilized as tools to further the theist agenda, serve up homosexuals to your altar so you can spout how you protect our society from their influences while doing your dead level best to confound every facet of their lives simply because they choose to have same sex partners, and as such don't fit neatly into the self absorbed hotbeds of morality you feel you righteously claim dominion over, and that women, even those who've made poor prior choices, do not have the right to make choices about their futures that differ from your own regarding their bodies and yet unborn progeny because they too find themselves at odds with your (once again) religiously motivated agenda.

As a fellow conservative who believes a helluvalot more in personal freedom than in simply changing out one set of self serving zealot masters for others who instead of giving away the keys to the kingdom to any and all with a hand out, hold out their hands to only those in complete agreement with their positioning.

You sir, and those like you, help deprive the conservative base of many fine supporters with articles like this one.

Then again, when folks like yourself begin spouting dreams of more and deeper federal intrusion into our lives, perhaps a better question would be, who here is the conservative and who is not?

I am a Christian conservative. So if I follow your line of thinking on Natural Law, there should not be any conservative adulterers either. And by adulterer that would include most of those who have divorced and remarried.

Jason - The above article has nothing to do with adultery, divorce or remarriage (it's off topic). So I really don't follow your line of thinking at all. According to the natural law the essential purpose of marriage is the proper propagation of the human race, and the education of the children. I don't believe this article was meant to be a discussion of man's free will, a topic for Moral Theology. My point was in response to the article's mention of the "gay agenda". I believe that there are certain conclusions you can make by simple reason that can be observed from nature. I purposely left my religious affiliation out since some label all conservatives as religious fanatics.

It's good to find myself on the same side as MrKim for a change! The author would have a point if modern conservatism was a moral philosophy rather than a political one. Although questions of "what ought to be" are inherently based in our worldviews, Republicans have long-since abandoned conservatism on moral grounds in favor of pragmatic ones. Let them reap what they have sown.

While Christians acknowledge only one road to God, there are many roads to political conservatism. It is simply not the business of government to dictate religious beliefs or private choices. The voters did not give any brand of Republicans a mandate - they simply slapped the snot out of the left wing of the Democrat Party. It seems to me we should concentrate on those areas where we agree politically before it's too late to avoid fiscal disaster (if it's not already too late).

I'm happy to concede that the Founders sought to build a republic based on Natural Law. It's important to remember that they felt limiting human government was consistent with that same Natural Law. Thus the 10th Amendment, by the way.

I'm not suggesting that there are no pressing moral issues, and we can argue over the implementation of government policies with moral implications in the public sphere, but unless we rein in spending and drastically reduce the size and scope of government VERY SOON, it will all be moot.

Human sexuality is simply outside the authority of the federal government. It is, at most, a state issue, and probably not even that. If I expect the government to stay out of my church and gun cabinet I can't advocate they belong in other people's bedrooms and medicine cabinets. If we believe as we say we do as Christians, it is incumbent on us to persuade others to our view, not use the force of government to outlaw and punish.

I am a gay conservative. Don't tell me what I can think or not think,or be part of this, or part of that.The Conservatives are not even back in power yet and you're already sounding blindly intolerant as obam and the communists.

To all present, first, please accept my apologies for the brusqueness in my previous post. While the sentiment was genuine, the ensuing verbage was a bit more than it should have been.

In the dialogue that began in the comments to Ken Blackwells column "Leaving Out God" I stated then that politics and religion can make for some strange couplings and posed the idea that theifying political discussions had the potential to divide otherwise focused segments of the various conservative factions.

While the concepts of Divide And Conquer may be beneficial in minimizing an opponents support, fracturing the conservative base at this juncture by those within its ranks in utilizing these same actions hardly seems practical.

More to the point, while the libs got handed a serious helping of humble pie on the 2nd which was made possible by a focused, largely conservative and independent electorate, does that now justify wetting the shoes of some of those who helped get us all to the dance?

While the conservative movement has likely never been more powerful in the last century it is imperative that the level of resolve within the movement remain focused on disempowering the growth of govt. along with a return to sound fiscal policies that will allow us to dig ourselves outta the hole we're currently in.

Factioning or fracturing the conservative movement can only lead to success by the opposition, and that my friends would be detrimental to us all ;>)

FYI Children,

The BIBLE says THERE IS NO LIFE UNTIL THE FIRST BREATH IS TAKEN!

Guess What?

There is NO "First Breath" UNTIL AFTER BIRTH!

So how the heck can Christians say abortion is KILLING Babies & Children, when THEIR OWN BIBLE says differently?

mrkim -

No need for apologies.

Dave

@Neil - "The BIBLE says THERE IS NO LIFE UNTIL THE FIRST BREATH IS TAKEN!"

Hmmm.... could you please provide book, chapter and verse for your statement?

While you look that up, here are a few verses for your consideration:

For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. Psalm 139:13

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who makes all things... Isaiah 44:24

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:41

Regards,

- Dave

As a Reformed Christian, the issue as I see it is whether government has the right to take mine (in the form of taxes) to pay for something that I believe to be morally repugnant (abortion). In the case of homo-sexuality and giving special rights to a group at my expense (once again my tax dollars)is not the role of government. When people start positing moral positions without recognizing all that it implies (A Moral Law Giver, God) and use words like intolerance they have no ground on which to stand. Without a moral law giver we are free to do whatever we want to do. Tolerance is an ambiguous word in that premise. If you look at the post-modern world as it currently exists, you see that the only sin is to be intolerant, which means that anyone who holds to any absolute truth is a bigot, a racist, and in the present world view the most vile of sinners - and this is done while standing on a philosophical nonsense statement. There is nothing under their feet.

Mr. Reinhardt. You Sir are a liar. The Scripture does NOT say "THERE IS NO LIFE UNTIL THE FIRST BREATH IS TAKEN". It would be a contradiction to everything else God has put in the Bible. Jeremiah 1:5 says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." If you believe that you are correct, please state Chapter and Verse.

Theological point follows, so if you're just here to read about politics: move along... there's nothing to see here.

Mr Reinhart is wrong, of course, as the Bible says no such thing. I was intrigued enough to see if his creative quoting might have come from some obscure and/or recent translation of the Bible. Turns out that's not even true. I did identify the likely source of that thought though. An organization that calls itself "Liberated Christians" explains the rational for Mr Reinhart's claim, which centers around blatantly taking two aspects of scripture completely out of context. The first is that Adam became alive when God gave him breath, therefore breath was synonymous with life. Since Adam could not have ever been a fetus that argument is absurd on its face. The second is the fact that Levitical Law treats someone who causes the death of a fetus differently than someone who causes the death of someone already born. In that sense they have a small point, but it certainly does not provide justification for Mr Reinhart's statement that "The BIBLE says THERE IS NO LIFE UNTIL THE FIRST BREATH IS TAKEN!"

The voters' overwhelming support of fiscal conservatism doesn't give Republicans a green light to impose whatever social values they bring with them. The Heritage Foundation gleefully gloated on this past election as a validation of BOTH conservative fiscal and social values. No way, guys - you are all dreaming the same hope and change stuff that Obama wants to foist on us, only its your flavor instead of his.

We need not only to roll back government spending, but also government intrusion in our lives. Taxpayer dollars should be spent on issues that no other entity can address: our national defense and whatever infrastructure cannot be done by private means. Everything else, from education to health to population control to you name it, all should be privatized so that social issues are supported solely by those who believe in them. The rest of us don't pay taxes to support someone else's idea of how people should live.

Keep your religion to yourselves. I do.

Mr Sunforester: Conservative social values by definition will do exactly as you say - remove government from social engineering, that has nothing to do do with religion but everything to do with liberty.

As a professing atheist, I have a few questions no liberal has been able to answer; Why is it ok to kill an unborn baby but not to kill a proven, convicted murderer or rapist? Why is it ok for the government to take my property and give it to someone else? To everyone: Why is marriage the business of government anyway? Wouldn't what the government does better be described as legal recognition of a civil contract between 2 people? Shouldn't the word "marriage" be confined to religious ceremonies and be the domain of the particular church performing that ceremony?

Chris Baker,

Here, Here! You and MrKim are now my two favorite atheists. As a long-time fundamentalist and Libertarian I also consider the word 'marriage' to be a religious term. The living arrangements of free adults is simply no business of the state most of the time. The government differentiates between married and single people in the tax laws, but that's easy to fix: replace the income tax with a flat consumption tax. My wife and I were married in a church, and THAT is what makes us husband-and-wife. The fact that the state recognizes it is a legality. If the state of North Dakota rescinded every marriage license it ever issued, we would still be married. I'm not suggesting that people should ignore the law: we should obey it as long as it's on the books, but understand that a marriage license does not CREATE the marriage, it is an official acknowledgment of marriage for governmental purposes. It sets up the two parties as legal next-of-kin. Free citizens don't need the state's permission to pair off.

so if "sexuality" is not the the business of the government and it should "stay out of our bedrooms" is there a way to keep that said "business" in the bedrooms instead of flaunted and celebrated??-in other words-how does what happens in vegas stay in vegas??-go ahead-have your civil unions and all the rights-who cares-just don't tell me "Why Johnny has 2 Dads" is required reading for my 10 year old.You see there is the rub-gay militants don't want what the breeders have-they want to destroy the entire civilization-indoctrinate children-silence any voice not in agreement with cries of bigotry and discrimination-they want to extend their "freedom" at the expense of mine-thats where I have issues

Hi rippedchef,

Here's a cuppla thoughts, but they're mine, so I'll lay claim to them.

No where in our Constitution is there any mention I can find of the Feds ability to regulate sexual congress, between anyone, whether their preference be hetero or homo-sexual. This means any such right of regulation is then transferred to the states.

When you ask "is there a way to keep that said "business" in the bedrooms instead of flaunted and celebrated?" doesn't this question alone point to a view that only your perspective on hetero/homosexuality is the correct one and that all others must then be discriminated against as they are in disagreement with yours? I have to ask, do you not see that as a dictatorial discriminatory position? If not, can you please provide validation for your position that it is something else?

You made a case about militant-gays publicly pushing their views but then aren't anti-gay demonstations essentially just the same actions being performed by militant-heteros?

The only real difference I can discern is that actions by heteros are more in line with the opinion held by the majority, which leads us back to the argument that their position essentially is backed by the age-old might makes right ideology. While might always make "might", it does not always make "right".

While my personal position on this is not that I back homo-sexuality because it's my preference but because I see it as a personal freedom issue every bit as valid as is a discussion on discrimination of anyone their skin-tone, faith or nationality ;>)

hello MrKim-

perhaps I wasn't clear-I give a crap about anyones' sexual exploits-straight or gay-my point is can't anything be private anymore? not only is it not the government's business-its not mine either-is personal business now an oxymoron?-keep your "stuff" to yourself-what is the twisted need to advertise to the world what your "preference" is?nobody cares-just live your life-freedom comes with responsibility-I simply don't see the need to "push" any agenda- and yes militant heteros are just as bad and don't get me started on the media-thats a whole other cesspool

Hi rippedchef,

I see your point and it does seem people are much more free about puttin their business on the street these days.

I can't say I really have a clue how anything can be done about that though. You're right that freedom has responsibilities, good question though.

I am a pro-gay rights Republican. We exist. In quiet abundance.

Take a look at what it means to be a Republican. We belive in fiscal resonsibility and limited government. Why should the state or the federal government dictate what I or my neighbor or my cousin does with their life? If they get married, it doesn't affect me. In no way does it affect me. So how is this the governments issue?

Provide for me a reason against gay rights that doesn't eventually boil down to your religious preference. It rips apart the fammily? How. How has your family been ripped apart by the existance of families constructed by gay adults.

Republicans these days are hypocrits, who forget what our party is founded upon. Let's calm down and let people live their lives.