This week a number of my friends, well respected Christian leaders, wrote a public letter encouraging Christ followers to vote for the Democrat incumbent Scott Peters in the 52nd Congressional District race instead of the endorsed Republican, Carl DeMaio. They did so on the basis of a moral issue – his position on same sex marriage.
As a Christ follower I understand. I get it. They are offended by DeMaio’s unbiblical position on same sex marriage and his apparent willingness to use his congressional seat to advance such an agenda without the enumerated Constitutional authority to do so. This was my concern as well and the reason I stood before my peers on the Central Committee and urged a vote against him when he sought the party’s endorsement. A vote for which a number of my elected Christian peers didn’t even show up. Our Christian leaders are correct. We should be concerned about the moral threats to the family. I stand with them in saying “as the family goes – so goes our nation.” It is the institution of the family above all others that constitutes the basic building block and health of our nation.
But here is where I depart. In Exodus 20 God gave Moses his ‘Top 10’ for a just society. We find in this passage six laws addressing how a Christian is to love his neighbor. Of the six, four address the family and property rights (honor your mother and father, do not commit adultery, do not steal and do not covet your neighbor’s property) – not a one addresses homosexuality.
Why do I think family and property are so closely correlated in Scripture? In simple terms I think property represents power, and with power go authority and honor. God intended for the family to be an honored institution and understood that any threat to property was a direct threat to the family. God never mentions the state government in the Ten Commandments. It is family government he mentions and his desire that power, authority and honor reside there. Our Framers codified these ideas into our founding documents. Both codify what the federal government is entitled to in the way of our property and how property can be taken (Art 1, Sec 8, clause 1 and Art. 1, Sec 9, clause 4). When government fails to uphold property rights families are threatened. In order for a government to gain power it must destroy the family. Karl Marx understood this. The family, he said, is based on capital, private gain, private property and he added that the family “will vanish with the vanishing of capital”. Marx replaced the Ten Commandments with the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto:
• “the abolition of property”
• “a heavy progressive income tax”
• ”abolition of all rights of inheritance”
• “centralization of credit in the and hands of the state”
• “free education for all children in public schools”
Each of these are now in operation in our nation.
How does a humanistic government defeat the family, the source of our character and ability to self-govern? Take away its power, honor and authority via a steady deprivation of property rights and transfer such to the state.
For the past one hundred years the American family has been under attack and believers like myself have been silent as an unconstitutional and immoral tax on wages and salaries has demanded we tithe three to four times to the State what we tithe to Christ. I wish I heard more of my brothers and sisters complaining about that but I don’t. Ideas have consequences.
For the past one hundred years an unconstitutional and immoral Federal Reserve Bank has been given carte blanche to do what any of us would be thrown in jail for – counterfeit money and destroy the purchasing power of the dollar. President Washington saw this happen during the Revolution when due to money printing he couldn’t buy a wagon load of goods with a wagon load of Continentals. As a man of faith and as our first President he would sign the Coinage Act of 1792 assigning the death penalty to anyone caught debasing our money.
For the past one hundred years an unconstitutional and immoral federal government has deprived families of property, first by taxation and then by inflation, forcing mothers who desired to be at home and play a larger role in the character formation of their children to enter the workplace.
Some believe homosexuality is the biggest moral threat facing our families. I disagree. In my opinion the biggest threat facing our families is the continued immoral and unconstitutional transfer of property, honor and authority from families to the State with consent of millions of Christian voters. Some of our Christian lawmakers, holding the safest seats in our nation, only vote with the U.S. Constitution 60 to 70 percent of the time, further growing government and weakening our families.
In my opinion, reform will come when believers uphold property rights as they are upheld in The Ten Commandments and our founding documents. Reform will come as “We the People” begin to vote in an informed way which holds our lawmakers accountable to enforce rule of law, defend property, restrict the federal government to its enumerated powers and ceases to use government where the Bible and Christ do not give it jurisdiction – in our neighbor’s heart. Sadly, I see little discussion of these fundamental ideas among my brothers and sisters. On that issue, while far from perfect, I believe Carl DeMaio has demonstrated himself morally superior and more of a reformer than his opponent.
I can’t help but think how much better off our nation and families would be if our Christian community was as well informed on constitutionally limited government and property rights as they are on same sex marriage. Is it possible we have a “log in our eye”? Could we be using the tax code in an unbiblical, immoral and unconstitutional way to redistribute property to “marrieds” against the teaching of our own scripture and Constitution? Is it possible that if we reformed “the man in the mirror” that the incentive for same sex marriage legislation might fade? Shall we do evil (i.e. vote for Peters/abortion) that good may result?
Somewhere, and for some reason, the Christian community has abandoned the “few and defined” duties of a limited constitutional government and have justified an unholy alliance with the State to accomplish our social agenda. It’s time for believers from both parties to unite and lead under an inspiring ethic that transcends political parties. An ethic that is consistent with the fundamentals of our faith and the great ideas that made us the most prosperous nation in 5,000 years of human history – rule of law, private property and constitutionally limited government. An ethic that uses law defensively instead of progressively.
# # #
Eric Andersen serves as Chair for 71st Assembly District of the San Diego County Republican Party and is the Co-Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus of San Diego County and im2moro.com. In 2012 he was the Rock Church Citizen of the Year. He holds other crazy ideas like chocolate doesn’t make you fat, it just makes your clothes shrink and the moon is still made of cheese.
I doubt this “movement” will pick up much steam. There is no way that voting for Scott Peters is a better position for a committed Christian than abstaining from voting altogether.
I have to ask (for anybody considering voting Peters over DeMaio): If you’re voting for Scott Peters for religious reasons, did you also vote for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney when Romney came out in support of abortion exemptions in cases of rape and incest?
Carl DeMaio is the right choice. Thank you Eric for posting this.
Excellent piece, Eric.
Just to clearly state before the discussion heats up, Carl DeMaio’s stance on marriage:
“Carl DeMaio supports marriage equality. The US Supreme Court has now settled this issue as one of equal protection under the law as it pertains to government, while also protecting the right of religions to define marriage within their own faith.”
In no way does this statement imply that Carl DeMaio wants to change anything that goes on in Garlow’s church. In fact, it sounds like he is well aware that the proper role of government is to protect rights rather than force ideas on the public.
So….is Garlow effective enough to change what goes on outside of his church without the force of government’s guns? Doesn’t seem like Garlow thinks he is. Why can’t he influence people to live his way without force?
Skyline Church: ideas so good they need to be mandated.
Great piece Eric. I appreciate your honesty and appreciate how you stand on principle!
May I ask a question, and hopefully, I can do it as respectfully as possible? My understanding of many Christians (and I am not one of those Christians) is that they believe homosexuality is against Scripture. I do not subscribe to that, but I have heard it over and over again from people on the” right” side of the aisle. So, is it possible that these so called Christians are not only against “gay marriage” but against homosexuality? I honestly don’t know. And, I have never met Carl DeMaio. Just wondering?
The Bible gives the Christ follower imperatives that reveal God’s holiness. Do not steal, Do not committ adultery and homosexuality etc… A Christian glorifies God by attempting to avoid these behaviors.
They key issue in this discussion is properly defining the role of law and the jurisdiction of the federal government from the jurisdiction of Christ and the Church.
God gives one the use of force, the sword. To the other he doesn’t.
Protection of life and property fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government and personal sin issues fall under the jurisdiction of individuals, families and churches. In these areas the Christian uses love not force. Just my opinion.
“How does a humanistic government defeat the family, the source of our character to self-govern and our education? Take away its power, honor and authority via a steady deprivation of its property rights.”
Brian, this is very clear- The increasingly government-controlled education system, coupled with diminishing families, sets the tone for defining the ethos and moral foundation for our society (why is the school yard and what is taught there such a political battle ground if not so?). When we now have “Heather Has Two Mommies” and the “A Day with Uncle Steve and Aunt Mike” indoctrination opposed to educating, this is the insipid fraying of the family as defined by one man and one woman. Additionally, forcing homosexual sex education (descriptions of sodomy, both fellatio and anal sex) at the K-6 levels and devising confusing and conflating constructs for bath and locker room arrangements for 11 year olds is the State opening a Pandora’s Box of the pyscho-sexual junk yard far too complex and confusing for the average pre-teen.
Has anyone asked Mr. DeMaio his position on transgender bathrooms in K-8 schools? Does he agree with Gov. Brown’s recent decision to unilaterally redefine husband and wife to simple “spouse?” Was that done by the courts or left for the “people” to decide? Did a politician just unilaterally make moral judgement? Cannot DeMaio, or Peters for that matter, do the exact same thing?
Didn’t he try to convince CC members and other supporters he was not going to tout or flaunt his sexual orientation (as if heterosexual candidate tout their sexual proclivities to get elected…)
Apparently, that was just empty rhetoric to grease the pipe for the real agenda- injecting the Gay agenda while marginalizing and judiciously de-coupling the pillars of Judeo-Christian ethics as prescribed by Marriage and Life.
And how do we know this? Because that is precisely what happened.
What is definitive is the brash, unilateral and reckless shift in GOP ideology to completely de-couple any vestiges of the two key platform issues that stem specifically from the historic and traditional Judeo-Christian ethos originally injected by the Founding Fathers that were uniquely defining for the GOP opposed to the example illustrated when the DNC convention “booed” the mention of God in its platform.
This has been a Hallmark of Distinction for decades between the Republicans and Democrats. The incredulity by the GOP establishment that there would be opposition and push back is the alarming part….it’s that faithful Christians would be opposed to a supporter of biblically incongruent positions that within just two years ago, the local GOP chairman was espousing. (See Chairman comments on Prop 8…you’d think he and many “staunch” GOP-ers were abducted by aliens and replaced with neo-progressive Pod People)
I can’t speak for all the supporters of the “Republicans for Peters” crowd; for me, and several people within the current and former GOP construct, the vote is as much a protest of the GOP Leadership and its embrace of the neo-progressive infiltration of the party as exemplified by DeMaio’s New Generation. Again, it is not so much where I stand on Mr. DeMaio’s sexual proclivities and lifestyle choices; it is his numerous examples and lack of integrity and ethical resolve as manifested in his recent, and apparently habitual, challenges with truth, plagiarism, and basic and expected ethical conduct one should expect from a federal elected official.
But that’s just me…call me intolerant…no doubt the usual detractors will, I’m sure.
Good thoughtful piece though…and hey, if you can’t beat them…join them.
During the recall of Bob Filner as I went around to various conservative groups speaking about how they could help get Bob Filner out of office I was deeply saddened to discover that many conservative voters chose to vote against their party and elect Bob Filner into the mayor’s office instead of voting for Carl DeMaio. I want each of those voters to remember that if they choose to vote for against the Republican party it may not be as easy to fix the error. Scott Peters is not a criminal but the divisive tactics the Democrats are using to control politics is absurd. The uninformed voters are falling for their socialist ways. California needs as many conservatives in office as possible. Our state is being railroaded by the liberals in Sacramento. They do not need a friend like Scott Peters in Congress any longer. We must put conservative values first. I have not been a fan of the pit bull Carl DeMaio but I will vote with the Republican party to save our great state. REMEMBER BOB FILNER — AND VOTE CARL DEMAIO
Eric: Thank you for your answer. I also believe that church and state should be separate issues. However, I often see, or hear, people like Limbaugh, Savage, and other conservatives, disagree with that position. I would add links, but I am a bit computer challenged. So, I do believe that Mr. DeMaio should be voted for or against because of his political positions.
Having said that, I often wonder why being “gay” is even an issue, one way or the other, but we all know it often is. I lost 10 dear friends, to the HIV virus (AIDS) in the 80’s, and not much action, or money, was given by Ronald Reagan until it became a possibility that it was not just a “gay” disease. There were many Christians at the time that thought they should die and go to Hell. Any thoughts about this?
This is a great piece, and a brave post for a Eric as it’s probably unpopular position among his Christian friends.
Michael’s post is also very important — Carl has no agenda in advancing gay marriage by force, and with the recent decision by the US Supreme Court, this issue is only going to continue on websites and twitter accounts, not in Congressional legislation or Federal Courts.
The Republican Party is quickly moving away from advocating the use of force on social issues. It wasn’t that long ago that W. Bush proposed a Constitutional Amendment against Gay marriage. Now, Carl represents the shift in the Party’s tone as he focuses on fiscal issues and limited government.
Peters represents the Ruling Party that advocates more government, less freedom, higher taxes and more socialism. This has been imposed at an accelerated level at the State and Federal the past few years, with predictable results. A vote for Peters continues this process, while a vote for Carl articulates the need for a more fiscally conservative and less intrusive government.
In other words, it’s an easy choice.
Watch Ronald Reagan’s opinion: http://youtu.be/Dg0Axyvlkm0
Happy viewing, Frank!
In case you’re wondering what my friend and brother Eric Anderson is referring to, here is the website: http://www.RepublicansAndIndependentsForScottPeters.net
and also here is a letter to Speaker Boehner from FRC, NOM and Citizens United:
Consider this, in three key races across the country (Oregon, Mass. and here in SD), the R Party is presenting a sampling of candidates as an example of perhaps what is yet to come – the “new moderate GOP” – unless true conservatives rise up and say: “enough is enough!”. Which is what this letter is about. The letter clearly states that the signers do not support either candidate – but that DeMaio is the candidate who will cause the greatest harm to society due to his allegiance to the LGBTQ (who will continue its path of destroying our religious freedom through DeMaio), and due to his violation of the Republican Party Platform foundational issues of life and family (the most important aspects of our governing body).
Sorry Eric, the Bible clearly trumps the constitution, and as a reminder, is the original guiding force and compass of the signers. I realize that you are conflicted between libertarianism and Christianity – apply the complete Word of God (not the cafeteria version of pick and choose of what is convenient) – all other ground is sinking sand. Respectfully, as always.
“apply the complete Word of God”
There is a reason that hearsay is generally disallowed as evidence.
Meaning: “live the Truth and Word of the Lord” (read the bible and you’ll get it), whatever your name is – why don’t you reveal your name – afraid?
For a host of reasons, anonymity is allowed here, as it has been since day one. We are well past the point of belittling those who choose to be anonymous on this site. Debate the issues, please.
Hmm . .”Protection of life and property fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government…” Okay, are pre-born children not life? DeMaio supports abortion. He goes against most Republicans and the Party Platform on this. So does Peters, but Peters will be basically ineffectual when it comes to voting no on bills limiting abortion (like the fetal pain act they tried to pass), which DeMaio would also vote no on based on his support for “choice.” Personally, I think the federal government has a definite role in protecting pre-born babies, like stopping them from being thrown in dumpsters behind abortion clinics and stopping babies from being killed in the womb just because they are little girls (sex-selection abortions).
Next, let’s talk about the ENDA, which DeMaio supports. Most Republicans don’t want further government interference in telling businesses whom they can hire or fire. But both Peters and DeMaio support the ENDA. Again, Peters vote on this bill won’t count unless we hand him more Republicans like DeMaio to vote along with him.
Then there the vote for Speaker of the House, one of a freshman member’s first votes. We all know DeMaio’s vote has already been bought and paid for by direct support from Boehner and the establishment Republicans. There are some Republicans who think Boehner is an acceptable Speaker, and he may be able to intimidate other members into voting for him to retain that office by threatening them with the loss of committee chairmanships if they don’t vote for him, but is that really what we want?
I don’t know about you, but I want a REAL Speaker of the House; this time around, one who won’t cave to the President all the time, make back-room deals on the debt ceiling, and who thinks amnesty (excuse me, “comprehensive immigration reform”) are what is needed for Republicans to gain the Latino vote. It isn’t, by the way. We shouldn’t be adding yet another guaranteed vote for the weakest Speaker in recent history. We desperately need a real leader in that position, but we can count on DeMaio to vote for the same weak establishment crony we’ve had there for the past six years. That needs to change. At least Peters won’t have a say in who will be our next Speaker.
So, there are many more reasons NOT to vote for DeMaio than simply those based one’s faith; substantial, pragmatic reasons. Giving someone the power of the majority which you know they will use in ways you don’t support is significantly worse than voting to give a nominal position to someone who will have little if any power beyond that bipartisan support he can manage to muster. They both share much of the same basic progressive legislative agenda. It all boils down to which one will have the power to promote the progressive agenda which they both support but with which most of us DO NOT agree. The real lesser of two evils in this election, based on the power we’d be handing them to promote that agenda, is Peters.
Thanks “Thor’s Assistant” – just hard for me to take someone seriously when they hide their identity.
What a great article written by a real Christian! “The biggest threat facing our families is the continued immoral and unconstitutional transfer of property, honor, and authority from families to the State with consent of millions of Christian voters.”
It grieves my heart when we mortals get into spiritual warfare over politics. Our goal in this election is to defeat the Democrats and bring order out of chaos, a Republic back into being, a Constitution back into use, a country back to its senses and Love back into our relationships with our brothers and sisters. No candidate is perfect.! If you can’t vote for anyone in a particular office, leave it blank….no one says you have to fill in every available space! But for heaven’s sake don’t stay home from the polls or fight over special issues …… GET OUT AND VOTE! It’s one right we still have, and know that every vote counts!
The poll seem to confirm the opposite of what Karen Grube and FF have been trying to convince us is true. Despite what they say, there is Republican enthusiasm to vote for DeMaio. Now of course the poll won’t be enough evidence for them to believe this. I don’t think they’ll believe the enthusiasm even after DeMaio is sworn in.
Though I disagree with it, I think abstaining from either is a perfectly acceptable option. Voting for the Democrat makes you lose all credibility.
I simply don’t subscribe to the notion that there are more votes available to us on the (rapidly aging and passing away) far right than there are toward the middle. Helping Peters win is another cycle of him voting for Obamacare, unbalanced budgets, further attacks against federalism and separation of powers, etc.
Gee, Union Buster, is there some part of “It doesn’t matter how Peters votes; He’ll be in the minority” that you don’t understand? And is there some part of “DeMaio and Peters agree on the majority of their agenda items and DeMaio will vote precisely the same way Peters will on those issues, but carry with him the power of the majority” that you also don’t understand?
And do you REALLY think a poll from the RPSDC would say anything else than their endorsed candidate was ahead? What the heck is “enthusiasm” anyway? So no, I don’t find it “convincing” in the least. In any event, my point was never that i thought DeMaio was losing – this race is still way too close to call – only that he should lose, and for so many reasons.
Besides, the failure to repeal Obamacare, to balance the budget, and to control these out-of-control executive agencies (HHS, Justice, IRS) is more the fault of the Senate than it is of the House. It didn’t – and won’t – matter how Peters votes then or in the future, especially if Republicans win the Senate. We can and will replace him in two years, hopefully with a decent candidate this time.
It is very important to me that my Christianity and views on “politics” (that part of ethics having to do with the science of government – Websters 1827) are consistent. If a friend will point out an area they feel I might be inconsistent, I will be happy to respond.
Did Jorgensen support a ban on the worship of false idols?
If not, this defensive voting for Peters movement just lost any credibility.
Thanks for asking, Eric.
So, here’s the deal: Human life comes before property. We are only the stewards of the property God graciously grants us. We are to be wise servants when it comes to using and managing that property, but it is not ours. What that means is that we can and should absolutely fight to stop it from being illegally or unjustly taken from us, but what it DOES NOT mean is that we should fight for our property rights over the right of a child to be born, breathe its first breath, and live.
Nowhere in the Bible is a person’s properly more valuable than human life. You’re implying a connection between family and property that just isn’t there.
As a Christian, I believe human life is sacred. We are God’s creations, not to be thrown away on a whim or to have their deaths justified by some made-up right to privacy.
The inconsistency is that you are basing your decision of which candidate to support on anything but human life. I don’t see anywhere in scripture that says or even implies what you said: “God intended for the family to be an honored institution and understood that any threat to property was a direct threat to the family” I don’t find that understanding anywhere in scripture. I do, on the other hand, find many verses about the sanctity of human life.
The single most truly justifiable reason for opting out of voting in this race is that both candidates think it’s okay to kill babies in the womb. That very thought sickens and disgusts me more than anything else, and I believe that it must outrage God that we sacrifice our children on the altar of convenience or political correctness. It is both inhuman and inhumane.
The best and most truly justifiable reason NOT to vote for DeMaio is that he will be given the power of the majority to promote the continued killing of pre-born children. He will do nothing to stop federal funding for abortion, nothing to stop gender-selection abortions, nothing to stop abortions even when there is proof that the child being killed dies a horrific painful death. I could go on. Because of the power we’d be handing him, he has to be stopped.
I am not suggesting that anyone necessarily should vote for Scott Peters. What i am saying is that he will not have the power that DeMaio would have to further promote or do nothing to stop this abortion Holocaust. We have lost over 50 MILLION lives since Roe v Wade, generations we needed to prosper as a country and as a society. If you are going to cast a vote, cast one for the guy who won’t be given the power to promote taking the lives of further generations in the womb. Peters is the true lesser of two evils in that regard.
Next, there are the attacks against people of faith that have been brought on by men and women like DeMaio to think wrongfully that traditional marriage is outdated or somehow irrelevant. I know you know all these stories (bakers, photographers, corporate execs, sports and media personalities), and they terrify me as an assault on our religious and free speech rights. Genderless marriage wasn’t supposed to hurt anyone. WRONG. It was always intended to hurt people of faith, particularly Christians. Again, I get it that both candidates support that horrific erosion of our constitutional liberties, but if you have to vote for one, I suggest voting for the guy who will have no power to further promote the erosion of our freedom of religion and speech by supporting those policies and bills meant to do just that.
I don’t know if that was much of a response to your question, but I hope so.
I appreciate your zeal for restraining the government from unconstitutionally taking our property and our treasure. And I completely agree that we must do all we can to restrain it to it’s proper Biblical role (Romans 13:1-6). Where you seem to fall short, however is thinking that the government’s exceeding its proper authority relative to our property rights is the greatest evil it can perpetuate and that virtually everything else is secondary in importance. For a candidate to have what appears to be a fiscal conservative belief (Carl DeMaio), yet be morally bankrupt in understanding the nature of the uniqueness of the one man and one woman institution of marriage as well as the sanctity of life shows me the fiscal aspect can become just as arbitrary. Get the basics wrong (life and marriage) and why would fiscal remain “un-defiled”? I wrote a Guest Commentary that was published this month in Good News Etc. It sets out a portion of the rationale why I cannot support DeMaio. I encourage you to read it and consider the consequences of a DeMaio win in the 52nd.
Why as a Conservative I’m not Voting for Carl DeMaio.
The 52nd Congressional District vote is one of the most gut-wrenching decisions I’ve faced in many years.
My practice In general elections has been to vote for the candidate closest to my values to prevent the damage a worse candidate would cause if elected.
And normally I’d vote for almost anyone running against an incumbent Congressman like Scott Peters. Particularly since Peters is in lockstep with the Democrat Party’s underlying, destructive worldview that’s so repulsive to the conservative Biblical values I hold dear.
Unfortunately, the challenger for this election is Carl DeMaio; the supposed standard bearer to represent the core values of the Republican Party.
After considering all kinds of factors and implications I’m forced to conclude that if DeMaio is elected, the damage to future opportunities to promote the Biblical moral values I cherish would be far more difficult.
Scott Peters is a Democrat loyalist that adheres to the Party line. He’s not a shining star in the Democrat Party expected to be a major political force in the future.
Carl DeMaio on the other hand has several major policy positions with merit. He’s also articulate, aggressive, appeals to a “big-tent” faction of the Republican Party, and has great potential for a long, very influential career seeking higher office. Unfortunately, DeMaio’s personal and policy decisions are clearly invested in the culture of homosexual activism. Its one thing for DeMaio to say government shouldn’t discriminate or be interested in someone’s personal life. It’s quite another to use the cover of those sentiments to be a willing conduit for re-engineering what Republicans stand for.
Make no mistake; if DeMaio is elected to Congress he’ll become a strong catalyst for the eventual exclusion of anyone in the Republican Party with a moral compass that doesn’t approve of sexual lifestyles morally inconsistent with God’s perfect design for men and women.
If DeMaio is elected, he’ll put a national face on an otherwise unseen activist community that will usher in the same extreme intolerance that has silenced objective treatment of the homosexual movement in many parts of business, major media and public schools. Can the faith community be far behind?
The political bottom line is that the re-election of Peters will not change the majority party control of the House of Representatives; it will only keep the 52nd a Blue Congressional District until the next election. In two years there’ll be another opportunity to have a true Conservative oppose him.
So who will do the greater damage to the promotion of Biblical values? As a captive of the political left, Peters only wants to beat Republicans. DeMaio on the other hand wants to change the Republican Party from within so it embraces values a Biblical worldview cannot and must not embrace and promote.
For all the reasons above, I can’t in good conscience vote for DeMaio, and I encourage you to think through the eventual implications if he is elected.
San Diego Resident of 52nd Congressional District
First published as a Guest Commentary in the October 2014 issue of Good News Etc.
I see no inconsistencies with Mr. Andersen’s statement, only with those who pick and choose the Word from the Old Testament without applying the grace and wisdom that Christ brought us. Should a candidate who wears linen with cotton then be excluded from Christian consideration? Or has a tattoo? As for a pro-life argument, under which candidate’s vision would fewer abortion’s occur, being cognizant of our political reality? Hint: look at the data on number of abortions and the connection to income. I’d put the odds on Mr. Peter’s economic platform to result in more trips to planned parenthood. So pick your lesser evil, standing firm that the state should be in our bedroom or more dead babies. Anyone who truly is pro-life does what they can to save all that they can. They believe that each life is precious. Then there are those who hold firm to a principle of pro-life, too rigid to see the collateral damage.
The courts continue to ignore the people’s votes. We voted on this issue & the courts took it upon themselves to overturn the outcome. This Judicial Activism violates our Constitution, the rule of law. How about making that stop… Additionally, the Bible says Homosexuality is a Sin. I believe the Bible is the word of God. Therefore I would never cast a vote that goes against God’s word. This is bigger than being a Republican or Democrat. Its being for or against God.
Frank – Appreciate your thoughtful commentary.
For the record. I did not endorse DeMaio and was one of the few to stand before the Committee and address his positions while a number of my Christian peers didn’t show up for the vote. That being said, when it comes to morality I believe there are more than two issues, abortion and same sex marriage.
Since DeMaio and Peters are the same on those two, I introduced a third that has had a much deeper impact on our families, property rights. I did so to demonstrate the weakness of how the original letter was framed.
That being said, that is not the issue here.
The two issues are, one, a GOP in decline and two, the destruction of the American family. Both are under attack.
From homosexuals? Perhaps, but from what I see more from well-meaning Christians who have not been taught how to “love their neighbor” in the sphere of civil government. Rule of law. Property Rights. Jurisdiction. Constitutionally limited government.
Question for you. Is there a tax on wages anywhere in the Scriptures that doesn’t involve tyranny? Did our Framers leave this subject unaddressed? If, you can show my a Constitution tax on wages I will donate $1,000 to your favorite charity. If not, on what basis can a Christian married call out a same-sex marriage advocate if they wish to have to same “property redistribution benefits”?
Who created this mess and who should have known better?
When Christian leaders advocate for voting for one Pro Choice/Same Sex Marriage candidate over another they have become part of the problem.
Reform must start within the church. My opinion.
“The inconsistency is that you are basing your decision of which candidate to support on anything but human life.”
Unlike Garlow et al.…I am not advocating a vote for either DeMaio or Peters, neither supports the sanctity of human life.
I don’t believe either will abide by their oath “to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution from enemies …”
I think you may have misinterpreted my exposing the weakness of their morality argument with my advocating for Carl. That was not my intention.
The point of my letter was since neither upheld either of the two morality issues that a third morality issue might be introduced – 8th Commandment. I was seeking to demonstrate, albeit weakly, how narrow minded we have become – single issue voters, when Biblically and Constitutionally it is much more comprehensive.
If one wished to discard the other two and use this important morality issue as a “tie-breaker” Carl would win.
I value life as you do, but life can’t be lived without property and liberty,
Neither can be fully enjoyed without the other two.
All three of these gifts from God I are unalienable. Not just life.
Life, liberty and property must be upheld simultaneously and with equal rigor.
Can life be sustained without property? What good is property if my freedom to spend it as I wish is taken away?
My friends are trying to send a message to the GOP by compromising their values. I believe that is wrong.
The problem is not Carl or Scott, Sacramento or Washington.
I say the problem is us and our character.
We agree on the decline of the GOP and the family. Where we disagree is on where the threat is coming from.
I say it is us. They say it is them.
I don’t believe we can win at the ballot box every four years while pulpits fail to give their congregations an ethic that transcends political parties.
I don’t believe we can win at the ballot box every four years while my brothers and sisters, by the millions, have their children “educated” by the State.
I don’t believe we can win While Christian parents delegate their most important responsibility, education, to teenagers in Sunday School. That also sends a poor message to children of how unimportant it is if Dad will delegate it.
If the U.S. Constitution worked and still holds a blueprint for a return to prosperity and freedom why aren’t we challenging Christian Congressman Duncan Hunter’s votes? Why does he get a pass?
See his voting record at http://www.faithnprinciple.blogspot.com.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I think you purposefully miss the point. Whether Carl or Scott are elected, the abortion and same-sex-marriage issue will not be affected in the near term. But if Carl is elected it will serve to put a “moderate” face on homosexual activism that has been destructive in every venue it has infiltrated.
Carl’s ascendancy will normalize and allow the direct promotion of an intolerant strain of activism within the Republican Party that has in other venues muted businesses, made our public school system into factories to corrupt children’s understanding of sexuality and the only true construct for marriage, forced Christian owned businesses to violate their conscience, created laws that punish any compassionate attempts to help those trapped in this lifestyle to recognize their bondage, and on and on.
Carl is the Trojan Horse to provide the opportunity to affect policy, lobby legislation, and ultimately remove the moral planks within the Republican Party that you and many others don’t see as critical as property/financial benefits.
What home will Conservatives be left with? If all the other venues homosexual activists have went after have resulted in virtually a total silencing of any moral truth, or facts, or reasoning concerning the destructive downside of homosexuality, why would you ever think the faith community that’s still willing to preach and teach the entire word of God would be left alone. This is naive and dangerous thinking.
“I can’t speak for all the supporters of the “Republicans for Peters” crowd; for me, and several people within the current and former GOP construct, the vote is as much a protest of the GOP Leadership and its embrace of the neo-progressive infiltration of the party as exemplified by DeMaio’s New Generation”
That’s really what this is. The letter on Mary Moran’s website looks a lot like “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics”, put out by Catholic Answers and updated from EWTN’s “A Guide to Catholic Teaching and Voting”. I would ask folks to look at Fr. Pavone’s piece:
…specifically paragraphs 7 and 8.
Both candidates hold positions on abortion which are intrinsically evil. All of the Catholic Voter Guides I cited however derive their methodology from this in the Papal Encyclical “Evangelium Vitae”:
“…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” — St Pope John Paul II
Characterizing DeMaio as a “LGBT activist” is hyperbolic; he is condemned by LGBT activists for NOT being an activist. Equating DeMaio’s pro-choice stance with Peters’ shows a lack of research (or ignorance of the facts”
Garlow, Moran, Dowse, et al would do well to meet with DeMaio and actually ask him the hard questions. I suppose they would do well to ask Peters the same questions.
In summary, this action is far less about conscience and much more politicking by frustrated Jorgensen supporters. They state as much in their letter.
I refuse to vote for either one of these Libs! Until the GOP starts putting forward Conservative Candidates who actually adhere to the platform, I and many others will sit races like this out! Besides, nothing says you have to vote for one over the other! There is such a thing as sitting a race out! Hello!
The Republican elite wants to believe evangelicals will vote Republican no matter how much they ignore values issues important to people of faith. Hopefully a DeMaio loss will put them on notice that there are a lot of people out there who still stand for values and won’t just blindly vote Republican simply because they won’t raise taxes.
There’s a lot more important things in life than money. Somebody should tell that to the DeMaio and country club crowd that’s probably shocked at the audacity of the Pastors who are finally standing up to them.
“If, you can show my a Constitution tax on wages I will donate $1,000 to your favorite charity…”
I thought the 16th Amendment covered that.
There is absolutely no way I will ever vote for a candidate who wants to redefine marriage. Add to that someone who supports the infanticide practice of abortion. Redefining marriage, which was created by God, is an extremely offensive practice, yet those who support it do not care how many they offend, they just want to offend as many as possible. The worst hate speech I have ever seen has come from those who advocate for it. Also notice how the advocates use the term “marriage equality”. Now that is a laugh. Just another tactic of the left to disguise their hatred of our Lord. Maybe politicians and the governments of men think homosexuality is equivalent to what God created, but they are only deceiving themselves. We must teach our children to avoid the heresies and temptations of this world. In fact every single society that embraced homosexuality throughout history has fallen including the most powerful. We must reject all who advocate acceptance of a practice which is so destructive to the body and the soul. In fact the bible is very clear about what happens to the descendants of Abraham who reject the teachings of the Lord, they are always consumed by their enemies and lose everything they have. It ain’t a pretty picture.
Though I was raised a Presbyterian, I’m not a religious guy. So I can claim no expertise on Biblical interpretation. But I AM curious.
It’s my understanding that Leviticus 20:13 specifically and unequivocally calls for practicing homosexuals to be put to death.
If — as the fundamentalist Christians assert — the Bible is literally the Word of God, should not these Christians be actively advocating that DeMaio and “his kind” be put to death?
What say you all, pious Christians? Are you afraid to “come out of the closet” and publicly support such a repulsive idea? Are you therefore not principled Christians?
Of course, I MAY have missed the Memo from God saying something along the line of “oops, my bad.” But if there is another countermanding ditkat in the newer verses in the Bible, how do we know which one is legit?
BTW, I understand that this verse does NOT specifically advocate “stoned to death” as is commonly asserted. I presume a more “humane,” modern, up-to-date execution method is okay with Bible enforcers?
“I thought the 16th Amendment covered that.”
Taxation was one of the reasons for the American Revolution. It would have been foolish for them not to address it in our highest law.
The 16th Amendment did not create a new tax. See SCOTUS cases Brushaber and Baltic Mining.
Our Framers made a distinction between wages and income (passive derived from corporations and investments).
Each was addressed separately in Art 1, Sec 8, clause 1 (Indirect tax) and Art 1, Sec 9, clause 4 (direct taxes)
A bad SCOTUS case (Farmers v. Pollock) put passive investment INCOME erroneously into the Direct tax category addressed in Art 1, Sec 8.
Sen. Brown, the author of the 16th, used the 16th Amendment to make the correction and back into the Indirect taxation clause where it could be taxed according to the rule of uniformity.
The Amendment was offensive to the wealthy in the NE but loved by everyday Americans as it made the wealthy pay their fair share.
“It’s my understanding that Leviticus 20:13 specifically and unequivocally calls for practicing homosexuals to be put to death.”
You are correct. The Bible does say that. That passage comes from a section of the Scriptures where God makes a conditional bilateral covenant/constitution with his people, Israel.
It was only for a limited geographic area, with a fixed nationality group who agreed to live by a given standard in return for God’s blessing or curse if they didn’t obey.
They didn’t obey and the covenant/constitution (it was conditional)was replaced by a new one. See the New Covenant.
While the law from that covenant/constitution still shows Christians how to live if they are grateful for what Christ has done on their behalf it is no longer binding let alone applicable to a pluralistic nation.
Carl DeMaio should be roundly supported if you are support the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental individual right.
Carl, as a Californian, has seen the craziness of California gun laws that blame objects and attachments instead of the bad guy. He has taken the pledge – more importantly, HE UNDERSTANDS & “GETS” the 2nd Amendment beyond its just being political calculation for a candidate.
While gun rights are doing relatively well in US Congress, having another non-fair-weather friend of a fundamental right is welcome. We can count on him to be one more vote opposing members like Pelosi and other goofball statists that want to take your rights.
I know real San Diego gunrights activists – esp the key “single issue voters” that come out in droves – are behind Carl DeMaio.
A vote for anyone other than DeMaio is, de facto, an anti-gun vote.
[NB: The author of this article I’m commenting upon is thus in essence to be regarded an antigunner because he has made choices contrary to a fundamental civil right. He’s made a moral tradeoff against personal protection.]
Oh – can you please clone Carl and send him up here to Bay Area? I think he might have a chance because he doesn’t have “traditional” baggage that offends many people – i.e, hell, he could even be electable (something the CA GOP has a real issue with…)
San Jose, CA
I am sorry I haven’t directly answered you. If I understand, you are saying that the GOP is the only home conservatives have. That is why a victory for Carl will be more damaging to our families.
We will no longer have representation and the “check and balance” for more tyranny will be removed.
We don’t have good choices in this one because for years we have been abandoning our principles.
My response to that is the GOP has been moving away from conservatism for a long time . . . with the help of many sincere Christians who have not been taught the things you understand so well.
While Christians understand the 6th Commandment and the government’s just role in the protection of life – they undermine their advocacy with support for foreign war after foreign war with nations who pose no immediate threat to our unalienable rights. Our misinformed application of the 6th Commandment comes at the cost of the 8th Commandment. Foreign wars cannot be fought without debt. Debt is not only destroying our economy but according to one Joint Chief poses the greatest threat to our national security not to mention the blowback caused by intervening.
If Christ is the Prince of Peace why do so many of his followers support foreign war after foreign war against nations who pose no threat to our liberties? Why do so many believers use law and coercion to change their neighbor rather than love? I don’t know about you but all the threats to my liberties are coming from American legislators not foreigners.
An immoral and unconstitutional income tax is accepted by the church rather than challenged. Christian attorneys tell me what I can say without standing by the Firstt Amendment. Married couples get property redistribution benefits from a tax that is immoral and unconstitutional. No wonder same sex marriage advocates want it. United States v. Windsor is an unintended consequence of Christians not understanding the great ideas embodied in our highest law and now we complain about the threat they pose. We forfeited our right to complain.
As government grows and takes our paychecks we lose the ability to privately educating our children. Can’t win at the ballot box every four years while our children by the millions are getting “State Educated”. Great way to perpetuate the growth of the state though.
Sooner or later the GOP is going to crumble and it won’t be changed by more law. Law doesn’t change hearts.
Families and Education and Churches do but we have let big government destroy them. And now as we arrive at this juncture I am asked to vote for a Pro-Choice, Pro-Same Sex Marriage Democrat? No thanks. If everyone votes like that we become part of the problem. I will not vote for either.
I said it once and I will say it again. Reform must begin in our churches. We must be taught the great ideas that our Christian Framers, libertarians, understood so well.
I will just say that If Eric Andersen is so opposed to abortion and same sex marriage, he just shouldn’t participate in them.
He has no right to restrict others – directly or thru the vote. Also, I do not see where Eric has any particular right to any particular definition of marriage. All he can say is “tradition”. Yawn.
[In industry when we see some hidebound old fart yelling about “We always did it this way” we see one more ‘fail to adapt’ type ready for the layoff line. Doing something some way for so long doesn’t make it good nor right. ]
You don’t get to vote on others’ civil rights. That’s what we gun rights activists are fighting – the left is using “states’ rights” to drive gun control, whereas the 2nd as clarified and enhanced by the 14th Amendment and can be federally enforced on the states. Civil rights don’t vary from state to state.
In fact, pro-lifers (really, pro-birthers) are the #1 reason GOP can’t maintain or gain seats in more populous CA areas – esp. given the large single F voter population, the sex ratio at birth, and F’s longer life spans. Outside the “sticks”, the Body Nazi’s politics are regarded as personally intrusive. And for voter base 35 & under, it’s similarly regarded as ridiculous.
A “pro-life” [note the quotes] vote in CA is, de facto, a pro-tax increase and anti-gun and pro-increased-regulation given their predictable losing outcomes. Maybe they can get seats in TN, but sure as hell not in CA.
Go, Carl, go!
San Jose, CA
“Christian” (esp. your strain/breed/variety thereof) and “libertarian” are somewhat mutually exclusive. You want to boss people around with your view and control their lives. I don’t. Leave me alone, I leave you alone – that’s the best deal ever.
Here’s what a *real* conservative – Barry Goldwater – had to say about the ‘religious right’:
“The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”
Would that we have more of people like him to keep people like you from reducing liberty.
San Jose CA
So really….Frank, Mary, Karen, Garlow (if he’s reading),
How can you ever support a candidate who doesn’t want a ban on worshipping false idols? I am honestly looking for an answer.
I don’t mean Peters or DeMaio. Any candidate. If you are consistent with your relationship between the Bible and politics, shouldn’t a “worshipping false idols” ban be #1 priority on your list?
It’s one of the 10 Commandments. It’s a pretty important religious law. It pre-dates the Constitution. I’d describe it as foundational when it comes to your religion. It’s a huge moral issue. Can you really be a Christian if you do not believe that worshipping false idols is wrong?
Serious question as to whether Bill Wiese even read Eric Andersen’s article.
I did fully read.
And I did find it laughable.
He’s willing to stab true liberty-based conservatism in the back to (try to) get his religious-freak what-he-calls-conservatism.
And of course I and many others see his & his ilk’s mindset having had unfortunate control over CA GOP direction in the last decade or so, making them well-nigh unelectable.
Fortunately, his kind is on the decline.
Thank you for your explanation of how the 16th Amendment came to be. However, I was under the impression that you had stated that taxing wages was unconstitutional. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize. If I understood your meaning, you are simply incorrect – see 16th Amendment.
“In fact every single society that embraced homosexuality throughout history has fallen including the most powerful.”
I think you will find that sentence to be just as accurate even if you remove the words ” that embraced homosexuality…”
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. You and I think of the terms “wages” and “income” as synonyms. Our Founders and the Senators voting on the 16th did not. See Art 1, Sec 9, clause 4. A tax on wages is a “direct tax” and must therefore be according to the rule of apportionment and subject to the census. A tax on “income” (i.e. passive income from corporations or investments) is addressed in Art 1, Sec 8, clause 1.
The present “income tax” is a progressive tax on our wages. The only way the federal government could collect it is by apportioning the percentage of debt to state of California according to the census. At that point it would be up to the state to collect and pay.
We want to remember that the most prosperous years in our history were the first 125 when a tax on wages/salaries did not exist and governments was funded primarily via excise, import and duty taxes.
If you need more let me know.
Didn’t Barry Goldwater also say speaking about the military “It doesn’t matter if you are straight, just if you can shoot straight”.
There some well put forth and reasoned arguments on this page, but as a non-Republican I can tell you this. Most people in this country no longer care if people are gay to the extent that we believe they should have the same rights as anyone else.
To continue to not back someone like Carl Demaio because he’s gay will put you on the roadside of history watching the parade go by, the same way Goldwater was passed by for not supporting civil rights.
The rest of dislike DeMaio because he’s shown himself to be a whiny jerk who doesn’t play well with others and doesn’t support the working man, if I can boil that down without having a separate discussion there.
And for the record, I wouldn’t have voted for Filner either. Bad guys are bad guys, and Filner and Demaio both fit that description…
Are you saying that the income tax, which includes a tax on wages, is unconstitutional? If so, there are numerous court decisions that disagree with you.
As for 1776-1901 being the most prosperous years in our country’s history, I would be interested in seeing data to back that up.
The 16th Amendment is pretty broad and drives a gigantic hole through article 1, section 9. It says Congress can lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment, census, or enumeration. Since wages are income derived from labor, and since the 16th Amendment says nothing about passive income, but in fact explicitly says from whatever source derived, the constitutional argument against the income tax on wages is not supported by the text of the Constitution.
The most consequential decision of any one Congressmember is which party to caucus with. And the most consequential vote of any one Congressmember is the vote for Speaker of the House. A vote for Scott Peters is a vote for against a Republican majority and against a Republican Speaker of the House. There may come a time when the national Republican Party is no longer the social conservative party in the United States. But that day is not today. DeMaio is certainly not a social conservative but he is a Republican and he will caucus with the Republicans and vote for a Republican Speaker. His election will help preserve the majority in Congress of the social conservative party. In other words, vote the party not the man.
“vote the party not the man”
You just (inadvertantly, l am sure) summed up exactly what is wrong with our political system today.
BREAKING: Poll shows high disapproval for Obama in Scott Peters vs. Carl DeMaio contest area
“Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital or labor or both” per Stratton’s Independence vs. Howbert, 1913.
Since we trade our labor for wages there is no gain. Our labor is worth something and the exchange of labor for wages does not constitute a GAIN.
We must define INCOME as the founders used it or else we are changing the constitution without the 2/3 vote required, Article 5, to do so.
“We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear…” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 11 (1916)
We’d be having the same conversation fifty years ago except Demaio wouldn’t be gay, he’d be married to a colored.
Well Put, Keepin’ it Real. All I can tell everyone, is some people are gay, and that’s just the way it is. I actually went to Christian Schools for quite a few years, but my interpretation (and everything from the Bible is subject to interpretation) is that Jesus would be ok with gay people, and futhermore it’s not up to us to judge.
Not a very scholarly rendering I will agree, but I wanted to be succint. On the other side of the coin, if you are not a believer, or choose another faith, none of this would apply, which is ok. In that instance, you can get into equal rights and basic freedoms. Gays have the same rights as the rest of us, and it’s time we moved on. We have gay city council people on both sides, with Gloria and Carl in the past. No big whoop.
No matter who you are, you must rise and fall on your own merits as a lawmaker, not on your sexuality, color, race or creed. Carl for me doesn’t pass the sniff test as a consensus builder who gets things done, and I agree with some of his ideas, but overall I would have to pass if I lived in that district.
Hi Hypocrisy, I’m sure people do view what i said as the problem with our political system. I don’t happen to be one of those people.
The 16th Amendment changed the constitution. That is the change. There is no extra-constitutional change to the constitution going on here. The original constitution doesn’t define income and neither does the 16th Amendment. The same is true of wages. I believe the only place the word income appears in the constitution is in the 16th Amendment. And the word wages appears nowhere in it.
(Link to searchable constitution, http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!#)
There is no constitutional violation to define wages as income. The the constitution doesn’t define income or wages anywhere in its pages. An income tax on wages might be immoral to libertarians or an-caps, but it’s not unconstitutional according to the current version of the constitution. Article 5 gives libertarians the power to change that situation.
Dear Right wingers,
I was honored to have an event at AJ’s Fish Merchant (7407 Jackson Drive, La Mesa), “Lunch with the Merchant”. The format was simple, anyone in the crowd could ask any question and I was on the spot to answer; it was excellent, nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.
Susan Davis (CA-53 (D)) will be there at noon on October 15th, Scott Peters at noon on October 24th, and Carl DeMaio at 6:00pm on the 24th.
I sincerely hope all of you go to these events, enjoy a meal and look any candidate directly in the eye you want and ask away. They may or may not answer honestly, that’s for you to decide. My only point here is I believe it’s unhealthy to fight among ourselves when those at the base of this conflict will be available and in a position to either earn your vote or not.
As a constituent of the 52nd Congressional District, I have considered both sides of this argument. It is my sincere hope that we can all work toward what we are called to do in 1 Corinthians 1:10, “ I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.”
Let’s put this behind us and focus on the 80% of the party platforms upon which we agree. We need to work toward promoting Godly principles such that we can unite behind a single candidate in future political races.
Not only will this help the party, but more importantly, moral principles. Personally, I could’ve spent more time helping to vet candidates, if you feel the same way, please get involved. God bless you all.
Coming from one who waited way too long to come to the right decision about our former Mayor, I hope the respected readers of and contributors to San Diego Rostra will not make the same mistake when it comes to Carl DeMaio. San Diego can not afford another national embarrassment.
…”but my interpretation (and everything from the Bible is subject to interpretation) is that Jesus would be ok with gay people, and futhermore it’s not up to us to judge.”
Jesus is absolutely “ok” with gay people..that is what Jesus does…he is ok (read “love”) with people…what he is NOT ok with, and where NO interpretation is needed, is people’s behaviors…their acting upon their sinful natures. Being “colored” as was referenced earlier is NOT a behavior. This of course is where the feeble attempt by many pseudo-intellectuals fails miserably when desperately trying to connect behavior with a physical attribute. Nowhere does the color of one’s skin determine one’s behavior. Conversely, nowhere does “being gay” have ANY viable research proving it is NOT a life choice…just like adultery, surfing porn, or binge drinking, or voting…these are choices people make.
I am not voting for CD because of his life choices, I am not voting for him because of his ethical and moral choices.
As much as people try (a little to hard apparently) to make this about intolerance to one or another, it is about discernment…We all discern ALL the time..who our children play with, where we will get a drink, who we choose to socialize with, and who we may vote for and why.
I for one am proud how the thousands (and yes, delectably, perhaps 10ks…:)….and they said it wasn’t possible..lol) have used/will use discernment to both protest against a candidate they believe is not the caliber they would want in office, AND a protest to the group that backed the “idol” of DeMaio at the expense of the Party. Once again, San Diego will be the laughing stock of the political scene when (only a matter of time…many know how unstable this situation is) our candidate implodes, and it was self-inflicted by a political class that couldn’t see past their own self-aggrandizement and petty insider nepotism and graft to advance a weak, reckless, and polarizing candidate.
“I am not voting for CD because of his life choices, I am not voting for him because of his ethical and moral choices. ”
FYI, you made that clear and I readily accept that as a principled choice. In fact, I kind of admire your reasoning behind it
Encouraging voters to choose Peters over DeMaio however, is not rooted in principle–it is a political stunt. I sincerely don’t understand how a principled man like yourself come to that decision.
One goes to (political ) battle with what one has; the powerful establishment made it abundantly clear that DeMao was their pre-ordained choice. This was evident from the Aug 13 Confab where TK, Papa Doug, Sudbury, Sanders, Falconer and DeMaio et al made the unilateral choice Kevin was ordained as mayor and Carl would be our congressman.
Once that was triggered, it left conservatives with no voice, no say, no options. It is principled that those of conviction stay true to those convictions and oppose, dissent, and protest any way they can to let the controlling powers know they don’t act without consequences. All the name calling, allegations of intolerance, and “pragmatic” arguments by the ethically and morally desolate secular neo-progressives of the New Generation and its enablers don’t negate the rise of dissent and dissatisfaction from a formidable voice; the conservatives.
The race is close; that is evident. When Carl loses (and it is certainly a probability and increasing with every scandal and mis step) there will be no doubt that the conservatives will be the ones that made that happen. One doesn’t have to like it…one can blame the amorphous “Tea Party” boogie man, and one can bitch and complain about conservatives, but one can no longer ignore or marginalize them; they are game changers…and the next time the establishment looks to advance a weak and ethically challenged candidate, this time they may have a serious moment of pause when they demonize and ostracize “those Christians.”
As proud as I was to support KJ and be a small part to a remarkable campaign against seriously powerful and influential political and media forces, (and Kirk would agree) it was never just about him; it was always about sustaining and advancing the cause of conservative ideals and upholding a level of integrity and principles that made the Republican Party simply better than their Democrat counterpart. So in that case it was the only principled and loyal choice I could make as a life long Republican.
Like Katsumoto in “Last Samurai” I fight for the Party, not against it. 🙂