Same-Sex Marriage on the Ballot

We are less than a week away until election day. Of course, my mind is constantly preoccupied with "Mittmentum" and getting that guy moved into the White House for the next four years. But there are some state races here in Washington that are turning into quite a fight. Or maybe not so much of a fight but more of a game-changer. 

R-74: Allowing same-sex couples to marry.

This is a society game-changer.

I found this WONDERFUL article today. I may be a little "out of the loop" but I haven't even heard of Dennis Prager until I stumbled upon this article. He is a conservative commentator and syndicated radio talk-show host. So, who knew? Not me? But I may look for him from now on! Here are three amazing take-aways from his article:

(1) Prager provided the best view on the other "side" (aka the pro side) that I've seen to date on this issue. He talks about the "fairness" idea within the same-sex marriage argument. All the Pro-R-74 commercials are nice people who love each other and/or family members and want them to be able to marry and be happy. And not allowing them to marry and be happy is unfair. And Prager points out that is true. It is unfair. But when standards are created, they WILL always be unfair to some. He's right. Traditional marriage is not fair for some people and that made me feel more compassion on the issue than before. Simply recognizing this fact was good for me...and maybe I felt a twinge of self-guilt that I lacked more compassion on the issue before. But even though it may be unfair, it's not enough to swing the pendulum in favor of same-sex marriage (...keep reading). 

(2) He also does a VERY FINE job debunking the myth that denying marriage to same-sex couples is equivalent to racism. When I hear this argument, the hairs on my neck literally stand on end. I am not a racist. And I am not a hater. I am moral and I have a right to an opinion on a MORAL argument. Please read his full article if you think opposition to same-sex marriage is somehow equivalent to racism. No matter where you stand on same-sex marriage, it is easy to see how this issue is anything akin to racism. 

(3) His main point is so clear; I just loved it. He essentially states gender is important - vital, in fact to our society. Allowing same-sex marriage will erase gender identifications. My own religious doctrine also coincides with the idea that gender is not an accident: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Prager goes on to state a society that allows same-sex marriage essentially nullifies gender. Forget "motherhood", "fatherhood", mom/dad, male/female. Just watch...litigation over such titles will overflow in our judicial system (it already has...as Prager points to specific examples). He goes on to point out why this will be so destructive. 

My point is...just read this article...wherever you stand on R-74 or same-sex marriage. It is worth 5 minutes of your time. 

Full article click here.

Sources: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Reese's Thoughts on Contraception

"I'm sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment - because it's the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs."

 - Michelle Malkin

With all that is going wrong in the country today (which I could come up with a pretty long and solid list), it seems access to contraceptives is the current hot topic. This topic has now morphed into women's health rights and "conservatives hate women". I am so fed up that I have resurrected this conservative blog to rant share my thoughts.

Here is what I WANT to say to the world:

• How much and how often you have sex is a social issue. Do not involve the government. Keep it behind closed doors where it belongs. 
• The natural consequences of sex is pregnancy and STDs (unless you and your partner have practiced abstinence prior to your relationship). If you don't want to get pregnant or have STDs you should use birth control.
• Life is filled with choices about what/how to spend your money. If you have LOTS of sex it would seem appropriate you would spend some of your income on birth control. But this is an individual choice. I will not tell you how to spend your money. 
• But just like I won't tell you how to spend your money, don't cry out that the government must somehow use taxpayer dollars to protect you from the natural consequences of your actions. 
• Churches should be able to live and lead their congregations as they choose. The government has absolutely NO right forcing churches to provide a service that goes against their religious beliefs. If you are upset the Catholic church is not providing birth control, I would suggest you are probably not a devout Catholic and your religious desires could be fulfilled elsewhere by another church. You should also not attend a Catholic university like Georgetown. 
• Mandating insurance companies to provide birth control at no cost is not feasible. Most insurance benefits require some out-of-pocket expense (co-pays, coinsurance, deductibles, premiums, etc.). It is not unreasonable for insurance companies to charge fees for birth control. This does not violate women's rights, it's merely economics and how a business operates. 
• Those who are speaking out against this ridiculous government mandate are not attacking women. They are defending personal and religious rights and demanding the government step back from this overreach. 
• Any woman who is speaking out for the misogynistic behavior of the "right" and certain talk-radio hosts, are hypocritical because where are they when conservative women are attacked?  Michelle Malkin has documented some of her hate mail here. Why haven't you come out against her attackers? 
• Yes, I'm sorry Rush (who I love dearly) used a bad term to describe a person who testified in congress about her personal life. But if you choose to testify before Congress you open yourself up to public scrutiny and yes, sometimes it's hurtful. People in the public sector are susceptible to criticism and I believe it's part of the business. Certainly the likes of Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin would have thrown in the towel long ago if they couldn't stand up tall despite the hate. 

I'm not telling you what to DO, but I will not protect you from the natural consequences of your choice. Don't expect the government to protect you and demand companies provide a service to you for free. Be smart about your social choices and if YOU deem something important, go out and make the sacrifice to get it.