Moral Authority: Party vs. Creed
It is time to differentiate between Party and Creed. Do not confuse the two.
Is it possible to have party unity without uniformity?
Evangelical Christians get caught up in the morality argument regarding sexual orientation as it pertains to political affiliation.
We who are conservatives trumpet the importance of the Bill of Rights. We champion the rights of the individual over the state. We adhere to the sacrosanct tenet that all men are created equal allowing individuals to be free to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship or petition without government interference or restraint.
Are the Bill of Rights only applicable to heterosexual individuals?
Since the presidential election there has been a lot of talk about framing the issue. Word choice and contextual language matters.
In Creed, marriage is deemed a sacrament by the Christian Church. A holy promise made between a man and woman bonded by God.
Party is secular.
Conservatives cringe whenever the term separation of church and state is uttered. Rightfully so in most instances. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
To continue to be a relevant political party, the GOP needs to embrace separation of church and state dogma in the context of traditional marriage versus civil unions. Do not let the definition of marriage be defined by the secular. Let religious creeds own the definition of marriage as a sacrament and let them exert their authority to denounce the term gay marriage as being incongruous with the traditional definition. Whereas the GOP needs to concede the term civil union which is secular. It is a secular contract, a business contract which is very much different from marriage.
To reiterate a comment made in regards to Elizabeth Vale’s provocative PolitiChick piece A Republican Predicament: Yes or No to Gay Marriage? one reader stated, “People in a…relationship that share lives, resources and children should have unique and special rights, like those who are married have. Heterosexual couples who don’t marry, have the same fight on their hands. I will support both groups, 100% for legal, inheritance, medical, power of attorney, tax breaks, child support, alimony, etc….everything legally.” He goes onto say, “There are secular marriages where couples don’t involve or invoke a God, but most of the legal benefits of marriage – really are attributed to that notion that marriage bonds are unique. It’s just not your typical ‘contract’. But it’s the God part that makes it ‘unique’ and when you take the God part out…. then it’s just a ‘contract’ and …secular law.”
If conservatives can embrace civil unions under secular law, conservatives and those concerned with civil liberties of same sex orientation can unify under the dignity of the individual before the state. Secular versus Creed. Creed versus Party.
We need to embrace the idea that the GOP does not hold moral authority over individuals (nor does any political party or movement for that matter). Moral authority only comes from God. Creed versus Party.
When we agree with the left in that they are correct when they state that the GOP isn’t the sole voice of moral authority in the nation, we will have diffused their argument of moral hypocrisy and destroy the premise of Rules for Radicals RULE #4 – “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.”
Understand that divisiveness on the issue of sexual orientation plays right into the hands of RULE 4.
A clear choice – our friends of same sex orientation can either affiliate with the Democrat left who hold the state over the rights of the individual or with the GOP who embrace civil liberties and esteem the dignity of the individual before the state.