Category Archives: Marriage

Congressman Franks’ List of Obama Failures

Presidential Preference: Senator Cruz, Dr. Carson

Dear Republican National Committee:

This short letter is to inform you of our 2016 presidential candidate preference. We recommend the following two men as acceptable — and highly capable! — candidates:

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz

Dr. Benjamin Carson

Both of these men are well qualified to lead our nation. They understand the Constitution, they know the problems wrought on us by socialism and other failed Democrat policies. Both offer the best possible chances of correcting the destructive course of the current administration and leading responsibly and effectively.

We offer the following individuals as unacceptable presidential candidates:

Jeb Bush

Gov. Chris Christie

 

I had Masha Gessen’s dream of five parents… and it sucked

By Jennifer Johnson, Director of Outreach for the Ruth Institute
Around March of 2013 I came across the words of a prominent LGBT activist named Masha Gessen:
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

 

Imagine having five parents! Here’s what it means: it means going back and forth between all those households on a regular basis, never having a single place to call home during your most tender and vulnerable years. It means having divided Christmases, other holidays, and birthdays–you spend one with one parent, and another with the other parent, never spending a single holiday or birthday with both parents. Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them. You live like that on a daily basis for 18+ years.

Does this look like a fun way to spend your childhood?

 

I don’t have to imagine, because I had five parents. I had five parents because my mom and dad divorced when I was about three; my mom remarried once and my dad remarried twice. So I had a mom and two step-moms, and a dad and one step-dad. In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.

 

Having more than two legal parents will be a nightmare for a child. Of course, I am making the reasonable assumption that the legal parents will not be living under the same roof, because there is no longer any societal accountability for adults to create a unified home for children. Thus, adding additional legal parents will create more disruption for children’s daily lives, more chaos, more confusion, less unity. And why are we doing this? So that adults can have the sexual partners they want.

Masha Gessen had a mom and a dad, so it appears that she benefitted from the socially conservative family structure--it appears she was not raised under the family structure she advocates. That sounds about right. I’ve talked to many people who think deconstructing the family in favor of adult sexual choice is a good thing… and these very same people lived under the socially conservative family structure with their one mom who spent her life with their one dad, and they all lived together in their unified home. Since I lived under the family structure they advocate, I will sometimes ask them: would you trade childhoods with me? They either say no or they don’t reply.

 If what I had is so great, then why don’t they want it as children? Here’s my conclusion: they want it as adults but not as children. They want the benefits of the socially conservative family structure when they are children. But as adults, they want sexual freedom, or at least they want to appear “open minded” and “tolerant” about others sexual choices, even at the expense of children, even though they themselves would never want to live under what they advocate. It’s a bizarre sort of a “win-win” for them, I guess.

 It’s very painful for me to have conversations with these people. They don’t understand what they advocate, and they don’t seem to want to understand.

See the Movie ‘America’!

Endorsements for Arizona Primary Election

The Arizona Conservative is endorsing candidates for public office in the Grand Canyon State in advance of the August 26 primary elections. Voters have two choices: candidates who will champion FREEDOM for the individual and those who will push policies that deny and reduce personal freedoms – the candidates of socialism and excessive government CONTROL of your life. Whom do you want in office? Those who protect your constitutional freedom, or those who would expand government and take away more and more of your freedom? Your vote will impact every facet of American society and culture. Check back frequently as we are examining more candidates and propositions and making recommendations:

Office Freedom Control
Governor Andy Thomas Fred DuVal
Secretary of State Will Cardon Chris Campas, Terry Goddard
Attorney General Mark Brnovich Felicia Rotellini
State Treasurer Randy Pullen
Supt. Of Public Instruction Diane Douglas Sharon Thomas, David Garcia
Mining Inspector Joe Hart Manuel Cruz
Congress-District 1 Adam Kwasman Ann Kirkpatrick
Congress-District 2 Martha McSally, Chuck Wooten Ron Barber
Congress-District 3 Gabriela Saucedo Mercer Raul Grijalva
Congress-District 4 Paul Gosar Mikel Weisser
Congress-District 5 Matt Salmon
Congress-District 6 David Schweikert
Congress-District 7 Steve Gallardo, Cesar Chavez
Congress-District 8 Trent Franks Helmuth Hack
Congress-District 9 Wendy Rogers, Andrew Walter Kyrsten Sinema

Arizona Legislature

District 1

Senate:

House: Linda Gray, Karen Fann

District 2

Senate:

House:

District 3

Senate:

House:

District 4

Senate: Connie Uribe

House:

District 5

Senate: Kelli Ward

House: Sam Medrano

District 6

Senate: Chester Crandall

House: Brenda Barton

District 7

Senate:

House:

District 8

Senate: Irene Littleton

House: Darla Dawald

District 9

Senate:

House: Ethan Orr

District 10

Senate:

House:

District 11

Senate: Steve Smith

House: Vince Leach, Mark Finchem

District 12

Senate: Andy Biggs

House: Eddie Farnsworth, Warren Peterson

District 13

Senate: Don Shooter

House: Darin Mitchell, Steve Montenegro

District 14

Senate: Gail Griffin

House: David Gowan, David Stevens

District 15

Senate: Nancy Barto

House: John Allen, David Smith

District 16

Senate: David Farnsworth

House: Kelly Townsend, John Fillmore

District 17

SenateA Steve Yarbrough

House: J.D. Mesnard, Jeff Weninger

District 18

Senate: Tom Morrissey

House: John King, Jill Norgaard

District 19

Senate:

House:

District 20

Senate: Kimberly Yee

House: Paul Boyer, Carl Seel

District 21

Senate: Debbie Lesko

House: Rick Gray

District 22

Senate: Judy Burges

House: David Livington, Phil Lovas

District 23

Senate: John Kavanaugh

House: Jay Lawrence, Michelle Ugenti

District 24

Senate:

House:

District 25

Senate: Dr. Ralph Heap

House: Rusty Bowers, Justin Olsen, Jerry Walker

District 26

Senate:

House:

District 27

Senate:

House:

District 28

Senate:

House: Shawna Bolick

District 29

Senate:

House:

District 30

Senate: Gary Cox

House:

 

LOCAL ELECTIONS

Mesa mayor — Danny Ray

PROPOSITIONS

Tempe–475: Non-discrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity

NO: This proposition is not in the best interests of individuals who are struggling with same-sex attraction and who are confused about their gender.  Furthermore, these non-discrimination bills, fronted by leftists seeking to destroy traditional marriage and family structure, are cited by activist judges to over-rule the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and the free exercise of religion.  For these reasons, VOTE NO.

 

 

 

Frank Antenori: Republicans Must Vote Conservative

logo5By Frank Antenori / Southern Arizona News-Examiner

I was recently invited for coffee by a close friend and fellow Republican to discuss upcoming state legislative races. Well respected in both local grass roots circles as well as the so called “GOP Establishment,” he was chosen to reach out to me in hopes of convincing me to not get involved in several key legislative primaries. However, by the time we finished our second cup of coffee, he would not only fail to convince me to stay silent, but he would instead volunteer to help me in my efforts to inform GOP voters of the threat to our state. It took a simple history lesson to change his mind.

I take you back to the 46th Legislature. In 2004, a handful of so called “pragmatic” Republicans conspired with Democrats to give then Governor Janet Napolitano a budget that would increase state spending by more than $700 million, a 10% increase in spending in a year that saw little inflation (2%).

Worse yet, that budget created a $500 million budget deficit; in violation of Arizona’s Constitution which requires a balanced budget. Rightfully, fiscal conservatives were outraged at what was clearly an irresponsible budget. In response, conservatives recruited fiscally responsible primary opponents to challenge these fiscally irresponsible Republicans.

Then the “GOP Establishment” stepped in. They argued that we risked losing our legislative majorities by running more conservative candidates in the general. Even going as far as saying that even though these “pragmatic” Republicans may have strayed a bit and voted with Democrats for the big spending budget, at least they voted right on things like guns, faith and family issues. They used the old rationale of “even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat any day.” Generally I would agree with that statement, however, it only holds true if those Republicans support the Republican platform and not the Democrat platform. In 2004, there were 39 Republicans in the House and 17 in the Senate. (In Arizona, you need only control 31 seats in the House and 16 in the Senate to maintain your majority.)

Many of the party faithful bought the establishment’s argument, held their noses and voted for the fiscally irresponsible Republicans “for the good of the Party.” Deep down they hoped these “pragmatic” Republicans would realize the error of their ways and act “more Republican” and fiscally responsible if they got re-elected. As a result, the fiscally conservative challengers were defeated and the “GOP Establishment” candidates got re-elected.

What did voting for the establishment candidate get us? Over the next few years, more and more spending occurred and the budget deficit got bigger, ballooning to over $2.2 billion. Well at least it helped us keep our majorities in the legislature right? Not exactly, in the House the GOP lost six seats and our majority declined to 33 seats; dangerously close to the 31 needed to maintain majority control.

Then in 2008, “Pragmatic Republicans” did it again. Cutting a backroom deal in the dark of night with legislative Democrats and Governor Napolitano, four House and four Senate Republicans essentially voted to put Arizona on the verge of Bankruptcy. They left the State with no money in the Rainy Day Fund and a $3 Billion budget deficit. This time conservatives had enough.

A grassroots groundswell of conservative candidates filed to run for the legislature and challenge the big spenders of both parties. Once again the “GOP Establishment” clamored about “party unity, we’re going to lose our majority if we elect conservatives in the primary, think of the big picture and don’t get hung up on a single budget vote, etc.” This time, despite the GOP establishment spending heavily on their “pragmatic” candidates, the GOP primary voters weren’t going to listen.

Fiscal conservatives won primary after primary, soundly defeating establishment candidates in several key races. Instead of lining up behind the party’s nominees, the GOP establishment instead sided with Democrats by undermining conservative candidates in the general election. Establishment lackey and so called “political consultant” Nathan Sproul even penned an open letter to voters stating “In my opinion, the Republican Nominees are not reflective of the overall electorate.” His statement was quickly picked up by Democrats and used in mailers against conservatives.

Despite the “GOP Establishment’s” efforts to torpedo our candidates, we not only kept our majorities in the State House and Senate, but increased them! Keep in mind this was 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected President. Conventional political wisdom predicted a Democrat landslide nationally and the Tea Party was still more than a year from even coming into existence. Arizona was one of only two states in the whole country that saw Republicans add seats to their legislatures. The GOP Establishment was not only WRONG, they were DEAD WRONG.

Then came 2010; “the year of the Tea Party.” Both Establishment GOP candidates as well as Democrats were steam rolled by conservatives. Republicans obtained “Super majorities” in both houses of the legislature and it immediately led to a balanced budget in Arizona, the first in over five years.

Now we’re back to 2014 and here we go again. A new bunch of so-called “Pragmatic Republicans” have again voted with state Democrats to bring Obamacare to Arizona and once again bust the state’s bank by voting for fiscally irresponsible budgets. Where there was once $1Billion in the Rainy Day fund, now there’s essentially nothing. The budget is once again structurally unbalanced and we’re looking at huge deficits again in 2016 and 2017.

So guess what the “Establishment” is saying. Yep, you guessed it: “Don’t primary them, they only voted ‘wrong’ on Obamacare and the budget, but otherwise, they’re still better than Democrats. Don’t primary them for the ‘good of the party’ and so we don’t lose our majorities.”

Well I for one am not buying it. I’m not going to let history repeat itself. These turncoat Republicans, also known as “Legistraitors,” are causing irreparable damage to our states’ fiscal and economic future and they must go. We can’t let the financial disaster of 2004-2008 happen again. Reelecting these “pragmatic” traitors to the platform will spell fiscal disaster for Arizona. Ask yourself, do you want to go through what we had to go through back in 2009-2011? Huge budget cuts, a sales tax increase, selling our Capitol? Heck no!

For a list of these Legistraitors and their relationship to the Coalition of Corruption that is bankrupting Arizona and bringing failed Washington D.C., big government, policies to our state go to The Alliance of Principled Conservatives website at www.APCArizona.com and click on Primary AZ Legislator.

Frank Antenori is a former Arizona State Senator and GOP congressional candidate. He is a contributing editor to SOAZNEWSX.

Here’s that list of legistraitors who must be defeated in the August primary:

LD25 (S)  Bob Worsley

LD15       Heather Carter

LD8         Frank Pratt

LD8         T.J. Shope

LD16       Doug Coleman

LD28       Katie Brophy McGee

LD18       Rob Robson

LD18 (S)  Jeff Dial

RINO candidates who must be defeated:

LD28    Mary Hamway

LD18    David Phineas

LD23    Effie Carlson

LD23    Bob Littlefield

LD13    Diane Landis  - running against incumbents

LD20    Bill Adams    -  running against incumbents

LD11    Jo Grant

LD14    Susan Syfert  - running against incumbents

LD20 (S) Justin Henry

LD11 (S) Scott Bartle

LD23 (S) Jeff Schwartz

ADF Asks Court to Uphold Marriage as One Man, One Woman

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, jointly with the Arizona Solicitor General’s office, filed a motion Tuesday with a federal court to defend Arizona’s laws affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Marriage expresses the reality that men and women bring distinct, irreplaceable gifts to family life, especially for children who deserve both a mom and a dad,” said Senior Counsel Byron Babione. “That is why Arizonans approved a constitutional amendment to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The court should uphold the right of Arizonans to define marriage consistent with this public policy, which is motivated by their concern over what’s best for children and society.”

ADF attorneys were appointed by Attorney General Tom Horne to assist the Arizona Solicitor General’s office in defending the state’s marriage laws after six same-sex couples sued county clerks in Pinal County, Maricopa County, and Coconino County.

According to the brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in the case,Connolly v. Roche: “[M]arriage has always existed to channel the presumptive procreative potential of man-woman relationships into committed unions in order to join children to both their mother and their father. Nevertheless, some now seek to redefine marriage from a gendered to a genderless institution, while many others legitimately believe that such a change would obscure marriage’s animating purpose and undermine its social utility. So far, the States have reached differing decisions on this important question. Yet Plaintiffs, discontented with the sovereign decision of Arizonans, argue that the public debate about the meaning, purpose, and future of marriage was meaningless… But Plaintiffs are mistaken. The Constitution has not removed this question from the People.”

“The laws of Arizona have always reflected the man-woman nature of marriage,” added ADF Legal Counsel Jim Campbell. “The court should not endorse the recently conceived notion that marriage is about special government recognition for adult relationships, but instead should uphold the time-honored laws preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Russell Pearce Returns to Airwaves on Patriot Radio

WHAT: The Russell Pearce Show on 960 The Patriot

WHEN: Saturday,

WHY: Because the Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance

REALLY: Yes, Enough is Enough!

Guest:  D.S. Edwards Author of Collective Retribution a look at America’s possible future with unsecured borders

TIME: 7:00PM to 8:00PM

CALLERS? Yes, it’s a live show: 602-508-0960… make your voices heard!

“Arizona’s leading conservative Russell Pearce has returned to the airwaves like a thunderclap, on a bigger station with a bigger show. He’s got the liberals on the run and he means business. This is must-listen radio for conservatives, with every liberal’s worst nightmare at the mike.”

Shows on 960 The Patriot/KKNT typically reach approximately 75,000 – 100,000 listeners each between Monday – Sunday, 6A-12Midnight. The syndicated and established shows naturally pull in higher audiences, as do those in prime/drive times.

The Russell Pearce show is immediately following drive-time, and on the weekend, but we follow an established show, have a host with a large valley/state following, and conduct more online advertising and promotion than any other host on the network. And, based on caller volume, the best indicator of listenership, we’re already approaching the #1 spot on this station and hope to soon be able to again call Senator Pearce Arizona’s #1 conservative talk radio show.

There is no lack of places to spend your money to help good causes.  We have a Republic to save.  I would love and need good sponsors and donations to keep this show going, along with our newsletter and in order to stay on the air, so your help is greatly appreciated. 

First, we’ll have commercial(s) professionally produced for sponsors to run during the show (production costs are included in sponsorship package rates).

Second, Senator Pearce/The Russell Pearce Show does live promos for sponsors during the course of weekly shows, promoting the organizations and businesses which sponsor the show.

Third, we have a show website in development, on which ads of sponsors and advertisers will place prominently displayed with links back to websites, videos, or other promotional pages.

Fourth, we have a partnership with the Conservative Leadership Coalition and the Arizona Conservative Club which operate a Facebook page I developed for them with nearly 40,000 active subscribers, on which we promote our sponsors and the show/show guests.

Fifth, sponsors will be invited to participate live in-studio, or remotely, in shows for the duration of their sponsorship, both for issue advocacy and membership purposes (we wholeheartedly endorse using this program to drive traffic to generate new business for our friends/supporters). And, because we’re a work in progress, we’re always open to working with our friends to make the show more successful for those who support us. We’re the epitome of a small business enterprise, and where we can help our supporters succeed, we’ll go out of our way to do so.

I’ve requested demographic specifics from the station and will send those to you as soon as I get the newest numbers. Our listeners span the entire valley live, and across the entire southwest and several metropolitan centers online already (corresponding to our online marketing efforts).

Our listener call volume already matches that of established shows which have been on the air for several years, which speaks well of Senator Pearce’s popularity and “draw”, and explains how he was able to generate such great listenership volume on his previous show, despite being on a much smaller station.

Presently, sponsorships begin at $500/month with a minimum three month commitment. This includes all of the promotions listed above locked in, including a 30-second commercial run during the show (a 60-second commercial begins at $650/month with all the additional promotions, also with a three-month minimum commitment). We also offer weekday advertising discounted at our rate during the weekday syndicated shows on the Salem Radio Network.

We can certainly modify that amount and work with anyone willing to help and support the Show and our effort to keep critical issues in front of the public and good honest debate on issues facing our great Republic.  We are in the middle of our 2014 election and will be vetting the candidates for all the offices.

Once we’re more established, we’ll start pricing packages out individually (commercials, websites, live show promotions, etc), but for now, we’re offering everything discounted and under one umbrella sponsorship package.

Thanks in advance for your consideration — and please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Thank you for your consideration and support

FAITH – FAMILY-FREEDOM … IN GOD WE TRUST

SENATOR RUSSELL PEARCE

Society’s Marital Benefits

Among the most important purposes of civil government are to restrain evil, bring good to society, and bring order to society. On all three grounds, it is right to conclude that government should define and regulate marriage.

Marriage restrains evil by promoting sexual faithfulness between a man and a woman, by establishing a legally binding commitment for parents to care for their children, by establishing a legally binding commitment for spouses to be financially responsible for and to care for one another, and by providing a legal protection to keep women from being exploited by men who might otherwise enjoy a sexual relationship for a time and then abandon a woman and any children she may have borne.

Second, marriage brings good to society in multiple ways. It promotes social stability, economic well-being, educational, and economic benefits for children, the transmission of moral and cultural values to the next generation, and a stable social unit for interactions within society.

Third, the establishment of marriage brings order to society to the general public will know who is married and who is not. Marital status can be established as a matter of public record so that in various ways the society as a whole can honor and protect individual marriages and can know who is responsible for the care and protection and training of children, and for the care of spouses who have medical, financial or other needs. In this way, defining and regulating marriage gives stability and order to a society. It is an extremely important social good that government should encourage and protect.

Only civil government can define a standard of what constitutes a marriage for the state, nation, or whole society.

If no definition of marriage is given to an entire society, then chaos and much oppression of women and children will ensue. Without government establishment of what constitutes marriage, the result is a proliferation of children born in temporary relationships without commitment, and more children born with no one taking responsibility for their general well-being and welfare.

The worldwide consensus throughout history is that society as a whole, through its governing authorities, needs to define and regulate marriage for its citizens. The greatest cost benefit to government and society is when children are protected by a permanent, faithful, co-residential, sexual coupling of a committed, married man and woman.

Since marriage provides great benefits to society with immense value, society has an interest in protecting and encouraging marriage.  The Supreme Court has frequently confirmed this, declaring in 1885 “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman” is “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.”

The history of marriage law in the U.S. shows that society has a strong interest in protecting and encouraging marriage between one man and one woman because of the great benefits that accrue from this institution – in multiple ways, benefits that no other relationship or institution can give.

Comparing the environment marriage provides during the pregnancy and birth of a baby with the environment of a cohabiting couple with no legal commitment attached, or to the environment provided by a temporary sexual liaison with no ongoing relationship, or to the environment provided by a homosexual couple that lacks either a mother or a father, or to the environment provided by a single mother who bears a child through in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood, it is evident the environment provided by the married heterosexual couple provides far more security for the child.

The environment is also better for the mother because marriage provides a better guarantee that the father will not abandon her to care for the child alone – including at cost to the taxpayers through government welfare programs. The environment of marriage is also better for the father because it provides strong legal and societal expectation that he will stay around and act responsibly with regard to the responsibilities formally associated with fatherhood.

All societies need babies to survive and thrive, and marriage between one man and one woman is the best environment for the birth, care, and raising of children. Children living with their own married parents attain significantly higher educational achievement. They are much more likely to enjoy a better economic standard in their adult lives and are much less likely to end up in poverty. Their physical and emotional health is better. They commit fewer crimes and experience less drug and alcohol abuse. They’ve demonstrated higher standards of integrity and moral principles.

Furthermore, children living with their own parents are less likely to experience physical abuse and are more likely to live in homes providing support, protection, and stability for them. They, in turn, are more likely to establish stable families in the next generation – requiring fewer government resources. Marital fidelity is highest among a married man and woman, resulting in the fewest STDs of any types of relational coupling. In addition, the highest rates of domestic abuse in society are among homosexuals – particularly females.

All of these factors are demonstrable through scholarly, peer-reviewed data – much of it provided by university researchers who describe their political leanings as Left.

And for all the reasons outlined above, marriage between one man and one woman is the basic building block of a stable society. It’s essential to the continuation of a healthy, stable society. It is highly beneficial for government to encourage and reward marriage between one man and one woman – through laws and policies. Policies and laws to the contrary do harm to the nation.

Homosexuals, as a whole, cannot provide the same benefits to children or society. Male homosexuals can expect a life expectancy shorted by 25-30 years. They are at a heightened risk of chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease (infectious hepatitis), fatal immune diseases including cancer, fatal rectal cancer, multiple bowel and other infectious diseases, higher rates of suicide, more drug and alcohol abuse, and adverse consequences due to risky behavior – most notably, frequent sex with hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous sex partners.

Media in America typically represent homosexual couples as “normal” parents. But that is not an accurate portrayal of social realities. Nor is it an honest attempt at journalism, for the result is to delude society with false information. Media refuse to acknowledge that science has proved indisputably that homosexuality is not genetic, and fail to recognize the many social problems associated with homosexual relationships. The main reasons for dishonest, skewed, and false reporting by media is its collective liberal worldview, and its fear of protest by homosexual advocacy groups.

Furthermore, heterosexual marriage lasts many times longer than homosexual relationships (about 18 months. And when hetero marriages pass the 10-year mark, the divorce rate drops precipitously.

***

Postscript: Homosexual activists are attempting to place an initiative on the general election ballot in November of 2014 to overturn Arizona’s constitutional protection of marriage between one man and one woman. If they succeed in changing the law, everyone in Arizona loses. Additionally, the result of same-sex “marriage” means a loss constitutional freedom for Americans; same-sex “marriage” will over-rule the First Amendment’s recognition of free speech and religious freedom because to oppose same-sex “marriage” will result in punishment, job loss and marginalization for those opposed. For so many reasons, the best outcome for Arizona society is to defeat this effort.

Information cited from:

Wayne Grudem, Politics and the Bible.

Marcia Barlow, The Marriage Advantage, United Families International

Sexual Orientation, United Families International

82 Percent of Republicans Polled Believe in Marriage

Better think again, GOP, before you abandon the basic unit of society …

 

By Kim Trobee, CitizenLink

A national poll by American Values and the Family Research Council shows 82 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe marriage “should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.”

The poll comes after Nevada’s GOP announced it would remove social issues from the state party platform. Several prominent members of the Republican Party made statements supporting same-sex marriage.

Yet, in reality, the American people “overwhelmingly support the institution of marriage,” said American Values President Gary Bauer.

“Public policy makers are doing a great disservice to themselves and future generations,” he said, “by continuing to misread the convictions of the American people. The misinformation campaign waged by media elites muddies the debate and attempts to isolate those who support the time-honored traditions and values shared by every major world religion throughout human history.”

Bauer said the debate is no longer about privacy and tolerance.

“Religious liberty, free speech and rights of conscience are now at stake” he said. “This survey should remind political and cultural leaders that this debate is far from over.  If anything, it is taking on a new sense of urgency for millions of men and women of faith.”

FRC President Tony Perkins said Republican leadership would do well to listen.

“Republican voters continue to resist the demands of cultural elites who want to see the party abandon the very core values that gave rise to American exceptionalism,” he said. “The vast majority of the GOP base continues to believe that marriage is a non-negotiable plank of the national platform and want to see their elected officials uphold natural marriage as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage and promote in law.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers