Limited Energies
By Gary Aldrich (10/27/03)
I have a concern I would like to raise with my conservative friends. It’s about political tactics and realities; about opportunities and limited resources.
My concern was raised this past weekend when I attended two grass-roots events in the Twin Cities. The groups had assembled for the purpose of addressing educational reforms, primarily in Minnesota. My job was to report to them on what I had observed in Washington, due to my reputation for following and investigating politics on a national level. During the receptions and “Q and A” I was bombarded about the chances for passage of “The Marriage Amendment,” the newest political movement that’s emerged as a result of the debate on same-sex marriage.
The people I spoke to in Minnesota fairly represent the grass-roots activists and voters that could live in any-town, U.S.A., and I believe their discussions pretty much reflect what’s on people’s minds right now. I am also aware that President Bush declared the week of October 12-18 “Marriage Protection Week.”
In a statement released October 3, President Bush says that marriage “is a sacred institution,” and that “marriage is a union between a man and a woman.” In a Washington Times article written on August 1, 2003 by Amy Fagan and Bill Sammon,
White House sources reported that the president will consider a constitutional amendment in the event that pending court decisions rule in favor of gay unions.
Of course this news has caused conservative groups, primarily religious Conservatives, to unify in support of marriage and ask their followers to contact the White House and Congress to show their support for such an amendment.
And that is the source of my concern. Having watched three presidential election cycles carefully, I’ve noted that any promises made by the candidate are usually secured before the campaign gets near the finish line. I’ve also noticed that if the candidates don’t express support for an issue during the campaign, it’s highly unlikely an issue will be addressed after inauguration.
Moreover, any study of second-term presidencies, including Conservative favorite Ronald Reagan, seems to indicate that second terms are always “softer” on the issues. In other words, if the candidate does not promise action during the first term, and he doesn’t agree to address the same issue in the second term, the odds of the issue ever getting White House leadership are slim-to-none.
Which brings me to my point. The Conservative Movement cannot allow itself to become mired in an issue right now, which has not even risen to the level of attention that would justify presidential leadership – especially an issue that would require a constitutional amendment. We don’t know how the courts will rule in the various states where same-sex marriage is being weighed. Therefore, to invest enormous energy, time and attention to this issue only serves to squander opportunities to get actions on other more pressing conservative matters, such as privacy issues and out-of-control federal government growth.
But even if a person’s sole issue is the preservation of the institution of marriage, there are several areas that can be addressed that have nothing to do with gay unions. For example, the national divorce rate is over 50%, and statistics reveal that more than 60% of all divorces are filed by women.
If one follows the progress of the feminist movement, they can find the roots of injury to the institution of marriage planted deep in the politics of the gay and lesbian leadership of the various women’s rights organizations, especially the National Organization of Women. As a result of broken homes, children are being raised in fatherless environments, causing a new wave of crime and poverty.
If as a culture we wanted to use precious time, resources, donor dollars and finite political capital to get a single issue before presidential candidates, would we choose homosexual activity and activism, or would we choose ways that the institution of marriage can be strengthened, such as tax advantages for those who struggle to keep their marriages together?
If the shaky institution of marriage does not capture your passions, how about the oppressive growth of the federal government? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to combine the energy of all the grassroots Conservatives to demand that the Bush Administration slow down, reduce, and even reform the federal government?
Limited government is one of the few pillars of the Conservative Movement. Why is it being ignored by this White House and most Conservative leaders?
One cannot escape the reality that an ever-growing federal government is slowly but surely taking away most mothers’ options to stay home and raise their own children. When are we ever going to address this outrage? Our own federal government punishes married people with a tax rate that requires both spouses to work, unless they are willing to live a life of sacrifice and poverty. Who says that to enjoy the American Dream you must first become wealthy? You should not have to work two jobs to enable your family to enjoy the benefits of home ownership.
When my dad and mom raised my sister and me, tax rates were around 10% of his gross salary, and a second job held by the spouse was not considered in the mortgage qualification process. Today, high taxes are an ever-growing sad joke on American families. Why can’t fiscal and religious Conservatives concentrate on an issue that really impacts American families? I agree that symbolism is important, but although a gay family living next door may be troubling, it’s not the worst problem we have. And as Conservatives, it’s not the only issue we should be focused on.
Let’s get together and choose something significant that we can get candidates to promise, before the campaigns get too far down the road. If we wait too long, it will be too late. No promises obtained today means no positive changes for Conservatives in the next four years. Our time, resources, money, and attentions are limited and should not be squandered on feel good-causes that may raise emotions and generate donor dollars, but affect only a small portion of the population.
Marriage is in trouble; nobody can argue otherwise. But an effort to amend our Constitution – even if we could get one – will do nothing to improve the institution of marriage. Gays and Lesbians, and even their radical and obnoxious agenda, are not responsible for soaring rates of divorce. Religious Conservatives should concentrate on the causes of divorce and use their amazing and powerful influence to help reduce the incidences of divorce.
They can accomplish that in the church; meanwhile politicians can get us a little financial relief to help make it happen. But politicians won’t do anything for Conservatives if they aren’t forced to make real promises! Promising something they likely can never deliver – such as a constitutional amendment – is no real promise at all.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Aldrich
