Limited government, abortion and same-sex marriage
In his LTTE today, Charles Winkle takes issue with my statement that "Republicans are supposed to be for limited government" in my April 1 LTTE by bringing up "women making their own reproductive choices" and "people being allowed to love and marry who they love regardless of gender."
First of all, there is a difference between limited government and anarchy. A belief in limited government is just that - a belief in limited government. That is not the same as anarchism. I am not an anarchist.
I believe people should have the liberty to do pretty much whatever they want without interference from government, provided they are not harming anyone else. That second part is crucial, and that is why I favor criminalizing abortion. Abortion is not simply women making reproductive choices. Abortion is the bloody, violent, cruel butchering of an innocent human being. Government has both the right and moral responsibility to make it illegal to kill people.
If Winkle is interested keeping government out of reproductive choices, will he join me in advocating that all taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood be eliminated, so pro-life taxpayers are not forced to fund that damnable organization? Will he join me in lobbying the Bloomington City Council and the Monroe County Council to urge both to stop giving corporate welfare to Planned Parenthood as a means of giving a cynical political endorsement to that organization?
As far as same-sex marriage, who is making it illegal for people to love whoever they choose? There is no serious effort to criminalize homosexual behavior. Winkle thinks he has accomplished something with this "argument" but he has only managed to set up a straw man and knock it over.
There is nothing in current or proposed law that prevents two people of the same sex from getting married and living as such, provided that couple can find a "church" that is willing to perform the ceremony. What same-sex couples cannot have is the official endorsement of government placed upon that marriage.
As far as the expanded law enforcement powers advanced by the Bush administration, this has been a failure of Republicans, though I would point out that these policies have been continued by President Obama. But I am frankly tired of having this argument thrown in my face.
Do you know who it was who wrote the very first letter to the editor published in the Herald-Times opposing the so-called "Patriot Act?" It was not Isabel Piedmont, nor was it anti-war activists David Keppel or Timothy Baer. It was not Sean Bagley, who was living in a "peace camp" in Dunn Meadow. That person was right wing activist Scott Tibbs.
Yes, that's right. While Evan Bayh was voting for the "Patriot Act" and while Baron Hill could not even be bothered to vote at all on the most significant piece of anti-terrorism legislation in a generation, I was literally the first person in line to oppose the Patriot Act... I joined several others as we successfully lobbied the Bloomington City Council to pass a resolution against the "Patriot Act" two years later.
Winkle is right when he argues that Republicans have often failed to be consistent in support of limited government, but abortion and same-sex marriage are poor examples of that.