Ranking Their Positions: Obscenity/Pornography

This is the fourth post in a series examining the presidential candidates' positions on key issues for conservative Christians. The content of this series mainly consists of the platforms presented on the candidates' official sites, but, occasionally, other resources are utilized when necessary.

In my opinion, conservative Christian activists and politicians should speak about pornography (and obscenity in general) much more than they presently do.

Pornography exploits the women involved in its production, making them nothing more than sexual objects—veritable visual prostitutes. It endangers all women by objectifying them in the site of some men—usually those already predisposed to be dangerous. It ends marriages, shatters families, harms children, robs their innocence, chains men’s minds through addiction, and creates unrealistic expectations in young men.

And for what? All this destruction and depravity serves only to pad the wallets of a few perverted entrepreneurs and feed the animal lusts of some sex-crazed and/or addicted consumers.

Is this what America stands for? Is this what we pride ourselves in? I sincerely hope not.

Now, I do not intend to sound like I am against the First Amendment. Those foundational freedoms found therein have allowed me to freely believe what I believe, to freely speak about it, and to freely write about it. But you can’t blow yourself up in the name of Allah. You can’t, technically, libel or slander someone. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. There are limitations on our rights, and the Supreme Court, in 1957, ruled in Roth v. United States that obscenity (which encompasses pornography) is not protected under the First Amendment. The problem is that the Court went on to define “obscenity” so narrowly that it practically rendered the ruling void, and actually overturned many obscenity laws. The burgeoning pornography movement found its genesis in this major event.

The dilemma that faced the “Warren Court” (named after Chief Justice Earl Warren, who served from 1953-1969) still festers today. How should “obscenity” and “pornography” be defined, who should get to define it, and how far should restrictions and punishments go? I won’t begin to pretend that I know the answers to those questions, but I do know that we need to be discussing them.

We must very cautiously hammer out this issue. Expanded government jurisdiction is not something to be granted flippantly. But free reign for the most perverse in our society to produce their fruits is not exactly hunky-dory, either. Think about a harsh, impartial weed-killer: it can kill your flowers, if you are not careful, but, if you don't use it, the weeds will take over the garden.

Realize that any number of things can be used for evil, as well as for good. Someone, somewhere, will undoubtedly find or design a way to corrupt just about anything. But notice that pornography lacks a "good" function. At its core, pornography is nothing more than a tool for lust and sexual fantasies: thought-adultery (Matthew 5). There is no redeeming value. It has not been corrupted: it's corrupt. Thus, it is part of an intrinsic cause-effect relationship. Its byproducts are really main products. We are simply reaping what we've sown.

To this point, I have avoided the topic of profanity and violence in entertainment. I have done so because these areas of "obscenity" are much more "gray," if you will, though I hate to use such a morally relativistic term. Nevertheless, where pornography does not have redeeming value, an expression of violence can in certain circumstances. But can it for young children? That's a different question. And though I see little to no redemptive elements in profanity, it seems that it would be just as (if not more) difficult to define as pornography, with less severe repercussions.

Because of these complications, I have deduced that, concerning the latter two segments of obscenity, the government should primarily endeavor to empower parents.

Getting back to the presidential race, I should point out that only a few of the presidential candidates address the topic as a part of their platforms. The ones that do focus on the child-aspect of the problem. But we must recognize that child porn (and pornographers drawing children into pornographic sites) is only the next logical step in a sequential moral descent. Yes, such child exploitation is an even greater depravity. But it results from lowering the bar and blurring the line of what’s acceptable according to our culture’s morality. Once we begin to move the benchmark, the standard-bearer, someone else will continue to push it and push it to detestable places. Eventually, it disappears altogether.

Case in point: in a “free love” society, who’s to say that the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” is despicable?

We must be careful not to behave “holier-than-thou” about child pornography, if we are not willing to condemn adult porn also. We must avoid rebuking those who try to attract children to pornography, if we will not condemn producers of pornography in general. After all, whose standard are we using? God’s, or our own?

I’m not claiming that God views adult porn and child porn with equal indignation, or that punishments for the two misdeeds should be the same. What I am saying is that they are both reprehensible, even if not equally so. The mistake in condemning one and not the other is that a faulty standard of measure is being used--our own. Although, admittedly, this mistake very well may be one of omission, not of conscious decision.

Having said that, when we recognize the major obstacles of eliminating pornography in general--defining it, controlling it, and convincing the morally weak American people to prohibit it--and also realize that obscenity is multifaceted and thereby even more complex, providing ways to protect children from being exposed to porn and exploited through it is probably the best course of action to take at this time, especially since it is readily doable and likely most urgent.

In closing, let me leave you with this thought: Remember that in every public policy battle we encounter—be it about abortion, marriage, the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, or pornography—it is more important to change hearts and minds than to change laws. In fact, it is necessary to change hearts and minds before changing laws. We must cultivate a respect for language, life, and proper sexuality. That is our first and main priority.

T1. Duncan Hunter (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Mike Huckabee)

Concerned "with the questionable material our children continue to have through the Internet and other entertainment products," Hunter believes that "those distributing harmful material to young people should be held responsible." Also, he drafted the Parent's Empowerment Act and voted for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. The Parent's Empowerment Act "will allow parents to sue any person who knowingly sells or distributes a product that contains material that is harmful to minors, empowering parents to protect their children from the predatory practices of pornographic distributors."

T1. Alan Keyes

Keyes addresses pornography very intelligently and relates it to the whole crisis of the family and wrongheaded theories of sexuality. He cautions against too much fervor in censorship, but declares that "Society is...entitled to establish clear standards and define the kinds of behavior or things permitted in a public place, so that we won't need to fear that our children will be polluted in a such an environment. We proceed to set up barriers in public libraries, on the Internet, in bookstores, and in movie houses and segregate the things that we don't want to give our children access to." He explains that this doesn't restrain free expression, but "simply requires society's delegated representatives to organize the distribution of the results of that expression, so that we can keep public places free of what are regarded as offensive influences or materials. This kind of approach doesn't, itself, involve censorship and abuse — it simply involves maintaining basic standards of public decency, so that we are able to act and work and live in such a way as to avoid those things we believe to be offensive, and can also act on the assumption that our children will, by and large, likewise be able to avoid them. That's what responsible parents and citizens have a right to ask for, at least at the state and local level. Such legislation of public standards is less a federal responsibility, except regarding such broad influences as the Internet."

T1. Mitt Romney

Romney wants to make sure all new computers have optional "Software Filters To Guard Children From Online Pornography." Furthermore, he wants to "promote and increase awareness of available parental controls filtering products for existing computers."

Along with that, "Romney will require the Department of Justice to enforce our existing federal obscenity laws."

Key Quote: "I'd like to see us clean up the water in which our kids are swimming. I'd like to keep pornography from coming up on their computers. I'd like to keep drugs off the streets. I'd like to see less violence and sex on TV and in video games and in movies. And if we get serious about this, we can actually do a great deal to clean up the water in which our kids and our grandkids are swimming."

T1. Fred Thompson (No longer running: dropped out 1/22/08)

Thompson says that he is "committed to...Combating the spread of obscenity over TV and other media by making sure parents can better exercise their responsibilities." He explains, "While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced. Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet."

>>Hillary Clinton

Not that this is going to convince you to vote for her (punch me if it does), but Hillary does seem to warrant a mention, saying that she would prioritize "Protecting children against violence and sexual content in the media and studying the impact of electronic media on children's cognitive, social, and physical development."

>>Mike Gravel

You may be wondering, "How on earth could Mike Gravel be worth mentioning?" Well, it's not because he qualifies. Rather, it's to illustrate that there are those militantly on the other side. Gravel believes in "Net Neutrality," supporting "a free and open Internet with unlimited access to all sites regardless of content. He will do this by supporting legislation and regulation that keeps you in control of your internet usage and promotes free speech."

Here are the updated rankings, without Tom Tancredo, after four issues. Any candidate who did not mention obscenity/pornography as part of their platforms is considered to be ranked sixth in this category, which, by the way, is the best thing to happen so far for Rudy Giulani in this series:

Hunter: 1.75
Keyes: 1.75
Huckabee: 2.25
Thompson: 3.75
Paul: 4.25
Romney: 4.75
McCain: 6.25
Giulani: 7.5

Did You Know...

...that there is a state called Wyoming? Okay, so you've probably heard something about the Cowboy State before. Maybe you learned in school what its border states are or that its capital is Cheyenne. But, in reference to presidential politics, this state has seemed to have fallen off the map.

That may not be all that surprising when you look at it in the grand scheme of things. After all, it boasts the smallest population of any state in the U.S., with less than 500,000 people, as of 2000. As a matter of fact, that's fewer people than Washington, D.C. Furthermore, Wyoming voted strongly Republican (69%) for George W. Bush in 2004, meaning that any Republican candidate will probably win the state.

But here's the catch: the big thrust of its caucus happens on January 5th, two days after the Iowa caucuses and three days before the New Hampshire primary; and the caucus process has already begun. Yet no Republican candidate, save Ron Paul, is courting, or has courted, support there. Apparently, a victory in Wyoming is not considered a momentum-builder.

Wyoming Republicans actually risked some of their delegates at the national convention by moving up their caucus date. In 2004, they held their caucus on May 8th. Reportedly, they were willing to take this risk in hopes of getting some attention, which they really have not.

If the other candidates don't start paying attention in the next two weeks, they could be giving away a state to Ron Paul.

Tancredo Drops Out, Endorses Romney

Read Yahoo Article.

Tom Tancredo has finally made official what long seemed imminent. The fiery representative from Colorado ended his bid at the Republican nomination for President, opting to endorse rival Mitt Romney.

Tancredo used his platform as a candidate to magnify the issue of illegal immigration, making the other candidates "toughen up" their positions on the subject. However, Tancredo banged the illegal immigration drum so loudly, so often, and so exclusively that he insured himself no chance in the race. Recently, it was becoming clearer and clearer that he was using his candidacy as a "bully pulpit" and nothing more.

His endorsement of Mitt Romney is only moderately surprising. Duncan Hunter would have been the most logical choice, in a strict ideological sense, but Tancredo clearly wanted to get behind someone with a "chance at winning," so to speak. Fred Thompson would have been another potential choice, but he's also been down in the polls lately.

So, Tancredo backed Mitt Romney, violating the principles of this blog in favor of supporting, as he said, "the best hope for our cause." It's hard to tell just what, if any, effect his endorsement will have on the race. Will his relatively few supporters follow him onto the Romney bandwagon? Perhaps some will, but any Christian conservatives who might have been supporting him may not.

There is now one less "potentially supportable Christian candidate" in the field, though Tancredo never looked likely to be a legitimate option.

With the next edition of "Ranking Their Positions," I will provide the updated average rankings.

A More Divisive Question, Perhaps?

Thanks to all the participants in the most recent WWCP poll.

There were only 19 votes in this "election." I credit that fact to the blog's recent inactivity, the lack of publicity the blog has gotten in the past few weeks, and the poor placement in the sidebar. Hopefully, none of those issues will influence future polls on this site.

Even with the relatively few number of votes, the results of this poll were quite interesting. Unlike the last poll, which had a clear consensus, this poll split the votes. The question was simple: "What do you dislike the most?"

7 of you (36%) answered that you disliked "Flip-Flopping" the most, perhaps residue from John Kerry or a present rebuke of Mitt Romney.

6 of you (31%) said that you disliked "Lying about or obscuring one's track-record (or current political views)" the most. I should've clarified this, but it refers both to one's own record/views and one's opponents'. I don't know whether that clarification would've garnered this answer more support or not.

There was a two-way tie for third, with 3 people each (15%) saying that they most dislike "Attack Ads" and "Perpetuating the idea that only certain candidates can win in the general election." I'd be interested to see what just Huckabee supporters would have to say if these two choices were the only options, since he's been the victim of both ploys. Although, the "Attack Ads" against him have still been somewhat tame so far.

What do I take out of this poll? Well, I think it's probable that all of you dislike all of those things, and you simply had to pick one based upon your strongest feelings.

Please vote in the next polls (notice the plural).

Ranking Their Positions: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

This is the third post in a series examining the presidential candidates' positions on key issues for conservative Christians.

This post will examine the candidates' platforms on the Second Amendment: the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Some may not see this issue as one with which Christians should concern themselves. What do guns have to do with loving one's neighbor? The Golden Rule? Turning the other cheek?

Well, while I do believe that Christians should avoid violence if at all possible (Romans 12:18), I also believe that everyone has a fundamental right to defend themselves, their families, their property, and their freedoms. This is a right that no government has the jurisdiction to revoke.
Still, though, some Christians may be bothered by the fact that someone like me would be so passionate about preserving the right of self-defense. To read a more complete reply to this concern, follow this link. But I'd like to point out some things that the aforementioned article doesn't:

As "biblical" evidence for a non-resistance philosophy, some may point to Jesus' condemnation of Peter for using his sword at the time of Jesus' arrest (John 18). But we must take that condemnation in context. First of all, Jesus was on earth for a specific purpose. He was meant to be arrested (Matthew 26:54). Peter was trying to "play God," so to speak, in that he wanted to take Jesus down a path that was not God's will. Did Peter really have so little faith in God and in Jesus that he didn't think Christ could survive or escape on His own? Jesus had already done that several times. He reminded Peter of his power, saying, "...do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)

Secondly, when Jesus warned against "living by the sword," (Matthew 26:52) I can't imagine he was condemning self-defense. He couldn't have been prohibiting the use of the sword universally and eternally, because he told his disciples to purchase swords just a bit earlier (Luke 22:36). Jesus was being arrested. Peter didn't know why, or what would happen, but there didn't appear to be any immediate lethal danger. Yet, in a moment of intense stress, Peter's knee-jerk reaction was to take the only decisive action he could think of--attack! He was usurping the civil government's power by trying to prevent Jesus' seizure forcefully. His actions are understandable, but, if he would have killed the high-priest's servant, his actions would have also been murderous.


A second thing Christian pacifists might point to is that we don't see the example of self-defense from the apostles. But I think it is a grave mistake to take their "example" as definitive in this instance.We have to give Paul and the other apostles some credit for using a little common sense. When you are being taken captive by a mob, you don't fight back--you will end up dead. When you are being arrested by Roman soldiers, you don't fight back--you will end up dead. Even if you end up killing some of them, you will never be able to talk your way out of the consequences of your actions later. Besides, they may not have been trying to kill you in the first place.

Situations such as those in which the apostles found themselves are entirely different than those which we'd traditionally think of as calling for self-defense.

Thirdly, I'd also like to point out that the New Testament certainly isn't anti-soldier or anti-governmental force. But civil and military officers are no more or no less than self-defenders on a societal and unit level.

One more thing: the argument can be made that, amidst certain circumstances, complete non-resistance could be construed as a form of suicidal behavior, which is certainly not condoned by Scripture. Plus, we must recognize that self-defense often involves protecting others than yourself, such as the elderly, the young, the weak, the vulnerable, and so on. Would God have us stand by and do nothing? I think not.

In conclusion, if you feel that complete pacificism for Christ is a calling upon your life, that is a choice you are permitted to make, and I respect you if you make it. But it is not one which you can rightfully impose upon others--whether they be non-Christians or Christians who simply disagree with you.

Now, we can debate and deliberate about some reasonable gun restrictions. For instance, should guns be allowed in establishments where alcohol is served? Should those with a serious mental health record be allowed to purchase guns? Do criminals guilty of violent acts voluntarily relinquish their Second Amendment rights? Should gun sales be monitored (with background checks) so as to prevent hostile criminals, the mentally ill, and even illegal aliens from attaining firearms? Should a person be allowed to own guns if he/she generally poses a greater threat to society (and even himself/herself) than society (with all its criminals and psychopaths) poses to him/her?

These (and others) are valid questions worthy of discussion, and they are part of the reason which made this such a difficult issue on which to analyze and rank the candidates' positions. (The other reason is that some of the candidates have had sketchy track-records.) However, since government control usually leads to more government control, and since it is often more trouble than its worth, I opted to rank the candidates highest who call for the least amount of restrictions.

T1. Mike Huckabee

In reference to the Second Amendment, Huckabee repeats his claim of track-record supremacy that he also asserts concerning abortion and marriage. He says on his site, "No candidate has a stronger, more consistent record on Second Amendment rights than I do." On a personal level, the former governor of Arkansas touts being "the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license." On matters of public policy, he opposed (and opposes) assault weapon bans, the Brady Bill, and frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Huckabee appears to comprehensively understand what's at stake with the Second Amendment debate. He also understands the very essence of the rights, saying that "Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. I oppose gun control based on geography." This is a clear dig at rival candidate Rudy Giulani, who has stated that he thinks differing measures of gun control are appropriate in different areas, as if citizens of some regions don't deserve the same constitutional rights as those of others.

The Gun Owners of America's website says that "Mike Huckabee has been in the heat of battle over gun rights and has proven himself to be a steadfast friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment."

Key Quote: "Zealously protecting your Second Amendment rights is another way that I will lift all law-abiding Americans up, by consistently championing your right to defend yourself."

T1. Duncan Hunter (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Mike Huckabee)

Although he "thoroughly" enjoys hunting, Hunter (pun unavoidable) doubtlessly understands the essence of the Second Amendment. He states on his site that the Second Amendment "is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims." Receiving an A from the Gun Owners of America and an A+ from the National Rifle Association, Hunter clearly practices what he preaches.

Key Quote: "It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the Second Amendment is not about hunting."

T1. Alan Keyes

Keyes nearly plagiarizes the Declaration of the Independence when he explains on his site why he is a "strong supporter" of the Second Amendment. Following so closely that document's line of thinking, he believes that a "strong case can be made...that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms"--not just a right.

With a logical train of thought, he deduces that the "gun control agenda is...an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle."

Key Quote: "The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly. But a people that cannot be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle."

T1. Ron Paul

As a stalwart upholder of the Constitution, one would expect nothing less from Ron Paul than complete and utter support for the Second Amendment. He delivers nothing less, saying that he has "always supported the Second Amendment." Fully comprehending the importance of the amendment, Paul has introduced several pieces of legislation to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Saying that "You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property," Paul promises to "continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."

The Gun Owners of America call Paul "a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment."

Key Quote: "I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right."

5. Tom Tancredo (*No longer running: Ended candidacy on 12/20/07, supporting Mitt Romney)

Evidenced by the fact that the National Rifle Association gives him an "A" grade, Tancredo "fully and completely" supports the Second Amendment. He considers it hypocritical that the ACLU does not defend this right, and that the federal government does not make it binding upon the states.

According to the Gun Owners of America, Tancredo wavered in his Second Amendment shoes immediately after the Columbine shooting. But, since then, he has been devoutly pro-gun.

6. Fred Thompson (No longer running: dropped out 1/22/08)

Fred Thompson also understands the point of the Second Amendment, "strongly" supporting it. He harshly criticizes gun control measures, saying, "Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting." As President, he vows to strictly enforce the law and protect the right to keep and bear arms.

Despite this tough talk, the Gun Owners of America researched that, while in the Senate, Thompson voted pro-gun only 20 of 33 times. The NRA-ILA rated him a C-. However, one should keep in mind that an "anti-gun vote" isn't always as blatant as it sounds. For instance, one of these votes was a vote for an "anti-gun Clinton judge appointment." Furthermore, just about any gun control vote is constituted as an "anti-gun" vote.

T7. John McCain

McCain believes we have "sacred duty to protect" our Second Amendment rights. He believes gun control is a crime-fighting failure, and that "Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway."

All sounds good, right? Well, the GOA organization gave him an "F" grade for 2004 and 2006. They say that "he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long." Go to their site to read what he's been involved with in the past.

Key Quote: "We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens."

T7. Mitt Romney

Romney sounds like a Second Amendment stalwart. He wants to support it and strengthen it. The Gun Owners of America take a humorous angle on Mitt Romney's position on firearms, saying that he "sounds like the modern-day incarnation of John Wayne." However, that statement is not the compliment that it sounds like. Rather, it is a set-up sentence, as the GOA's analysis goes on to show Romney's past to be somewhat wishy-washy on the topic of gun control. The GOA assert that Romney "likes to frequent both sides of the legislative aisle." They want to know, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?"

Key Quote: "I believe the Second Amendment is about more than just self-defense or sport; it's about the basic freedom of lawful citizens to live their lives – to engage in the normal pursuits of society without the interference of the heavy hand of government."

9. Rudy Giulani

Giulani is a great example of why you can't always accept the way people define themselves at face value. Rudy considers himself a "strong supporter" of the Second Amendment, but he also believes that individual states and cities possess the legitimate authority to impose an indefinite number and degree of restrictions on guns in order to deal with crime, as needed. He postulates that New York may need different measures than, say, Ruralopolis, USA.

The GOA's analysis astutely points out, "Apparently, in Giuliani's America law-abiding citizens in large cities would not enjoy the same constitutional liberties as the rest of the country. Why? Are city dwellers not as trustworthy as country folks? Are metro-Americans not deserving of the right to self-protection?

"Disarming citizens because they live in a high crime area is taking away the most effective means of self-defense from the people who need it most. Creating mandatory victims is no way to fight a crime problem."

But that's not all! The article goes on to show that Giulani has supported national gun-control measures in the past. "If Giuliani's gun control agenda was really limited 'only' to big cities, that would be disturbing enough. But the record shows that the Mayor continually tried to export his gun control agenda to the rest of the nation."

Key Quote: "Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution."

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico is considered by some to be the "best" gun candidate on the Democratic side, but even he, as a congressman, has voted anti-gun more than a couple of times.

Rankings (after three issues):

Huckabee: 1

Hunter: 2

Keyes: 2

Paul: 4.3

Tancredo: 4.7

Thompson: 5.3

Romney: 7

McCain: 7.3

Giulani: 9

Special thanks to the Gun Owners of America. Without their resources, this article would never have been sufficient.

New Posts Coming Soon.

Have you ever thought about the fact that, if you weren't so busy, you'd find things to do to make yourself busy? It's kind of a brain teaser, but true nonetheless.

Anyways, I've been really busy the last week or so, and, if I hadn't been, I'd have been working on this blog. In any case, I am working on several posts and I hope to post them within the next few days.

You have spoken UNMISTAKABLY!

I want to thank all of you who took part in WWCP's first ever poll.

When asked who you think would make the worst President, you answered overwhelmingly that Hillary Clinton would. With 32 votes (65%), she received almost double the amount of votes of all the other candidates combined!

The only person even remotely resembling a challenger for the throne was Rudy Giulani, who received 7 votes (14%).

I found it particularly interesting that almost nobody caught on to the fact that "Other" includes the likes of Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and everyone else in the world. The hodge-podge category got only 1 vote (2%).

Also, it is clear that Mrs. Clinton maintains her position as Public Enemy Number One among conservatives, as Barack Obama (4 votes: 8%) and John Edwards (3 votes: 6%) didn't stand a chance.

Mitt Romney received 2 votes (4%).

Please vote in the new poll.

Ranking Their Positions: The Sanctity of Marriage

This is the second part in a series of posts focusing on the Republican presidential candidates' positions on key issues for conservative Christian citizens. The series could be nicknamed "Straight from the Horses' Mouths," because my primary resources are the candidates' official sites.
This post is dedicated to the sanctity of marriage.

1. Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee says that he is--and always has been--a proponent of a federal constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Huckabee proclaims that no "other candidate has supported traditional marriage more consistently and steadfastly than I have." This proclamation goes right along with his claim to be the most pro-life candidate in the field.
Huckabee fervently declares his belief that "nothing in our society matters more" than marriage, since, as he puts it, our "true strength" comes from our families. He points out that the "growing number of children born out of wedlock and the rise in no-fault divorce have been a disaster for our society."
A proud husband of 33 years, Mike had success in the area of marriage as governor of Arkansas, signing a state constitutional amendment and helping Arkansas become "only the third to adopt 'covenant marriage.'"

Key Quote: "Our true strength doesn't come from our military or our gross national product, it comes from our families. What's the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East if we can't keep decline and decadence at bay here at home?"

2. Alan Keyes:

Keyes picks the ultimate basis for defending traditional marriage: God's decree. "Marriage is the God-ordained covenant between one woman and one man that provides the essential societal support for families." He states that "God's plan" was for marriage to induce "procreation." Keyes rightfully declares that sex is not merely pleasure "for pleasure's sake," and that marriage is not self-serving, but sacrificial according to "God's will."
Although all that Keyes says is true, he fails to point out that marriage is still sacred and can still be God-honoring without the bearing and/or rearing of children.

Key Quote: "And I think that's what's involved in our debate right now — people trying to substitute an understanding of human sexuality that is really incompatible with the moral foundations of marriage life."

3. Duncan Hunter: (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Mike Huckabee)

Like Mike Huckabee, Hunter believes that Congress should pass a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. In fact, he cosponsored and voted for a bill which proposes such an amendment "declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman."

Key Quote: "I firmly believe that marriage is one of the most important social institutions we have and that it is central to promoting family values and raising children in a healthy environment... I firmly believe that children need the unique influence offered by both a father and a mother."

4. Fred Thompson: (*No longer running; dropped out 1/22/08)

As President, Fred Thompson promises that he would endeavor to "strengthen the institution of marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. He supported the Defense of Marriage Act while he was a senator, and he supports the passage of a constitutional amendment "to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state and on our society." Whether this means he just wants the amendment to keep activist judges out of the states' hair, or whether he wants the amendment to define marriage for all the states, I do not know.

Key Quote: "Fred Thompson believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that this institution is the foundation of society."

5. Tom Tancredo: (*No longer running: Ended candidacy on 12/20/07, supporting Mitt Romney)

"Gay marriage" is the second-to-last thing listed on Tancredo's page of "Stands," listed after such things as Social Security and Agriculture and only before a short blurb about "Political Correctness." This apparently demonstrates the lack of priority status which Tancredo denotes to the sanctity of marriage.
However, Tancredo is solidly against gay marriage. He says that a federal constitutional amendment should be the last choice, but adds that, because of activist judges--and even mayors--we've reached that point.
Tom takes a different approach in his argument against gay marriage. Rather than pointing to the importance of strong, traditional, healthy family structure, Tancredo argues that the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and that is why it should support heterosexual marriage.

Key Quote: "Population is power. Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions. The mere fact that two people are in a loving relationship does not matter to the state. Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party."

6. Mitt Romney:

Romney follows in the footsteps of Tancredo, listing "American Culture and Values" as the next-to-last issue of his platform. He does, however, support a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Reportedly, he has fought hard for marriage, saying, "I enforced the law that banned out-of-state same-sex couples from coming to Massachusetts to get married. I went to the court again and again. I testified here before Congress for the Federal Marriage Amendment. And I championed our successful petition drive that collected a record 170,000 signatures for a citizen ballot initiative to protect marriage."
However, Romney used to be softer and more moderate on the issue of gay "rights." In a 1994 interview, he said that the "gay and lesbian community needs more support from the Republican party." He criticized "extremists" and said that "People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have..." He was still against gay marriage back then, but he said, on gay rights, he was considered a "centrist and a moderate." Not good.
Furthermore, some claim that Romney actually helped to implement gay marriage when judicial activism forced it upon the people of Massachusetts just recently.
Of course, I'm not denying that a politician can change or strengthen his positions. But, again, we're faced with the fact that he is not only a politician (trying to garner the conservative Christian voting block), but also a Mormon. I cannot put any trust in his steadfastness.

Key Quote(s): "Last year the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck a blow against the family, as I'm sure you know. The court forgot that [traditional] marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. Its ruling meant that our society is supposed to be indifferent about whether children have a mother and a father...
"America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home."

7. Ron Paul:

I sort of chastised Tom Tancredo and Mitt Romney for putting the gay marriage issue, essentially, at the bottom of their lists of priorities. Then I checked out Ron Paul's website. He does not have anything about marriage on his list of issues. So I googled the topic. I came across an article written by him entitled "The Federal Marriage Amendment is a Very Bad Idea." Although he uses some good logic and makes some good points in the article, he comes to a bad, illogical conclusion--that we should not pass a federal constitutional marriage amendment.
Paul opposes gay marriage, of course, but, as in most cases, he is against the increased power of the federal government. I can't disagree with him there, but if the federal government wasn't supposed to have some power, then why does it exist? In my opinion, the power to enforce God's, tradition's, and nature's definition of marriage is legitimate and necessary.
Paul does support the Defense of Marriage Act, which keeps one state from having to recognize the marriage license of another state. Also, he supports the Marriage Protection Act, which serves to strengthen the DMA by protecting it from federal court challenges.
Paul says he is "sympathetic" to those who desire a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, but he says that he "respectully" disagrees with such people. Rightfully expressing that marriage is not defined by government (though that is beside the point), Paul fears that a federal marriage amendment would come back to haunt conservatives, saying, "Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter!"

Key Quote: "Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

8. John McCain:

In the same mold as Ron Paul, McCain apparently doesn't feel that the sanctity of marriage warrants a significant segment of his platform. Instead, he forced me to go googling again. With the assistance of that search engine, I discovered that McCain thinks a same-sex marriage ban is "unnecessary--and un-Republican." Again like Ron Paul, McCain feels that it is an issue which should be left up to the states and only addressed nationally in measures such as the Defense of Marriage Act. I can understand such reasoning, but I believe that marriage--like abortion--is the wrong issue on which to exert one's vehement states' rights' philosophy.
Moreover, my head is spinning from trying to figure out whether McCain is for or against civil unions. If it's difficult to figure out where a person stands, I am very wary of supporting them.

Key Quote: "What evidence do we have that states are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years?"

9. Rudy Giulani

Rudy Giulani's valuation of the marriage issue is not quite as bad as Ron Paul and John McCain's, but slightly worse than Tom Tancredo and Mitt Romney's. Giulani's site lists marriage as the last of his "12 Commitments."According to his site, Giulani "has not--and never has--supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans." In other words, he believes in devaluing marriage by giving the exclusive benefits of marriage to homosexual couples under the aliases of "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions." All I can say is, a skunk by any other name still stinks. And civil unions and domestic partnerships analogically stink. America should not be in the business of rewarding immoral and unhealthy lifestyles by providing pseudo-equal status to the honorable institution of matrimony.
Rudy has reportedly conservatized his positions somewhat recently, but , even if that type of pandering were worth anything, Giulani hasn't shifted his positions drastically enough. Besides, I'm not sure Rudy Giulani even knows what marriage is about. He's been divorced twice and married thrice, notoriously participating in an adulterous affair while still married and still mayor. Is that what we want in the White House? An unfaithful husband?

Key Quotes: "...he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman."

At least in appearance, the three leading Democratic candidates hold similar positions to Rudy Giulani (and even, perhaps, John McCain and maybe somewhat like Ron Paul), only more liberal. John Edwards, especially, is pandering hard to the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender community.

Average Rankings (after two issues) [***with Tancredo***]:

Huckabee: 1
Hunter: 2.5
Keyes: 2.5
Tancredo: 4.5
Thompson: 5
Paul: 6
Romney: 7
McCain: 7.5
Giulani: 9

**Notes: Keyes opposes civil unions, as do Huckabee and Hunter, although the latter two do not mention civil unions on their websites. Thompson considers civil unions "not a good idea," but would allow the states to make that decision. Tom Tancredo appears to oppose domestic partnership benefits. Ron Paul's position on civil unions is, in all likelihood, similar to his position on marriage--i.e., leave it to the states.

New Post Coming Soon...

I'm in the middle of working on my second post in my "Ranking Their Positions" series. I plan on posting it sometime tonight. So please check back tonight or tomorrow.

Huckabee Starting to Get Some "Big-Name" Christian Support

As a number of Christian leaders and conservative organizations began to pick sides (and James Dobson abstained from making an endorsement yet), I wondered, "Why are no Christians teaming up with Mike Huckabee?"

Well, finally, some are. Yesterday, Huckabee's website announced the formation of the "Faith and Values Coalition for Huckabee." This list of 30 Christian leaders includes such names as Michael Farris (Chair of Home School Legal Defense Association and Chancellor of Patrick Henry College), Randy Alcorn (Founder and Director of Eternal Perspective Ministries, best-selling author of 28 books, fiction and nonfiction), and Don Wildmon (Founder and Chairman of American Family Association).

Then, today, Huckabee announced the personal endorsement of Jerry Falwell, Jr..

This is a good start. Hopefully the momentum will continue.