Yes, the vote on HB 437 (the repeal of gay marriage) did not go the way that I would have hoped. Yes, I agree that the primary concern of the NH GOP majority in the House and the Senate should be fiscal issues, fiscal issues, and more fiscal issues. However, there is always a fiscal cost to social issues as well – every. single. one. of. them. Sure, lots of Rockefeller Repubs hate to see their hands get “dirty” in social issues, but they are always present. Perhaps the fiscal issue may not be immediately observable on what seems to be a social primary issue, but when one rises up to the 10,000 foot level, the $ signs can be seen bobbing around the landscape. And social issues are inescapable, as the Progressive movement has pushed politics and Government into almost all aspects of our lives.
I keep going back to when this WAS a big deal and a lot of outside money flowed into Democrat pockets to get it passed – certainly, the Dems thought this was a big social issue deal that had to be addressed. And now, they wanted it off the table (“hey, this isn’t a fiscal issue” – a use of “Use their own rule book against them”.). Forget, for a moment, that this social issue was about gay marriage; should the NH GOP just let the Dems do any social issue they want?
And the NH GOP Party Platform has social issues in it that are major pillars:
Preserving Marriage and Family
We realize that the family’s most important function is to raise the next generation of Americans. We place our highest priority on promoting and preserving the family as the most important institution of human development by:
- Recognizing marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman
- Opposing recognition by the State of New Hampshire of all other forms of civil unions, regardless of where such unions were formed (other states, U.S. territories, and foreign countries)
- Believing the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed upon; supporting a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorsing legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children
- In light of current court interpretations, requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions; barring the use of public resources to fund or promote abortion; banning the procedure of partial-birth abortion; supporting the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life
- The New Hampshire Republican State Committee not supporting financially or by in-kind contributions, any candidate or nominee of this party who opposes measures to end partial-birth abortions
- Commending and encouraging those individuals and organizations who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers through adoption, support, counseling and educational services
- Encouraging scientific research using adult and cord blood stem cells; opposing the use of embryonic stem cells; and supporting a comprehensive ban on human cloning, the creation of human embryos solely for experimentation, and the public funding thereof
Protecting Marriage and Family
Family life can nurture love of country and faith in God. To protect marriages and families as the central core in society for enhancing morality, integrity, responsibility and concern for others, we:
- Advocate a presumption in favor of joint custody and favor equitable treatment of both parents in child custody and child support determinations
- Oppose actions that inhibit and/or supplant the role of parents in the care and upbringing of children
- Will work to ensure due process rights of those accused of child abuse or neglect
- Ensure that children are placed only in loving, non-abusive homes
- Are committed to respecting our senior citizens by improving their financial security, physical well being and quality of life
- Oppose euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, and support increased implementation of appropriate pain management
- Oppose casino and video-lottery gambling because of the negative social consequences
So, who should be out front in defending it (whether he like it or not, whether he wants to or not)? How about the Party Chair? If the Chair is not willing to go to the mat, why would anyone else? In essence and in fact, he is the face of the Party, he is supposed to be that loud voice that stands up for Principle. Admittedly, a majority of Republicans voted to ITL the bill (kill the repeal effort), but did he stand up for Principle or fold like a wet tissue on politics. The UL (via Pindell) has his words:
The economy remains the Republican Party’s top priority, said Wayne MacDonald, chairman of the Republican Party of New Hampshire.
“We are a large and diverse Party and there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue,” he said. “The main issues, however, will be jobs, the economy and the failures of the Obama Administration. The Republican Party intends to focus on these issues primarily and we expect to do well as a result.”
This reminds me of those “strongly worded Letters of concern” that stem from the UN (or Hillary’s State Dept) when things go haywire (like in Syria right now?) and they have no intention of standing up for what is correct. As soon as I saw “large and diverse Party”, you know the jig is up; this is code for “Platform? We have a Platform?”.
Put this into another context for Mac Donald – say that this was on some other issue on which the Platform is very specific (even as this one had no grey area): where’s the vertebrae? Or fold like a paper box made with Kleenex and spit? In reading Pindell’s article, he lays (via Shawn Jasper) out other reasons why HB 437 failed – put those into your calculus as well. On my read, Buckles cleaned his rhetorical clock.
Add this – the NH GOP lost big time in 2006 and 2008 because it started acting like Democrat-lite instead of standing up for its Principles. In 2010, because the Dems campaigned one way and then governed to the far Left of that rhetoric and that Repubs started talking like Repubs again, voters gave them control back. Yeah, I know some Rs that got into office that tapped danced as fast as they could to NOT put themselves on record on the socials – and still don’t want to go near them.
My response – so, you’re not willing to stand up? Are you telling me that it is OK for Republicans to allow the Dems and Progressives to completely reshape our societal norms as long as it is done in a fiscally frugally fashion? If you hate that non-rhetorical question, then why are a lot of you acting that way? Or why are you willing to allow those that are trying to lead to be hung out to dry politically?
Putting Position over Principle? If you cannot stand up for what one is supposed to believe in (or at least the appearance, in this case, thereof), what good are you?
