Every Issue Is Moral Issue
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 05:16PM 
CNN's Jack Cafferty has advice for the GOP: Park your morality at the door.
On June 14, Mr. Cafferty expressed surprise that, in the previous night's presidential debate, "social issues—like abortion, gay marriage, 'don't ask, don't tell'—still manage to work their way into the conversation. And that may prove to be a problem for Republicans. . . . These are not the issues that middle America is worried about. They would like to be able to find a job."
I submit that these so-called "social issues" mean more to "middle America" than Cafferty realizes. We call them "moral issues." To us, abortion is the slaughter of innocent human life, on a moral level with genocide or the slave trade.
What Cafferty doesn't understand is that every issue is a moral issue. The current bad economy didn't just happen. It was the direct result of immoral choices made by our leaders.
The national debt, national security, taxation, the welfare state, border security—there's not a single issue that doesn't have a moral component. The government has a moral obligation to live within its means, to protect its citizens, to encourage industriousness and discourage indolence, and to secure our borders against terrorists and drug cartels.
When voters consider a candidate for public office, they should not just ask, "Can this person manage the economy?" They need to know, "Does this person have the values and character to hold public office?"
A candidate who doesn't value innocent life shouldn't be president. In 2002, Barack Obama voted to oppose the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, outlawing infanticide of babies who survive late-term abortions. Mr. Obama didn't merely vote in favor of abortion, but in favor of killing babies outside the womb. A man whose moral compass is this defective cannot make moral decisions.
He promised an end to earmarks, a secure border, no lobbyists in his administration, no recess appointments, airing the healthcare debate on C-SPAN, elimination of failed programs—and he didn't keep even one of those promises. Candidate Obama opposed "same-sex marriage," but as president he nullified the Defense of Marriage Act. A record of broken promises does not equal moral leadership.
Cafferty says that middle America doesn't care about "same-sex marriage." But polls show Americans overwhelmingly oppose it—not because they hate or feel morally superior to homosexual people. They simply want to preserve God’s plan for marriage. Marriage should remain what it has been throughout recorded history—a covenantal union between a man and a woman. Here are three reasons why Americans object to redefining marriage:
1. The best environment for children is a traditional family—one mom, one dad. Children from stable two-parent homes are significantly less prone to depression, addiction, and suicide than children from non-traditional families. A moral society should encourage the family structure that best nurtures children.
2. Marriage ideally brings together two people, one male, one female, who complement each other. Mothers are generally protective and nurturing while fathers tend to challenge children to confront risks and embrace opportunities. Children need both influences. Two "mothers" can't teach boys to become men; two "fathers" can't teach girls to become women.
3. Children need to feel connected to their biological origins whenever possible. Yale psychiatrist Kyle Pruett found that children "hunger for an abiding paternal presence." They struggle with questions about their biological origins and identity.
As a Christian pastor, I have nothing but compassion for homosexual people. I understand that it hurts to know that society doesn't accept your relationship as "normal" and "natural." But you can't force society to accept your way of life through court rulings.
The 2012 election is not just about jobs. It's about the moral choices America must make. If we hold our elected leaders to a high moral standard, there will be prosperity and plenty of jobs to go around. Leaders with a strong moral compass for the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage will generally make sound moral decisions on every other issue affecting our lives.
In October 1789, John Adams, America's first vice president, gave a speech to the Massachusetts militia. "Our Constitution," he said, "was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." I pray that these wise words would become a motto for our nation—but I fear that they may become our epitaph.
America, abortion, doma, homosexuality, morality, social issues
Reader Comments (13)
See 1 Tim 3 "The husband of one wife".
See also John Calvin's commentary below on the matter. As a Calvinist, do you deny his interpretation on the issue?
"And yet I do not disapprove of the opinion of those who think that the Holy Spirit intended to guard against the diabolical superstition which afterwards arose; as if he had said, “So far is it from being right and proper that celibacy should be enforced on bishops, that marriage is a state highly becoming in all believers.” In this way, he would not demand it as a thing necessary for them, but would only praise it as not inconsistent with the dignity of the office. Yet the view which I have already given is more simple and more solid, that Paul forbids polygamy in all who hold the office of a bishop, because it is a mark of an unchaste man, and of one who does not observe conjugal fidelity.
But there it might be objected, that what is sinful in all ought not to have been condemned or forbidden in bishops alone. The answer is easy. When it is expressly prohibited to bishops, it does not therefore follow that it is freely allowed to others. Beyond all doubt, Paul condemned universally what was contrary to an unrepealed law of God; for it is a settled enactment"
http://divineradiancefellowship.blogspot.com/2010/07/jesus-marital-status.html
http://divineradiancefellowship.blogspot.com/2010/07/who-was-mary-magdalene.html
http://divineradiancefellowship.blogspot.com/2010/07/symbolism-in-genesis-part-1-adam-and.html
and a comment to mr scarecrow:if you look at the terrible terrible ramificatins from having multiple wives as found in the bible...it is a dark scene and bad always happens ..I believe that the bible teaches it is a mark misser aka sin when we do not do as God 1st ordained in genesis this reason man will leave and cling to his wife...man and woman be come 1. the 2 become one.and again as Christ so proclaimed in ch 19 of mat.
Great message. I used it in this week's message and cited the link on my website (www.TheCenturionLawEnforcementMinistry.org) and on Facebook. Stay the course!
http://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2428
2001 Pat Robertson declared online:
"You won't find the Bible calling polygamy a sin."
Martin Luther had this to say:
“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”
I am very familiar with the arguments for and against polygyny and have studied them thoroughly. My studies began with adultery since I thought it was adultery for a man to be with more than one woman. When I realized that adultery was actually only possible when a married woman slept with a man other than her husband and not when a man slept with any of his wives (think of David) I realized that what the church had been teaching was wrong; it was nothing more than a religious version of Roman law and culture which had been merged into the church and not biblical in nature. This caused me to study other things, and approaching the scriptures with an open mind to see exactly what God had to say about things, not what the Romanized church wanted me to believe, I began to find errors injected by men. It seems that men have a natural tendency to "add to" the scriptures; Jesus chastised the Pharisees for it, the reformers got much of it cleaned out about 500 years ago...we just have a little more work to do to expose the monogamy lie.
While the arguments made by the gay rights people may also be valid at times for people wanting to have a legalized plural union, that in no way equates them to each other. Look at history...women were given the right to vote...black people became able to legally marry white people...I believe that our generation will see the bigamy laws ruled unconstitutional - justice will be done.