cpf_banner_small.gif (2059 bytes)
The
Fatherhood

Coalition

MC_Hammers_big.gif (5167 bytes)

... Democratic Party "moral values"

Mark Charalambous, Dec. 2 , 2004


Electorate to Democratic Party: It’s the morality, stupid

People laugh when I say that George Bush is the worst president in my lifetime and I’m relieved that he won. It’s not meant to be funny. Though I’m hyper-critical of Bush’s foreign policy and handling of the economy, I’m more concerned with the nation’s free-fall into moral chaos.

A stunning wakeup call was delivered on Nov. 2.  The liberal elites now finally understand what the Culture War is all about. I know this to be true because on Nov. 3  I saw Jon Stewart say it on the Daily Show, his late-night mock TV news show.  If the Culture War began with Roe v Wade in 1973 when the Supreme Court imposed abortion-on-demand on the nation, it was brought into razor-sharp focus a year ago when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court imposed gay marriage on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 


But the last time I checked, moral relativism was the motive philosophical force in Democratic Party social policymaking. It is going to take some strong ju-ju to conjure moral values from an explicit avoidance of moral absolutes.

Massachusetts’s own Robert Reich was the first of the liberal intelligentsia out of the gate to address the Democratic Party’s ‘values deficit’. Reich served as Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration. His most recent claim to fame was losing a bid for the party’s nomination for Governor in 2002.  In an editorial message on NPR he decried the lack of moral values positions in the Kerry campaign, bemoaning that it was laden with policy positions but lacking in what apparently mattered most to the American people. He then offered up some “moral” values for the party to champion for the next election, such as health care and a decent living wage for every worker.

Reich’s performance was immediately outdone, however, by the high comedy of House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who laced a post-election speech with numerous biblical references. Yes, we worship an awesome God in the Blue States, too…

The Democratic Party has discovered that it needs a set of moral values to call its own. Brace yourself, we’re in for some serious hilarity.  Dame Hillary’s makeover into a good ol’ Red-State gal is already underway – or haven’t you noticed? But the last time I checked, moral relativism was the motive philosophical force in Democratic Party social policymaking. It is going to take some strong ju-ju to conjure moral values from an explicit avoidance of moral absolutes.  The two touchstone moral issues, abortion and gay marriage, serve as excellent examples. 


Abortion as an inviolate right of the mother can only be construed as a “moral value” if men and children are defined out of the moral universe. A “right” that only exists for women is consistent with feminism, but unfortunately it has been adopted by the Democratic Party, which is soon going to learn that a “value” that disregards the rights of two-thirds of those affected isn’t a moral value, it’s moral bankruptcy.

Regarding abortion, the Democratic Party holds “choice” as the sacrosanct and inviolate principle.  Excuse me, but I think they may have lost half the country when they linguistically equated the decision to kill an unborn baby with choosing between Coke and Pepsi.  One is not pro- or anti-choice. Everyone but the Taliban is pro-choice. One is either pro- or anti-abortion.

Word: This debate is about killing a human life. This should only be referred to as the “abortion” debate.

Not only has this debate been improperly named, but to this day it remains incorrectly framed. At its essence, it is a contention of rights issue. A woman surely has a right to determine what to do with her own body. But that isn’t the end of the argument; it’s just the beginning.  The unborn child also has an inalienable right of self-determination: the right to be born. In all other situations where individuals cannot adequately argue for their rights, such as the mentally incapacitated, we turn to the commonwealth to safeguard the rights of those who cannot defend themselves. The state, in some coherent legal fashion, must speak for the child. 

And it doesn’t end there.  There is a third party whose rights also contend in the abortion debate: the father. Consider the moral aspect of the potential father who opposes the mother’s desire for an abortion. His “right” to see his issue brought into the world is simply nonexistent as far as “pro-choice” feminists are concerned. To dismiss men as deserving of no voice whatsoever in abortion is not only arrogant, but wholly unacceptable for another, more material reason.  Today, a father who is discarded from his family in a divorce, most often against his wishes, is responsible for an enormous financial obligation. As much as a third of his gross wealth and income is routinely assigned to his ex-wife for up to 23 years… for the child. This politically correct alimony, euphemistically called “child support,” amounts to the single largest expenditure in a man’s life, more than the cost of his home.

This immense financial obligation alone grants men the unequivocal right to a voice in the abortion debate. 

The contention of rights between the three principals can take on various permutations, but one position is always constant: the wish of the unborn to be brought into this world. Clearly, for the contention of rights to weigh against the unborn they must be compelling, though not insurmountable. Certainly, a pregnancy that results from a rape must be weighted heavily in favor of the mother’s rights.


When Ma and Pa Kettle in the Red States hear that forty percent of all children adopted in Massachusetts go to homosexuals—and that this was used as an argument in favor of gay marriage at the Constitutional Convention earlier this year—their first thought isn’t: “Thank God for Margaret Marshall! Those poor children need parents.” It’s more likely to be: “What the hell is going on in Massachusetts?” … perhaps immediately followed by: “Thank God I didn’t vote for Kerry!” 

As a representative democracy, it will be the job of our elected representatives—perhaps at the state level if not at the federal—following informed public debate and with the consent of their constituents, to make appropriate legislation that balances the rights of all three parties in some coherent and workable fashion. Don’t forget that abortion-on-demand results from judicial activism, not democracy.

Abortion as an inviolate right of the mother can only be construed as a “moral value” if men and children are defined out of the moral universe. A “right” that only exists for women is consistent with feminism, but unfortunately it has been adopted by the Democratic Party, which is soon going to learn that a “value” that disregards the rights of two-thirds of those affected isn’t a moral value, it’s moral bankruptcy.

Which brings us to gay marriage. This present moral crisis also stems from judicial activism, one that expressly violated the will of the people here in Massachusetts. Despite what the Boston Globe and the New York Times want you to think, this one isn’t even close.  

When Ma and Pa Kettle in the Red States hear that forty percent of all children adopted in Massachusetts go to homosexuals—and that this was used as an argument in favor of gay marriage at the Constitutional Convention earlier this year—their first thought isn’t: “Thank God for Margaret Marshall! Those poor children need parents.” It’s more likely to be: “What the hell is going on in Massachusetts?” … perhaps immediately followed by: “Thank God I didn’t vote for Kerry!”   

The Democratic Party views same-sex marriage, and by extension, gay families raising children, as just another “choice.”  Perhaps Robert Reich and Nancy Pelosi think that “choice” as a moral value will resonate with the American people in the next election.


The fundamental principle involved in marriage is not that it unites one person to another, nor that it unites one man to one woman, but that it unites male to female.

Same-sex marriage proponents are careful to steer the debate away from the fundamental question of nature-versus-nurture. A modicum of common sense and logic dispels the myth of an innately homosexual ten percent of the population.  Logically, homosexuality must be overwhelmingly learned behavior, which means that it can and will be inculcated into children of gay parents, intentionally or not. Gay marriage coupled with gay adoption will “breed” homosexuals.

With the aid of the New York Times, Boston Globe and the rest of the liberal media, reports of the failure to find a gay gene – a logical contradiction when considered within the context of natural selection and sexual reproduction—are nowhere to be found. Instead we are reminded of earlier prohibitions against mixed-race marriages, as if this is a valid comparison.  

Prohibiting marriage outside of one’s nationality, race, religion, social class or what-have-you are all discriminations based on social and cultural distinctions. The fundamental principle involved in marriage is not that it unites one person to another, nor that it unites one man to one woman, but that it unites male to female. Marriage is civilization’s expression of nature’s two-billion-year-old solution to survival: sexual reproduction. And if you want to add, “As (insert deity name here) intended it,” So Be It.  It is no accident of history that all religions promote marriage between men and women and condemn homosexuality. Any religion that promoted homosexual unions would not survive a generation.


Marriage is civilization’s expression of nature’s two-billion-year-old solution to survival: sexual reproduction. And if you want to add, “As (insert deity name here) intended it,” So Be It.  It is no accident of history that all religions promote marriage between men and women and condemn homosexuality. Any religion that promoted homosexual unions would not survive a generation.  

Marriage exists principally for raising the next generation. Homosexuality has no business in the institution of marriage because it fails to comport with the fundamental principle: it cannot produce offspring. Even the ancient Greeks never confused their widespread and open practice of homosexuality with marriage and family. For a judge to decide for an entire population that there is “no rational basis” to distinguish between normal and homosexual unions, besides drawing attention to her own mental and moral deficits, is to attack one of the most obvious, universal, commonsense shared realities of people around the world and throughout recorded history.  

Same-sex marriage shares something in common with abortion. Murder the unborn and promote sexual unions that produce no offspring. Brain Camenkar, the driving force behind Article 8 Alliance, the organization which seeks to remove Chief Justice Margaret Marshall from the Supreme Judicial Court, calls it the “Culture of Death.”  

No, the Democratic Party will not succeed in making a silk purse from this sow’s ear.  And they won’t have much luck with their other “values,” such as eradicating any mention of “God” from public institutions, or insisting that in admission and hiring policies people be judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. But it will be good for a few laughs as we watch them try.

# # #

Mark Charalambous, a resident of Leominster, MA, is Spokesman for CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition    www.fatherhoodcoalition.org


cpf_home.gif (3511 bytes)