Being Pro-Life Requires Support for Marriage Protection

 by John Jakubczyk, Esq.  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Bob Casey, Jr., running against Senator Rick Santorum, cannot have it both ways.
After a lot of thought and consideration of the relative merits of the arguments linking and refusing to link the right to life and marriage issues, I have resolved that if one is serious about ending abortion in this country, one must support those efforts to protect marriage and oppose any and all efforts to weaken or destroy the special regard marriage has historically had in the law.

Originally I considered them two separate issues and did not think it was that important to link them for purposes of political considerations. But as a voter who has been seriously concerned with the non-stop assault on marriage, both in the media and through the courts, I can no longer ignore what I have known to be the common source of the attack both on marriage and the family.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade opened the flood gates allowing for the massive murder of millions of unborn children. Yet those of us who are outraged by this wanton slaughter of future generations are told it is just a "matter of choice" and to keep our views to ourselves. When we moved into the world of politics, some ignored us, some tolerated us and some embraced us. Then there were those who detested our involvement in the body politic. These are the same groups for the most part who are attacking marriage and the family; the same folks who are upset that the Boy Scouts did not allow homosexuals into leadership and at the same time condemn the Catholic Church for not doing enough to address her own scandals.

Now there are some candidates running for office who are trying to pursue a middle line. Many of them are Democrats who are attempting to woo back disaffected pro-life democrats who have been ignored by their party for the last 30 years or actively excised because they held pro-life views. After reading the exit polls and seeing that pro-life Catholic democrats for voting for the Republican candidate because the candidate is pro-life, some democrats think that if they embrace a pro-life viewpoint, they may be able to drain some of that support and win the election.

Pennsylvania is a classic example. Bob Casey, Jr., the son of the late pro-life governor, is claiming his father's position on life and attempting to unseat Republican Senator Rick Santorum, who has been a strong advocate for the pro-life position. Santorum however, upset many of the Keystone State's most active pro-lifers with his support of Arlan Spector over pro-life conservative Pat Toomey. This perhaps more than anything created the kind of event that Democratic leadership thought they could exploit.

At first the polls seemed to suggest that this game plan was a winner. Early polls this summer gave Casey a double digit lead. However, things are starting to change. People are finding out who really supports Bob Casey, Jr. - people who are opposed to traditional marriage.

Casey Jr. has come out publicly to support the gay-rights movement, whose agenda is to change (perhaps I should say- destroy) the country's marriage and adoption laws. In response to Casey, Jr., the homosexual movement has opened its wallet to help fund the Casey campaign. Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of nation's largest homosexual organizations has made Bob Casey, Jr. the leading recipient of its fund-raising efforts in this year. According to Opensecrets.org, Casey received HRC-related contributions of $51,946, nor than anyone else. So to whom will Casey, Jr. owe his election come November? Those who support marriage as it has been defined for the last millennia, or the homosexual lobby with their cash?

The HRC webpage soliciting contributions for the liberal democrat gushes over Casey's "commitment to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality," Casey's opposition to "the Federal Marriage Amendment" and Casey's belief "that adoption decisions should be made without prohibitions or limitations based on the sexual orientation of the parents."

All of these views are certain to turn off pro-life Catholic democrats in Pennsylvania. After all these democrats have only to look at Al Gore and Dick Durbin to see so-called pro-life democrats who betrayed the cause and the unborn children for political power and position within the party. Look at Harry Reid as another example of someone who was sent to Washington by the people of Nevada to represent a pro-life view and once in power fell in line with the extremists who control the party apparatus.

As someone who has long encouraged pro-life democrats to reclaim their party, I had a certain hope that efforts would be made at the local and state level to recruit pro-life democrats who would put principle above partisan party politics. Every person seeking public office should respect the right to life. This is a threshold issue. If a candidate will not protect babies, I sure cannot trust him to protect me or my family. I cannot trust him to be careful with the people's money. And I cannot trust him not to sell out this nation for the trappings of power.

The American people are weary of the constant battle over the social issues. They wish the matters would resolve. Yet these questions will only resolve with full protection for the children and recognition of the sanctity of marriage. Finally every one of us must live our lives affirming the special place of marriage. We must be supportive of marriage and those who are married. We must stop attacking the institution and seek to strengthen those who make the commitment. Just as we must recognize the right to life of all persons, so we must realize that marriage and the family is the foundation for a stable and healthy civilization.

Politics: General, Family Issues, Homosexuality, Feminism, Abortion, Euthanasia

Read more articles by John Jakubczyk, Esq.