The Last Wagon Train for the Marriage Gold Rush

Wagontrain You’d think it was the last wagon leaving for the gold rush.

Politicians are hopping off traditional marriage and jumping on board the gay marriage band wagon as fast as their fat little feet will carry them.

It’s been kind of fun for me,  watching them step up to the mike and explain how god (little g,) evolution, their philosophical understanding and reasoning abilities, as well as family and friends have finally made them come to this secular jesus (little j) and get turned around facing forward at last.

All this time when they were campaigning based on their support for traditional marriage it seems that they were just deluded by a lack of … ummm … evolution? … brainpower? … moral gravitas? … oh you know, the bloomin’ polls were the other way and you gotta do what you gotta do to win the election.

They tell us that their long soul searching has finally come to an end. They are now persuaded by their own evolving natures, “their” god (little g), their philosophy and highly questionable reasoning abilities, etc, that now is the time for them to make this brave stand. The day has come for them to go along with the crowd (once again) on gay marriage and reverse the position they took previously. Having dusted off 2,000 years of Western civilization with their profound moral gravitas, it’s time for them to get back to standing their ground on all those other issues.

Which they will do.

You can trust them.

Until the poll numbers change.

One problem with governing by the polls is that you never know what you believe until you get up in the morning and check to see the latest numbers. Another problem with governing by the polls is that nobody else knows what you think, either.

Liar liar ver1

Marriage is a fundamental kind of thing. If whole groups of politicians can just flip over on marriage like a bunch of flap jacks, why should we believe them about other promises they make?

These aren’t children. The young ones are middle-aged. Their ways should be fixed.

I wouldn’t be making this judgement if it was just one lone ranger who stood up and announced in a quavery voice that his gay brother wouldn’t eat Christmas dinner with him unless he changed his stand on the issue. I would never object to anything that smacked of authenticity and an honest reappraisal of the issue. That’s life. And life happens to all people, including elected officials.

When a politician steps out there alone and does something like this, it usually betokens guts and some sort of genuine change of heart. The price of making a move like this all by yourself can be enormous and no one would do it lightly.

But that is not what is happening here. What they are giving us are canned little speeches that sound like they came from a liars template shop.

“I evolved. I prayed. I want people to be happy. My family/friends/gay staffers told me to. Civil rights.”

They say these things like someone reading the slip from a fortune cookie. It is soooo obvious that they don’t believe what they are saying. It is equally obvious that they also don’t much care if we believe it. This is just another bit of work they’ve got to cross off their to dos before they go to the reception and on to dinner with the boys.

They don’t care that no one with half a brain is going to buy these twice-told tales they tell. They just want to get it over and done so they can go back to doing whatever it is they do when they’re not balancing the budget and not getting this country out of an endless round of meaningless wars and not taking care of the industrial drain or finding jobs for the jobless recovery or any other useful thing that I can see.

They are the same balding pieces of work they were before they “evolved,” or god (little g) spotlighted them like a deer and told them to go forth and overturn 2,000 years of Christian teaching, or they realized that people need to be happy, or their family/friends/gay staffers finally got their attention, or they had some sort of bizarro epiphany about “civil rights.” They’re the same phony-baloney political opportunists they were when they told us they supported traditional marriage.

The polls told them what to say then, and the polls are telling them what to say now.

Stampede

I know I sound harsh, but it’s difficult to be mild when I see such obvious, in-your-face, flat-out and unapologetic lying to the American people. What we are witnessing is a herd crossing of the political Rubicon that home and family represent in Western society. Once it’s done, we — and by that I mean our society and our future as a nation and a people — will never be the same again.

This is not about evolving or family or civil rights. It most certainly is not about Christian faith. It is about perceived political expediency.

The assumption seems to be that the people in their districts will overlook this as they have so many other things and re-elect them like slot machines come election time. It may work. The American people are so overburdened with the multiple traumas bad governance and a deconstructing society have pushed onto them that they no longer respond like free people.

“What can we do?” they say. “Nobody listens anyway.”

Kingdom of God

My advice to anyone who feels disheartened by all this callous gamesmanship on the part of our elected officials is to remember that while we are indeed citizens of the USA, we are also citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. Here, right now, we are already citizens of that Kingdom.

Our first loyalty and our only center has to be that Kingdom coming. Our jobs as citizens of this world is to be the leaven of the Kingdom.

Our faith never was and never should be in politicians. Our faith is in Jesus Christ. It does not matter to us at all what the polls say. We follow Christ and He never changes.

Do not let a few stupid politicians who foolishly follow polls instead of God Almighty drive you to despair. Absolutely do not let them wear down your commitment to keep on speaking for the truth of the Gospels and doing the right thing.

As for this charge for the last wagon leaving for the gold rush, it is a rush to the fool’s gold of fleeting popular opinion. Before you can say “I told you so,” it will come rushing back, going the other way.

Your job right now is to make sure that you, for one, do not get on it.

  • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com: neenergyobserver

    A few points:
    1: Right on, it’s about time somebody said it.
    2: I certainly agree, and it’s going to be a permanent change based on ephemera
    3: And sort of off topic. Jess has been writing a lot about Lady Thatcher, starting well before her death, I don’t know if you saw them but, I see many wonderful parallels between the Baroness and you.
    4: Thank you for all you do, we’ll never agree on everything and that’s fine, life would be boring if we all agreed, if we fight for our convictions, we will all win, even when we lose.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      It’s great to hear from you neo. I saw a couple of Jessica’s articles and have been thinking about writing something myself if I can just get the time. I am flattered by the comparison, btw.

      Wonderful thought, and true.
      “life would be boring if we all agreed, if we fight for our convictions, we will all win, even when we lose.”

      • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com: neenergyobserver

        I miss little that you write, but like everyone I don’t always have anything to contribute, and I do notice when you are on mine. :-)

        I think I read that you here are going to Disqus (sp) for comments, i hope some sort of follow up is included, it’s easy to lose track sometimes.

        I look forward to your view, your position is more analogous than most, particularly since conviction politics is rare anyway.

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      As far as I am concerned, this is the bloodiest insult I have yet seen visited on Rebecca. Of course neenergyobserver did not mean it like that, but I am frankly bewildered by the mist of delusion that accompanies Baroness Thatcher. We should have realized by now that the iron was counterfeit and the convictions posture. And among the few things on which she really did not change were an Obama-like belief in abortion at all costs and in all circumstances, and a marked distaste for ancient institutions. Here is a VERY SMALL account of all the ways in which the common views of Baroness Thatcher are wrong (please notice that all my points arise from observed and well-known facts): http://fpb.livejournal.com/655471.html . Rebecca, on the other hand, has admitted changing her position when she felt it needed changing; has held on to it when it was unpopular WITHIN HER OWN PARTY (anyone can be firm with convictions that are only unpopular among one’s party opponents), and has done nothing to suggest that she only talks a good game.

      • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com: neenergyobserver

        The only one I’ll bother with here is this. She was never popular with her own party, Labor never beat her, she left during a revolt by a Conservative cabal, and she didn’t lose that either, but would not subject herself to a run-off. I have no idea what her belief on abortion was, Methodists are somewhat more tolerant of that, and I was pro-choice at the time myself. The rest such as the distaste for ancient institutions is a bit obscure, if you’d care to clarify, perhaps we could address that.

        In the meantime try not to let your hate for a patriot cloud your judgement too badly.

        • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

          None of which answers the points I made in the post I linked to. It is very silly to try to refute what you haven’t read.

          • Rebecca Hamilton

            Fabio, don’t get personal.

            • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

              Sorry. That Bloody Woman, as most Britons call her, has a gift for making me and others see red. Perhaps it is the utter lack of any shame or doubt. Perhaps it is the outrageous nature of her claims, “there is no such thing as society” and so on. Perhaps it is her disgusting claim to Christianity, based, so far as I can see, on nothing else than a profound self-righteousness and the assumption that self-righteousness is a Christian characteristic. Perhaps it is her vulgarity – the thing that got her inevitably to agree with Murdoch the supervulgarian. Perhaps it is her support for abortion at all points, and the fact that she made British anti-aborts homeless by remaking the Tory Party in her image. (In wanting to import “gay marriage” “because I am a conservative”, David Cameron is not being outrageous, but her coherent successor.) But above all, it is her damned and utter absence of any sense of humour. That the woman lied, misrepresented herself, insulted and demonized any kind of opponents, worked hard to destroy every kind of check and balance in the State, ordered murders, and more or less unleashed a thinly disguised civil war against the trades unions, as a part of which she deliberately destroyed the manufacturing sector of the sometime Workshop of the World; none of this would make me so sick and enraged if it wasn’t for her steady, shameless, unfeeling complacency and vanity. The woman’s voice, to this day, makes me grit my teeth in rage.

              • Rebecca Hamilton

                I’m going to allow this with a proviso.

                This discussion is getting too purple. Former Prime Minister Thatcher was a huge force in British history and world history. She was also a strong person who knew what she believed and stuck with it. That is exactly how one becomes a huge force in history.

                I think it is fine to discuss her policies. But I am going to stop any attacks on the woman herself from now on. Separate the policies from the person.

                • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

                  Let’s talk about her politics, then. Because one thing is important: there was no such thing. Her politics were all over the place. Privatization was hardly mentioned in her first platforms, but became a mania when she found that she could bribe voters by giving them nominal shares in formerly state-owned companies which the state continued, and continues, to subsidize. (I wish the American expression “Boondoggle” were better known in Britain, because the whole privatization epic was just the grossest and hugest boondoggle known to man. And when you are born in Italy you are apt to have a demanding palate for public corruption.) She got Ian Smith to surrender Rhodesia, but supported racist South Africa. She claimed to be anti-communist, but refused to give a home to the most desperate victims of Communism, declared that “we can do business” with Gorbachev when the latter was trying to reform and strengthen Communism, and when Communism collapsed she tried to stop the end of one of the grossest injustices of the Cold War, the division of Germany. She made trouble in Europe every time she could, but she signed the Treaty of Maastricht – and then went back to behaving exactly as though she had never heard of it. She had IRA members murdered, but when the IRA showed its appreciation with the Brighton bomb she suddenly discovered the justice of Irish claims, and within a year had signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Her policy was more pro-American than any British PM before her had ever been, but even so she seems to have got very few of Ronnie Reagan’s memos. When Reagan overthrew a Communist outpost in Grenada, she was furious – Grenada was a Commonwealth country, and she hadn’t been told! More seriously, she did not get the memo about democracy. One thing I will concede to Reagan is that he really and truly believed in democracy, and that it is no coincidence that parliamentary free elections spread all over the Americas in his time. In particular, it was he who informed the Chilean murderer Pinochet that the game was up and that he would do himself a lot of good by just going in a dignified manner. This meant, among other things, that the West did not have to look like a bunch of hypocrites, with their friendly Fascist murderers in tow, when the Wall came down and democracy reached Eastern Europe. But who did Pinochet go to whine about those nasty Communist liars who were so bitterly complaining about being murdered? To Margaret Thatcher. What a wonderful example of consistency, principle, democratic discipline, and intellectual honesty. Frankly, I would have felt worse if she had been against abortion.

                • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

                  That is a very small amount of my problem with her policies, but touch some of the less well known areas. You might start practically from anywhere – the Al Yamamah arms deal, the de-indistrialization of the country, her rude and unhelpful behaviour to Israel, the race riots – and go on for hours. And I’m afraid that sooner or later you get to her character, because her character is a destructive force in everything that happened in this country in the last thirty years.

  • pagansister

    Just keep thinking that at one time those that owned slaves were using religion to support their holds. At one time people of different races couldn’t marry—of course that is considered OK now because it is still a M/F union. After marriage is granted to everyone, it will not be an item to agree or disagree about. Life will go on, and children of both heterosexual and homosexual marriages will grow up and be able to marry those they choose. Yes, it is true, M/M and F/F can’t biologically have their own child, but options abound. Everyone doesn’t have to agree with those options. This country will be fine—-it isn’t a country run by a particular religion, which is a good thing. It is, of course, the job of religion to offer their opinion, and to try and persuade those in power to rethink their votes. This country is a democracy. Not on topic, but I still have a very hard time with how the government in this country can reinstate the automatic weapons ban, or at least limit the number of rounds sold. And how do you not agree to background checks for anyone at any location cause a problem—unless you’re scared of that check. Sorry. The legislators worry about same gender marriages when IMO gun control laws are more important. England has banned guns—–a long time ago.

    • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com: neenergyobserver

      Reference slavery, that is obviously true but, it is just as true that Christianity, and only Christianity, abolished slavery where it held sway. Did it take too long, sure, but nobody else ever did it at all, unless I missed something, which is, I suppose, possible. I haven’t seen Rebecca pushing a theocracy anyway, and a lot of us take the libertarian viewpoint on this one, it’s none of the government business.

      Yep, England, Australia, and Canada, and the murder rate went up in all 3. Heinlein said it best. “An armed society is a polite society.” Background checks don’t work for a couple reasons, one they won’t be run fairly especially the mental health segment, see the news from New York in the last couple days, and second, the primary purpose of the 2d amendment is to prevent government tyranny, how’s that gonna work when they know where every weapon is? That’s why we have a Constitution, and why the Brits are defenseless in their homes. And why I worry about my co-author.

    • Theodore Seeber

      The ONLY good I can see come out of Same Sex Marriage- is the possibility that by allowing it, we will in a few short generations no longer have any homosexuals left to do it.

      They will have bred themselves out of the gene pool.

      • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

        The trouble is that homosexuality is not genetic in origin, as proven by the numerous cases of identical twins of whom one is and one isn’t. I know of one such couple myself.

  • pagansister

    OOPS: correction —-”—-how the government in this country CAN’T reinstate the automatic weapons ban or at least limit the number of rounds sold.”

    • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com: neenergyobserver

      Huh? Automatic weapons have been nearly unobtainable since the National firearms Act of 1934, and production banned since 1996, and as soon as God himself tells me how many rounds I need in a confrontation that will be fine. Until then, I prefer my judgement to some clown in Washington driven by poll numbers.

    • Theodore Seeber

      Yep, because limiting the number of rounds sold at any given time certainly won’t cause hording, right?

      • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com: neenergyobserver

        Heh, Suppress a free market and cause a black market , paraphrased from WSC

  • pagansister

    Indeed, neenergyobserver, then explain how all those children and teachers got killed in Newtown, or how all those movie goes in Colorado were killed—both instances with the same type automatic weapon? If indeed fewer bullets had been spewed and the killer had to reload, maybe, just maybe a child wouldn’t have died. Yes, perhaps hard to get—but not hard enough. How many bullets does one need to hunt a deer? If production has been banned then how did those killers get hold of them? Still don’t think anyone but law enforcement and the military need AK 47′s or automatic weapons. Are you in one of those 2 organizations? As for God getting into this—-isn’t God against killing? (except in the OT). Part of the problem is the NRA buying the elected officials and support in Washington. At least the leaders of the NRA—pushing the agenda against getting their precious side arms limited. Really, one needs an AK47 etc. to protect themselves and their family or to hunt with? no.

    • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com: neenergyobserver

      Pagansister, in neither case was an automatic weapon involved period, full stop. With any weapon if you are familiar with it you can change magazines in 1 second or less, so you have perhaps a 5 second difference in shooting a hundred rounds from 2- 50 round magazines or 10- 10 round magazines, that’ll fix it.

      How many rounds do I need to defend myself from a Mexican drug cartel is a more accurate answer. The answer is always that no one has ever said, gee, i wish I hadn’t brought extra ammunition. You don’t HAVE to shoot it. (Incidentally the current issue rifle in the US army no longer fires full-auto either) And how many do I need to stopped a 1500 pound grizzly mauling my family?

      In Newtown and the Colorado theater the victims were sitting in a clearly marked target zone, what would have happened if in the 1st 5 seconds, the shooter were caught in defilade. The answer is a lot less casualties.

      God is against murder, he has no problem at all with self defense including armed self defense. St. Thomas More had much to say on this.

      Ah the boogeyman NRA, they have credibility with us because they trained millions of us to shoot well and safely, we listen and we act when they talk, and because of that Congress listens too, because we will act on their recommendations, their financial support is inconsequential in real terms. Don’t believe that? Lets see what Rebecca has to say about it

      • Theodore Seeber

        I usually find that one shot from a higher caliber rifle does the same job as 15 shots from the toys Matel sells to the US Army.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          This is getting a little too graphic here Ted.

    • Theodore Seeber

      Because the last Assault Rifle ban encouraged ownership of AR-15s when they banned AK-47s.

  • SteveP

    Rebecca writes: “It’s been kind of fun for me, watching them step up to the mike and explain how god (little g,) evolution, their philosophical understanding and reasoning abilities, as well as family and friends have finally made them come to this secular jesus (little j) and get turned around facing forward at last.”

    It has been fun indeed! I’ve been making cash-register noises in the background between handfuls of popcorn. Then I get myself to confession for taking such pleasure in other’s buffoonery. Well, not for taking pleasure per se but in letting the buffoon fill my eyes crowding out the Image.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    “Put not your trust in princes.”

    The Constitution is a nicely written document. For a while, we actually tried to follow it, and it worked, as long as we put God first. Then, we got wealthy, selfish, and narcissistic. America’s days are numbered.

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~ John Adams

    “”Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

    Masters is what we are getting now. Our leaders are selfish, morally empty elitists.

  • http://jessicahof.wordpress.com Jessica Hoff

    Fabio – interesting thoughts on Mrs T but marred by serious errors.

    The Roberts’ were not rich. He ran a corner shop, and he became mayor for the same reason other councillors do – it was his turn. She did not apply to do Law, indeed she could not have done as it was not then a subject Oxford taught; she matriculated to do Chemistry and graduated in that subject. Dennis Thatcher was not ‘an oil millionaire’ (where do you think she lived, Texas?), he made his money in paint and plastics and only became a millionaire when he sold the business later. There was no ‘intimate’ relationship between Murdoch and Thatcher. Privatisation was not the beginning of the orgy of debt – that was the EU and Blair/Brown relaxing the rules on banks.

    If you are wrong, as you are, on such well-known facts, I see no reason to trust your very dodgy interpretation of other facts. If your mind is unchanging that may be because it is not as well-informed as you appear to think.

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      You don’t get to be Mayor and chief alderman if yo u are poor. It may be hard to imagine in modern Britain, where every shop is part of a chain, but a place like Alderman Roberts’ was one of the centres of the town, and people went there for everything. He was decidedly not poor or lower-class, and the opposite is only a myth industriously spread by his daughter.
      She matriculated to do Chemistry and graduated to do that subject at a time when science students were the only ones exempted from the draft (which meant working in factories or the fields in the place of men who had gone to the Front). That ought to be remembered by anyone who thinks of her as a patriot; although it perhaps was more patriotic to change, at the same time, her name from the aggressive and Teutonic “Hilda” to the softer-sounding Margaret. As soon as she could get out of chemistry, she did, and never looked back. A couple of years’ employment in ice cream making does not amount to a career in chemistry. As it happens, we have the example of Angela Merkel to see what a real live chemist looks like and what she does – even if she happens to like politics on the side. And people certainly could go on to practice law from Oxford, and did.
      Your claims about Dennis Thatcher are nothing short of ridiculous. The owner of a multi-million pound company is a millionaire, and Thatcher owned such a company. It made oil derivatives, including plastics and paint. Are you telling me that he was one of the hopeful poor while he employed hundreds of people and dealt in million-pound budgets? In the nineteen-fifties? Please.

      As for your silliness about the EU and Blair/Brown, this is nothing more than Thatcherite boilerplate. I was there. I saw it happen. I wrote letters and essays, some of which I kept, telling my friends and family that you cannot build an economy on inflated housing prices, and that the country was going to pay for it. Don’t tell someone who was there and has the documents that he is wrong about matter of fact.

  • Abb3w

    An awful lot of your polemic could easily have been applied by an anti-abolitionist to politicians who switched to become abolitionists. While its something less likely to be noticed by or to bother when noticed by the more determined opponents to gay marriage, it seems likely such arguments risk a backfire effect on those only marginally committed to traditional marriage who spot such similarities.

    Of course, it may be that it’s too hard to present a persuasive argument that can’t be cast in that light, in which case trying is a waste of effort.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X