Get PJ Media on your Apple

A CPAC Case for De-emphasizing Abortion and Gay Marriage

Charles Murray: “We are not going to win these issues through legislative victories,” or win younger voters.

by
Bill Straub

Bio

March 15, 2013 - 7:36 pm
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Murray said activists don’t have to abandon their opposition to Roe v. Wade but they should emphasize alternatives like adoption and birth control to limit the instances.

Despite maintaining friendly relations with several gay couples, some of whom he described as doting parents, Murray said he has not been able to embrace the concept of gay marriage, citing the conservative doctrine of tradition.

“I still think it’s a dangerous thing in a philosophical sense,” he said. “But I’m not going to go to the barricades to prevent the passage of laws that permit gay marriage.”

Murray suggested that issues like abortion and gay marriage no longer be imposed as a litmus test on Republican candidates in order to help them attract younger voters.

“We are not going to win these issues through legislative victories,” he said. “It’s going to happen only through moral persuasion and cultural change. There’s a real shot at making it a moral decision of the greatest sort. A lot of people going to buy into that instead of trying to make it illegal.”

And that, he said, will benefit the Republican Party which serves as “the vehicle through which to return to power.”

More:

GOProud at CPAC: ‘There Are a Few in Our Movement Who Just Don’t Like Gay People’

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Washington freelancer Bill Straub is former White House correspondent for Scripps Howard News Service.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
So if I understand this recommendation, we can do what the churches have been doing for 40 years to attract membership, cater to the popular culture and stand for nothing but the hope of membership.

That hasn't worked out very well for the church.

I think I'll pass and still call abortion what it is: infanticide; I'll still call the idea of gay "marriage" an abomination too. If that makes someone uncomfortable, tough ____.

If you're asking me to fudge on principles to accommodate an amoral young crowd, no thanks. You can trade my and my families vote for the youth vote and call it a wash. And you'll still lose.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I agree with Zeke1. There are many many important issues at stake in our nation today.
The religious beliefs of a percentage of the Republican party are being used as a club to smash the headway that years of hard work have created in other important issues.
I agree that abortion is wrong. I also know that this is a facet of my religious and moral beliefs. I also know that other people do not share those same religious and moral beliefs. Amazingly enough for some of you, that is allowed in this country.
I don't care what two or more consenting adults do in their spare time. I also know this is a facet of my religious and moral beliefs. I also know that other people do not share those same religious and moral beliefs. This is also allowed in this country.
By being shrill and emphatic in trying to *inflict* the beliefs that you or I have on people who simply do not share those beliefs you are holding back this entire country from making any progress in conservative choices in politics.
Could it be that making progress in other areas will free up the minds and spirits of these people so they can be more readily convinced of your points?
Can you make allowances that other people are working on other things that are important as well and that your well meaning but damaging arguments on forums and in public discussions are turning away people that might be reachable with some patience and some (dare I say it) tact?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Zoe is correct:

How do you intend to make people consider your positions if you are too much of a coward to openly stand for them?

Regardless of how uncomfortable social conservatism makes our libertarian friends feel, social conservatism is an important part of what defines conservatism in the US – get rid of it and you alienate your voter base. Doesn’t anybody remember the last election? Romney focused almost entirely upon the economy and nobody listened.

Part of this is a cultural battle that will never be changed in the political arena. We live in a culture that has shunned responsibility: it has destroyed our economy, bloated our federal government, and warped our sense of national morality. Social and political change comes in our culture, and thus far, next to nothing has been done to alter it. That said, culture is not everything; the ruling of a single judge struck the entire state of California from banning gay marriage. If the people of California are not comfortable with gay marriage – the most hard-left state in this nation – I don’t think we should worry about the rest of the nation feeling otherwise.

Another part is that Republicans stumble like idiots every single time they are confronted with these issues; firstly because they have no moral backbone of their own (they want to say whatever is the consensus), but also because they never prepare for the criticism they will face. Remember Todd Akin out west? While attempting to state an accurate statistic – that rape-based pregnancies are rare – he fumbled the cause as to why and the entire party threw him under the bus. The position stated above, that abortion should stay but “not be taken lightly” is already the party platform. Call me old-fashioned, but I always felt that killing another human being was a practice reserved for executing convicted felons and protecting myself from mortal danger. Killing an infant because it is unwanted or unplanned – that sounds like murder to me.

I guess it just boils down to this: if conservatives cannot stand up for conservative principles, then they shouldn’t call themselves conservatives to begin with. I’m having an increasingly difficult time telling the two parties apart as it is.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (159)
All Comments   (159)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
So why do ye desire for the GOP to become pro-abortion?
The Truth is all babies are born looking like communist and need training to become good at socializing so maybe the spirit in the air controlling peoples thoughts and feelings lust to stamp out communism by killing all the inferior babies and their will be no rebellion rebel babies which is the reason why China has their pro abortion policy to nip rebellion in the bud
If those 50 million USA babies murdered in their mommies tummy were born and grew up it is very likely we would not like them.
This is why we must see the three Abraham faiths unite in USA to oppose atheist Communist Capitalist Red China Super power direction and we will like all the babies born into our USA world because it is easy to get them to agree with us
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
HOLD! The North Dakota legislature just voted to heavily restrict abortion. Others will likely follow.

Now that we are finally starting to get somewhere on the issue, we should surrender? Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Make marriage a religious issue/Union.

Have the legal contractual Union covered by the state.
That was easy!!

If the issue goes to the SCOTUS gay marriage will be upheld. With the equal protection clause 3-way, polygamy etc.. will have to be upheld also. Once you go outside of 1 man 1 women there is no limiting factor. We have a constitution, Sweden doesn't polygamy will pass.
The Mormons and the Mussulmen can't wait.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why would SCOTUS uphold it?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Let's stop conflating the abortion issue and the gay issue as if they're linked somehow.

SoCons have a much better moral case to make to America's young about being pro-life, than about being anti-gay or even just anti-gay marriage.

Being pro-life means just that: Defending the right to life of the innocent unborn child. Even those who don't agree can at least acknowledge the moral issue there.

Whereas when you're against same-sex marriage, or even against homosexuality itself, then WHOM or WHAT are you trying to defend???

Defending an institution created by men (such as marriage, slavery, etc.) is NOT on the same moral plane as defending innocent human life itself.

Institutions created by men can be changed or even abolished by men.

Slavery had existed for thousands of years. Whites in the antebellum South were sincerely trying to defend that institution. We now know that they were wrong to do so.

So the argument that "Let's preserve marriage as a traditional institution" just doesn't have anywhere near the same moral force as "Let's stop unborn children from being killed solely for convenience's sake."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is such a mixed bag I don't know which way to go on it.

But I will add to your argument that it would be easier to get an honest Libertarian with you on the abortion issue.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Wrong.

If someone wants to create a new form of marriage, it is up to those who favor that new form of marriage to make the case for it. That requires something more than "I wanna"---particularly when the demand comes from a movement founded on the principle of destroying the institution of marriage.

That case has not been made by the proponents.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They are linked because the crowd of ignorant homophobes (e.g. "being gay is a choice") campaigning against gays getting hitched just so happens to be the same crowd carrying on about abortion 40 years after the fact. It's also the same crowd carrying on about school vouchers as a way to disguise the fact that they want to enforce teaching of that which ain't evolution.

The common linkage here is fundamentalists/evangelicals or whatever this group is calling themselves these days, and they are on the wrong side of everything they touch.

If this is apparent to me -- a GOP voter -- do you *really* think you're fooling anyone at all, much less the left?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A voucher would keep ignorant yahoos like you from forcing your theories down my children's throat. (Note: I don't care about evolution one way or another. I know scientists who are for and agaisnt it. There are other things I don't want you forcing down our throats.)

Or do you claim ownership over our children?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thank you for completely destroying any sort of case you intended to make.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The number of moronic and irrelevant ad hominems, presumptions, and stereotypes, and snippets of meaningless jargon you manage to cram into a brief comment is really quite breathtaking.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So you deny that the anti-abortion people are the same as the anti-gay people?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Please define what you mean by "anti-gay."

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They are linked. They are both the policy agenda of the Left with the purpose of deconstructing Western Civilization by attacking it at the foundation of it's success, the traditional nuclear family.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is a good point. You can be heroes and save unborn children in many people's eyes.
Whereas if you fight against gay rights you are denying something to someone.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I would actually agree with you here. Too bad you and your friend couldn't see that you could make a much better case for your cause by making precisely this point.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Apologize. Mixed you up with another poster.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
* Walks in and sets down a packet of papers*
I firmly believe that what happens between two or more consenting adults who are not me -and are not in my presence when they do whatever they do- Is None Of My Business.
I have spoken with a number of homosexual people, both men and women.
One named Darnell had a reputation for insinuating herself into a heterosexual relationship and gradually influencing the women to break up with the men. Then she would dump the women.
One was my college roommate. I shared a five bedroom apartment with six guys in college. Five of us were and still are heterosexual. One was a little effeminate and we teased him about it. One day he walked in and told us he was gay. One of the roommates moved out that night. The rest of us had nowhere else to go so didn't make any sudden decisions. (This was in the late eighties....Gay wasn't as out as it is now) After a couple of days none of us was attacked by a rabid homosexual or really made uncomfortable or anything. Eventually it was business as usual, except no one got upset if a girlfriend went into Pat's bedroom unescorted.
One was a really attractive woman. I asked her out a few times as we worked free lance in programming and would run into one another infrequently. She was always nice and polite and actually I had to be told by another guy that she was committed to her female roommate. I asked her about it and she said that she simply was attracted to women. I was inconsolable for a month or two.
One was a stripper. She was in a relationship with another female stripper. The second stripper was dealing with serious mental issues and eventually committed suicide, leaving behind a young son. The first stripper eventually married a Christian man and bore him a daughter. They were married happily for a number of years. Now she has divorced that man and is in a relationship with another woman.
One was a young man who was the victim of an ex-girlfriend of mine. . A girlfriend that I had broken up with after she slept with another man fed this homosexual a line about how I was a potential partner for him. I don't find men attractive at all so he was out of luck. I was frankly not as understanding or Christian as I should have been when I found out what was going on. He and she got some hurt feelings.

How many of you that have these positions on gay rights and abortion have actually met someone your decisions will affect?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Have you ever met someone who wanted a normal relgious life, married with a member of the opposite sex, and was discouraged or even stopped from getting help because he (or she, but to me it's less of an issue) was told it was "wrong" to try to change? Or legally prevented from getting help because of laws like those in California?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
*walks in and sets down a package of papers*
I will just set this down here.....
I believe that abortion is wrong. There is a Supreme Court decision that says that my belief is not law in this country. I can accept that. I do not bomb abortion clinics or shoot abortion practitioners or persecute women or children who have had abortions.
I read the bible and it pretty clearly states that Jesus wants his people to hate the sin and not the sinner.
(If you dare quote Old Testament lines at me I will point out that a case can be made if you place the Old Testament over the words of Jesus Christ himself then you are basically a Jew and not a Christian.)
I have spoken with a number of women who have not had perfect lives. Four of the women I spoke with had abortions for various reasons.
One was from a heavily religious family and had been beaten badly when her family found out she was no longer a virgin. She honestly was afraid that her parents might kill her if she turned up pregnant. So she got an abortion. She regrets the choice. She has not told her parents and has since married the man who got her pregnant. She has three other children now and is a moderate Christian.
One was a junkie. Hooked on Heroin and pain pills crushed up and injected directly into her veins. She got pregnant from some young man she was doing drugs with. She was forty when she found out she was pregnant. She feared that her health problems (Hepatitis C and AIDS) would make the pregnancy fatal for either or both parties involved. She got the abortion. She is still using drugs (as far as I know). No known religious affiliation.
One was twelve when she got pregnant. Her father ran out on the family when she was four. Her mother worked two part time jobs and was a full time alcoholic and part time drug user. The individual who got her pregnant was unwilling to be involved in her life. She bore that child. She raised that child, working multiple part time jobs. She was an excellent mother by all accounts. Then to prevent any further unwanted pregnancies she signed up to get some contraceptive that was embedded under the skin in her arm. It was a liberal government program. After several years she got married to a Christian man and was living a Christian life. She was notified by the government that the device embedded in her arm was killing a certain percentage of the women who had had it installed. She had it removed. She got pregnant almost immediately and found out that the device also caused terrible deformities in children conceived too quickly after its removal and aborted that pregnancy.
She has since had three more children by that Christian man and is living a Christian life.
The fourth young woman was promiscuous and made her boyfriends pay for the abortions she had. Now she is married and unable to have children due to uterine scarring.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I agree that abortion is wrong. However, let me point out that Jesus most likely wanted us Christians to still follow the old testament. If he didn't, please explain why the Old Testament is still in our bibles, and Jesus did not... you know... have a bonfire with all the Old Testament scrolls as fuel for the fire declaring them to no longer be of any use to him his father or his followers anymore? If they truly no longer matter in terms of New Testament followers or to the holy trinity, he would have burned them. Besides, Jesus himself made clear that several Old Testament laws still very much apply, even without that hypothetical scenario obviously not happening. And I'm a Roman Catholic, a devout one not to mention.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You know, at one time slavery was like that. Outside of New England, abolitionists were considered radical nuts.

For that matter, I'm sure that burning Jews took people's minds of their problems. Or being able to look down on one's Black neighbor took one's mind of the fact that one was a dirt-poor farmer.

Ah, but these affect other people. Well, isn't that the issue?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If all of this is so, then why is North Dakota on the verge of close to outlawing abortion? And who knows how many states will follow?

We are being told to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The problem is that this may become a tactical victory but will be an eventual strategic defeat.
Hypothetical scenario:
The law in North Dakota is passed.
Some liberal lawyer with too much free time on his hands files suit that this law is unconstitutional. Roe vs Wade is invoked and the law is struck down. Liberals use this as evidence of some huge moral victory. People across America get to read the liberal masses crowing about their victory.
The end result would be a public relations gain for the liberals and a loss of headway for people in other states who are trying to gain votes and thus power in other areas. It might be better to work to gain ground across the board and get enough control to get a Constitutional Amendment made that outlaws abortion entirely.
Play the long game. It might take five or ten or fifteen years but it will take the liberals decades to get an Amendment changed if they can do it at all.
Take the time to choose your battles and get a decisive victory at the national level instead of back and forth skirmishing at the state level.
And I *know* that you are going to attack me saying that children are dying every day. But if state legislatures in democrat controlled states pass laws that ratify abortion or define legal rights for abortion then the work to get that abolished will take more and more time. And more children will die while that happens.
If we can keep the Democrats busy (and distracted) on 2nd Amendment issues and other less critical issues we can potentially gain enough ground overall to get an Amendment to the Constitution to really put paid to the Abortion issue. Treat this like a combat offensive. We need more ground under our control overall. This will get the Republican party more control at the national level. National laws trump state laws. An Amendment to the Constitution trumps Roe vs Wade.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It is not the religious community that is trying to impose it's values on the " progressives " ( now there is an oxymoron of the first order as it is they that are trying to bring us back to the days of child sacrifice and illicit sexuality ) rather it is the " progressives " who are trying to impose their will on people of faith.
No one is monitoring what happens in the bedrooms of others. Yet when a photographer declines to work at a same-sex wedding they are likely to be sued. When a doctor refuses to perform an abortion the same fate awaits.
It is not homosexuality that is under attack in the United States it is religious freedom.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No, by fighting against civil rights of gays the religious community is certainly attempting to impose its values. People don't choose to be gay, no matter what you interpret from your holy books, and discrimination against them for being gay is no different than discrimination against people for having different skin colour.

What you advocate is an *excuse* for discrimination, not a position. Try advocating a position instead.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
See comment below. I don't care if people are born that way or not. I have OCD; would you prevent me from getting treatment because I can't cure it? Yet if I had homosexual tendencies and wanted to live a life within my religion, you would keep me from getting help, as per California.

Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else. They can marry member sof the opposite sex, or stay single.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Please post evidence of people being sued for refusing to photograph people or perform abortions.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They're attacking bakeries. Not much difference.

The funny part is that if I was a photographer, I wouldn't even do a religious intermarriage, much less a homosexual "wedding".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
California just passed a law limiting the help religious people with homosexual tendencies can get for dealing with the problem. You are practicing an intolerant religion and persecuting those who won't follow it.

Biology is not destiny.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Biology is not destiny?" Call me when a male-to-female "transgender" gives birth.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Senate Bill 1172 bans therapies meant to “convert” gay, lesbian or bisexual MINORS into heterosexuals.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/news/2012/12/new-california-laws-beginning-2013#ixzz2NonOZ77X

It says absolutely nothing about adults who wish to be reprogrammed.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
“Gay Marriage” is an oxymoron. Everyone knows that marriage is seldom gay, not for long anyway. If marriage were gay it would be an economic catastrophe. Just think of how many lawyers would be out of work. Lawyers are a very shady lot by nature to begin with and if they were out of high pay for little effort employment who knows what even worse criminal mischief they would be up to.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Rule of Law is better than Rule of Man (Religious/Secularist, Progressive...)
and _much_ better than Rule by Force. The hour is getting late, people;
Time to choose sides and get your game on, or lose by default.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All