November 9, 2007

Why am I not a "Values Voter"? Since I am not as socially conservative as these family values, pro-life, evangelical groups, does that mean I do not have any values? Quite frankly, I take offense to the name "values voters." Just because my values are more liberal does not mean that I am "no good" or that I will ultimately be responsible for the destruction of western civilization. I would argue that I am just as much, if not more in support of the family than these so-called "family values" groups. Society has evolved and continues to evolve. What is the "traditional family" of today was a radical idea just over a century ago. In another century the traditional family of today will be seen as antiquated and backwards (what the "family" will look like in a hundred years, I have no idea, but follow the pattern of history).

In the United States, we proclaim ourselves to be an enlightened people. We are advanced technologically, economically, socially and politically. And yet there are striking deficiencies in all of these categories. Socially, we claim to have a society based on justice and equality. But in reality, the you are only equal if you have enough money and the same sexual preference, otherwise, you are inferior. Today, justice is better served to those with the money to buy it, that is to say, if you have enough money to buy a lawyer with more resources at his disposal than the state's prosecuting attorney then you have a better chance of receiving "justice" (in other words, you can better afford to buy an acquittal). In the battle over what is an "acceptable" family, money plays a large role. Lower income families must have at least two incomes to make ends meet, sometimes three. The third could be one parent having two jobs, or the oldest child working hours after school. This is all assuming that this family has two parents at all. But this situation is not a problem because the parents were obviously heterosexual and able to procreate with each other. Statistically speaking, a single-parent family is more likely to have children that find trouble because of the lack of guidance and supervision while the single-parent is working multiple jobs to make ends meet. The level of academic success tends to be lower in these families creating a cycle of poverty. But, this is an acceptable family according to the "values voters." Unacceptable, however, would be a married homosexual couple that wants to adopt a child. Although no one has been able to successfully explain to me why this would be unacceptable, I fully understand that portions of our evolved society would deem this type of family as undermining to marriage and family values. I argue, if a family is a place that exists a safe, loving, nurturing environment, then why can't the result of a same-sex marriage be considered a family? Wouldn't it be better for a child to have this type of arrangement in a family where both parents are of the same sex than to have a child grow up in a situation where the single parent is absent?

The "sanctity of life" is yet another important issue for "values voters." In their mind abortion is not an option. In this case I am not going to argue for or against abortion, but simply point out the hypocrisy of this philosophy. Too often do pro-life voters support the death penalty. Explain how supporting the death penalty protects the "sanctity of life?"

I am appalled at the ignorance of many members of this demographic. Listen to this excerpt from a special on NPR. I hope you are as afraid of the future as I am if these voters get their way in upcoming elections.

http://www.billiondollarpresident.org/2007/11/06/values-voters/