repubgazette5-17-07falwelladamsteresamojoturkey

Having Fun

With Mojo

This is the last thing I'm going

to say about that darned turkey!

Hey kids! Governor Manchin here! A lot of people are still wondering how the director of the Division of Natural Resources, Frank Jezioro, managed to give a detailed account of my recent hunting trip, when I said later he wasn't even with me! I am tired of being asked about this! This will be the last thing I have to say about it! OK, here's the true story. After I braved cold, heat, rain and treacherous terrain to track Mr. Gobbler, I nailed him with one clean shot! Then, I loaded Mr. Gobbler over my shoulder and trekked back down the hill, where I spotted Mr. Jezioro fishing nearby! After I told him about my exciting turkey hunt, Mr. J said, "Governor, you have to let me tell everybody about this!" So I said, "Ok!" So he called my press office and gave them all the exciting details, and even added some things! And my press office put out a press release, quoting him! What's the big deal? It's no different than every other press release we do -- I do something all by myself, I tell other people the details, and they add stuff to make it even more exciting! That's how it works!

In fact, they are entirely correct, although there is nothing negative about it. Personally, I have no use for television evangelists, with the possible exception of Billy Graham, and the only reason he is an exception is because he typically does not spend half his air time asking for donations.

But Falwell was better than, say, Pat Robertson, who always struck me as basically nuts. I consider myself a fundamentalist, if fundamentalism is defined as believing the Bible is literally true. But I also do not believe God speaks audibly to anyone, and hasn't since the last word in the Book of Revelations was penned. There's a reason the Bible is called the "Word of God," i.e., it has all the words of God we need. So when Robertson claimed once in a while that God had spoken directly to him, he lost me completely. Falwell avoided such bunk.

My greatest admiration and appreciation for Falwell by far was on a political level. Through the latter half of the 20th century, Bible-believing Christians had slowly been losing influence and voice in the direction of the country. Particularly through the 1960s and 1970s, liberal court decisions had seemed hellbent, pardon the expression, on siding with the secularists on every question. Abortion was made legal, and even that Sunday school teacher elected to the White House in 1976 turned out to be just another bleeding heart liberal.

Meanwhile, everyone was forming their own special interest group. Blacks, Hispanics, women, union members, gun owners, farmers and lawyers all seemed to have organized voices in the world of politics. There were certainly Christians among them, but they were not overtly focused on issues of faith.

Falwell recognized that middle American church-going Christians represented by far the largest single constituency in the United States, if they would only get motivated and organized. Falwell turned out to have one of the best political minds in America, being among the first to plan and implement targeted get-out-the-vote campaigns, flooding churches with professionally-produced literature and pamphlets, and urging Christians to say their prayers, but then get up and go put their beliefs into action at the ballot box. (These practices were later perfected even further by Pat Robertson's protege, Ralph Reed.)

At the same time, an ex-actor and California governor was making another run for the presidency, and it was, perhaps literally, a match made in Heaven. Ronald Reagan was touting a return to traditional values and demonizing the word "liberal" to the degree that after a while even the most leftwing of politicians ran from that label like vampires from crosses.

Reagan, with the help of the newly-mobilized Christian establishment and other conservative forces, made short work of Jimmy Carter and never looked back, and Falwell was suddenly a regular on the White House guest list. To this day, the Republican Party has remained as much in Falwell's image as Reagan's, even if the preacher's name is not invoked as often as the Gipper's by GOP aspirants to the White House.

There are moderate Republicans who have never forgiven Falwell for what he did, but the reality is that without the Christian right, the GOP would not be able to compete today with the factionalized but many coalitions that make up the crazy quilt of the Democrats.

There are those who say religion has no place in politics, but I do not understand that reasoning. Political decisions have direct and often immediate effect on matters of faith. Whether it is in regard to abortion, or public displays on government property, or even what is taught in public schools, the link between politics and religion is unavoidable. Why religion should surrender its half of the equation is beyond me.

Christians should not be allowed to force their will on American society. America is all about protection of the minority, and guaranteeing the freedom to practice the religion of one's choice is all that keeps us from being a theocracy. But Christians should possess and exercise every right that other Americans have to organize, mobilize and make their voices heard.

The degree to which Christians have exercised those rights over the past quarter of a century is largely a result of the vision of Jerry Falwell, and that is the legacy he leaves.

By Bob Adams

Maryland’s High Court will soon issue a dramatic ruling, a potentially stunning decision to strike down the common sense definition of marriage as an archaic expression of hatred and bigotry that must be stamped out under law.

Those who have closely followed the Maryland court case expect the worst from our neighbor to the north. As the destructive drama is anticipated to unfold, seven un-elected judges will find Maryland’s marriage laws unconstitutional, divining a “right to marry” for gays and lesbians into the Maryland Constitution.

An obedient Democrat majority in the legislature remains compliant as Maryland’s ambitious Governor Martin O’Malley hails the decision as "progress" against decades of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Maryland law does not require residency for a marriage license. The consequences of an adverse ruling, therefore, ought to send shockwaves through neighboring states.

Gays and lesbians from West Virginia could "marry" in Maryland and return back home to file lawsuits demanding legal recognition in the Mountain State.

This would not only increase the chances of a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in the federal courts, but guarantee legal chaos in the states.

But if it should happen the Maryland judiciary falls short in its decision, Massachusetts stands ready to dump the toxic waste of the same-sex marriage over state lines.

In fact, in Massachusetts -- the only state that currently allows same-sex marriage -- Governor Deval Patrick has proposed legislation to void a 1913 law that requires residency for a marriage license.

Whether it is Maryland or Massachusetts, the Machiavellian outcome is the same.

Most West Virginians consider so-called “gay marriage” so offensive they prefer not even to talk about it.

But whether we like it or not, radical activists from across the country continue to relentlessly force this debate upon America, and West Virginia cannot ignore joining the fray.

In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is all that stands in the way of legislatively approved same-sex marriage.

In New York State, Governor Elliot Spitzer considers the destruction of marriage a legislative priority of his Administration. In New Jersey, most expect the Garden State to fall in only a matter of time.

Radical activists have launched perhaps a dozen or more lawsuits designed to strike down marriage laws in state and federal courts nationwide.

So why does West Virginia sleep?

That question would best be posed to the majority leadership of the House and Senate, but more specifically to House Judiciary Chair Carrie Webster and Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler, who have both consistently thwarted any debate over a constitutional amendment to define marriage.

Governor Joe Manchin is not without fault too, as he has proven time and again -- his priorities are the legislature’s priorities.

Some blame the national Democratic Party, claiming national party leadership holds a lording, heavy hand over us less sophisticated “yokels.”

As the story goes, Democrat activists in Washington actually appoint our chairmen.

Other legislators insist they support traditional marriage, but foremost respect the integrity of the legislative committee process. They hide their vice behind a false virtue of legislative process.

But let the truth be told, if West Virginia legislators were given the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment it would pass widely, giving West Virginia voters the democratic opportunity to decide the future of marriage themselves.

The vast majority of Americans believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

West Virginians want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family, and their future. But what remains to be seen is whether our legislature, facing perhaps the greatest cultural challenge of our time, can pull together enough intestinal fortitude to act.

Bob Adams is an Eastern Panhandle Republican activist who has filed pre-candidacy papers for the 2008 campaign.