Posted on 08/05/2013 2:47:03 PM PDT by Kazan
“The National organization endorsed Rob Portman’s stance on GAY MARRIAGE”
stop lying on this web site! Are you an adult?
No, that is NOT what happened.
A poorly written article, with a bone to pick against NRLC, published a biased and dishonest editorial.
NO NRLC Chapter is allowed to get involved with any other issue but abortion or euthanasia.
LIFE ONLY!
PERIOD!
These are the rules. The local chapter broke the rules.
So, you support dishonesty?
This thread article is dishonest.
NRLC did the right thing, by their bylaws.
PERIOD!
I am just going by the article.
Are there any recent (-ish) examples of NRLC disavowing local chapters on "unrelated" issues, as you cited, school bonds, etc.?
But of course, they have no affiliation with the homosexual activist that distributed their letter before they even sent it to Cleveland Right to Life.
I find this hard to believe. A second article anywhere?
bump
One thing IS for sure. Mr. Portman cannot be prolife. . .there is no offspring in a gay marriage. Therefore no life. . .no pro life. “gay marriage” is an oxymoron.
“I am just going by the article”
Yes, you are! You’ve identified the root of the problem.
https://www.nrlc.org/states/index.html is a National Right to Life website, listing all their state affiliates.
A question has been posed here, asking if other chapters have included things in their mission statements which are not directly related to prolife issues, and if NRTL cut their affiliation as a result. I’m curious about this too.
Unfortunately, when push comes to shove it is evident that some congressmen and congresswomen vote a certain way because of their personal situations (family, finances) rather than following the Constitution, considering the good of the country and if they have any, voting their convictions. You often wonder if some are even being blackmailed. Our country is going down fast. . .I hope there is time for one last Revival.
The gay "marriage" issue is a tougher sell. What real direct harm is it doing to anyone? Especially anyone that doesn't believe in a spiritual world or God? The common counterargument is "Well if you don't think gay marriage is right then don't get married to someone of the same sex!" The average person couldn't give a damn about the "overturning of a centuries old definition of marriage". That is merely a concept to them, and concepts don't get them excited.
But if real people are being really and truly hurt then the case can be made to stop that from happening.
So I think it is important from a strategic point of view that organizations that support right to life issues specifically make no comments one way or the other on these other issues. And even if NRTL does support Rob Portman doesn't mean they support him on everything. How many of us are big Ronald Reagan fans? How many of us agree with his 1986 illegal alien amnesty bill? I am not a supporter of illegal alien amnesty just because I am in general a big fan of Reagan and his presidency. NRTL is not a supporter of gay marriage if they happen to support Rob Portman. If they have gone on record explicitly in support of gay marriage, then I believe they are wrong to do so. It doesn't advance the cause against abortion, and it just muddies the waters in general.
And as far as the "gay marriage" issue being an RTL issue, well here are some others if you're willing to stretch things a bit:
1. 2nd Amendment: If I can't own a gun, I can't protect my right to life when accosted by a criminal
2. Property Rights: If my property rights are infringed then I won't be able to establish a place to make my last stand against a tyrannical regime and/or common criminals.
3. Secondhand Smoke: If we don't stop all smokers from smoking right now and forever more, then I might accidentally inhale some secondhand smoke which might reduce my lifespan by several milliseconds. Horrors!
4. Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare: If I don't have free and easy access to the medical care I need then I could die prematurely.
etc.
How about the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment? Should a prolife organization oppose that?
And I am no longer an affiliate of NRTL. Pack of sick scumbags.
No other Chapters have done something this dumb, recently. This was arrogant on the part of the Chapter, and they knew the rules. They broke the rules.
How about non-recently? Not looking for an argument — but you did bring up school bonds, etc. I would think there are precedents?
Somebody would have had to violate the rules, first, and few Chapters ever have.
Here’s a worthwhile organization to support. An alternative or an addition to Right to Life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.