WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! Alan Keyes' Testimony at the Vermont Statehouse "The family doesn't exist as an institution just in order to gratify those who are part of it" Thank you very much. I've enjoyed the chance to meet all of you and have a chance to chat for a little bit. And I'm thankful for the privilege I've been extended today of sharing thoughts with folks in the state. And it is a privilege, because I think that the prerogative of making these judgements, as I have repeatedly pointed out, does in fact belong to the people of our individual states. I am here today, in the first instance, wishing to affirm that fact, because I'm such a strong believer of federalism I wouldn't want to give anybody the wrong idea. But I do believe that we, in doing the things that we do, have a responsibility to one another, especially when we know what the implications will be of the decisions that we face. One reporter asked me today, how I felt about folks who were saying that this was a decision only for Vermonters, that it really didn't effect anybody else, and we all know that that's not true. The decisions that are being taken, not only here, but in different parts in the country, are decisions that will fundamentally effect both the moral culture and the fundamental institutions of our society for good and all. We are making judgements that could permanently undo not only the basis of our liberty but the basis of our civilization itself. And I don't think we should take this lightly. I look over the course of the last, oh what's it going on now, I hate to think about it, it's going on 30 years, yeah, since I used to have these debates in college, when a lot of these things were first being unrolled and were unfolding in our society, back in the 60's. And we had sexual revolution and we had all kinds of things and people were telling us that this was all going to be without consequence and it was going to be liberation and wonderful, and you can look around you and know that that's not true. And that in point of fact, we unleashed forces that have been devastating to the social fabric, conduct, the character of our people. And that in various ways, unless you're in what I believe is the deep moral crisis in which we find ourselves, a moral crisis that has already reached such a state and condition that in the last several years we have seen the great threat that it proposes to the integrity that we need in order to maintain our institutions of self-government. So the decisions we take, on a day by day basis, as these issues come up, the decisions that have been taken in the past ranging from things like Roe vs. Wade all the way up to whether Vermont or other states are going to adopt 'domestic partnership,' 'civil union,' call it what you will, as a substitute for our protection of the privileged condition of the heterosexual marriage based family, all these decisions have implications. And just as the decisions taken in the 60's and 70's continue to unfold in their consequences before our eyes, so this one will. I don't think we should underestimate the damage that will be done, because we are talking about that institution which is the building block of everything that we know as social reality. And of course, it has not been the case that all societies everywhere had to be built on the foundation of a one man, one woman, heterosexual marriage based family. There have been all kinds of families. But you go back and look through history and you will not find one other, the polyandry, the polygamy, and all of these sorts of other things, NONE OF THEM were characteristics of societies that knew freedom and that sustained liberty. For that you need strong individuals. You need people who do not derive their sense of worth from the government, from the state, even by the way, from the society at large. But instead, people come into that society already confirmed and established in their sense of their individual worth and dignity, because they come from the bosom of families in which individuals are respected as such, as the unique and respected result of a union that exists for their sake. And that of course, is the basis, I believe God given, for the heterosexual marriage based family, has been the basis for both the individuals in a practical sense but also, though I think sometimes we don't think it through, for the very idea of individuals, on which our society is based. And the questions that we're confronted with now, I mean they try to pretend it's all about these rights for that one and so on, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether or not government in this society is going to withdraw, from the heterosexual marriage based family, that respect in law and other regulations which has been accorded to the family from time immemorial, not only by this form of government but by every form of government that has existed in modern civilization. Now I think it's particularly important for ours, but the question goes beyond just this or that kind of politics because we're talking here about fundamental social fabric and we're also talking about a institution that predates the kind of government we now have. And as it predates that government, the assumptions on which our government is based is that people come together first in civil society, right? And then, in their free choice they constitute government, write the constitution, bringing into existence instruments of government. To do what? To protect and safeguard them and their property. And one of the things, by the way, the most sacred property we have, our moral character and institutions. And if the government then turns on those institutions, and begins to adopt approaches that prostitute the privileges that sustain them in such a way as to undermine their base, then I've got to tell you as I said today, the government then is disrespecting that compact which brought it into existence. And that's not a small departure, that's a fundamental departure. And it's one that at the end of the day will mark the unraveling of the very social fabric of this country. I actually am greatly fearful for the future as I watch these trends unfold. We are playing with questions here as if it's just a game, as if it's just a matter of this or that one's personal satisfaction. These institutions aren't just about our gratification! As individuals we will come and go, we live our little short life-span here and then we're gone. What are we doing then in this generation that we take it upon ourselves utterly to smash and destroy those institutions that have been essential to passing on civilized and decent values from one generation to the next? Do we in fact have the right to despoil the future, and to rout from them those things which are the basis of our heritage? (Applause) Sad to say.. (Applause) ..what's at stake - because folks, I think this whole question with the homosexuality and all that, it's just a vanguard question. It's a question where these folks are essentially being used as a stocking horse for a much larger agenda. And think it through. You'll notice that in all these things that are suggested, here and in other parts of the country, the language that's used in the legislation doesn't restrict anything to this or that form of sexual behavior. What we are essentially doing is we are taking what was the respect accorded to that institution which exists on a heterosexual basis, for the purpose of, in an orderly fashion regulating the basis of procreation, right, and we're taking that and we're treating it now like it's just another game, just another kind of material benefit, and "I want it and therefore I shall have it." This is not so. The family doesn't exist as an institution just in order to gratify those who are part of it. When we made a commitment to family life, we made a commitment to an institution that has existed for thousands of years, that will be here when we're gone, that has sustained civilizations that have been the very basis and foundation for all that we know and are. We are therefore playing for the ages. And I hope that folks engaged in this discussion understand this. The revolution that they are proposing to make is a revolution that doesn't just undo one law, it undoes thousands of years in which, by a slow and painful process, the institutions that came together to help create the possibility of our free way of life were formed and matured. And the family was one of those. It was one of those that stood on the solid foundation of its own claims by the way. Family is not created by government, government is created by individuals living in their families. And that's what we have to remember. And therefore, when we see reflected in law, certain kinds of privileges and recognition's that refer to families, people are treating it like, "Well, government given you that and they should give me that as well," NO, government did not give family these privileges, families had these requirements before governments like this came into existence. And on what basis are they demanding that we must overturn this fundamental institution? Well on the basis that if we don't, we are somehow discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual behavior. Well, why is it illegitimate to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual behavior? I mean, I think we're- are we still aloud to discriminate against people on their behavior say, with respect to property, like if they steal it? We are right? I mean, I don't know, we may be coming to a time when it'll be considered discriminatory to discriminate against people if they engage in stealing behavior, after all, that's their lifestyle. And I'm pretty sure, I'm pretty sure, that we are coming to a time when we will be called to account if we dare to speak out against people because of their adultery behavior or other forms of sexual licentiousness. But let us not pretend that when people stand up and start to act like this is just some condition and we can't pass moral judgement, their not saying something revolutionary because they are. There's hardly a system of religious or other ethics worthy of the name that does not have as part of its most fundamental precepts the regulation of human sexual behavior. It has been an integral part of moral life, almost from time immemorial. It seems to be in fact, essential for society to exist that you have an understanding of the rules that will govern the family and the rules that will govern human conduct in relation to that activity that is the basis for family life. Now, that being the case, those rules being so essential to the safeguarding of these institutions, if folks come forward and then say that , "Well, I have the right to behave in a sexual behavior, any manner I please, and you don't have the right to pass a judgement on it because it's like race or religion or something like that, and I have the right to do it," they're essentially saying we can't subject that behavior to moral judgment. What I don't understand is why we haven't realized yet that that is a violation of our freedom. Because if we don't have a right to act according to our religious belief to form judgements according to those beliefs about human conduct and behavior, then exactly what does the free exercise of religion mean? I have the right to believe that God has determined this to be right and that to be wrong but I can't act accordingly? No, I think free exercise means to act according to belief. And if we are not allowed to act according to belief when it comes to fundamental moral precepts, then what will be the moral implications of religion? None at all. And if we accept that understanding, haven't we in fact accepted for the government to dictate to us a uniform approach to religion? And isn't that dictation of uniformity in religion exactly what the 1st Amendment intended to forbid? On all these grounds I think the notion that we can treat sexual behavior as if it is some kind of civil right is totally in contradiction with any respect for the precepts of religious conscience and moral judgement and behavior. Accept it and you have undermined the influence and impact of freedom of conscience and religious belief in this vital area of conduct and life. I actually think, by the way, that that's the objective of the whole thing. I don't buy it that it's about doing this or that for individuals who are homosexual or otherwise, no. What it's really about is withdrawing the support for the marriage based family, redefining our approach to human sexual behavior so that morality cannot apply, and by doing so, unleashing and giving free reign to human sexual passion in such a way that the institution of family life cannot exist. For at the end of the day that institution, in our society especially requires that you have a concept of sexual responsibility that makes fidelity understandable, so that you can in fact expect and even require of individuals that they will keep to those parameters necessary to respect the integrity of families. It's also necessary to protect the innocence of our children. So that minors cannot be exploited for sexual purposes in ways that by definition undermine the integrity of family life. All of these things being essential to the maintenance of the institution, when folks come forward and on a claim of respect for their individual freedom to do whatever licentious thing they want, they are destroying the social institution, undermining our freedom of conscience - and they claim that this is also so that we won't interfere with their sexual behavior. No one is suggesting these days that we would interfere with their sexual behavior. In the privacy of bedroom and home they can do what they please so long as it does not, in fact, have implications for public law and institution. Nobody's saying that we're going to persecute this one and that one, and the people who suggest that are lying. Now it is the other way around. And an effort is being made to construct a regime of law that will persecute conscience and persecute decency and persecute and fidelity and persecute those who intend to stand with the family. I think that we need to keep in mind that this can't happen yet if the majority of folks, who I still think believe in marriage and family on a basis of sexual responsibility and respect for the requirements of the institution, if we simply act according to common sense and conscience. Instead of allowing ourselves to be intimidated by specious arguments that in fact do not have a basis in logic, we should move forward on the basis of our common sense, with no malice toward anybody, but simply with a view to making sure that we maintain those protections that are needed for this vital institution of our lives. I think we can move forward in that way with a clean conscience, with no sense that we're persecuting anybody, and indeed, as I put it to one fellow today when I was asked about it, out of hatred of no one but out of love of our country and of those things that are required keep it decent and strong and great and free and to give meaning... [inaudible because of the applause]. I wouldn't want to address this without making clear that part of the reason I, of course, am here is because I think this is just part of a general crisis of our moral life. And sad to say, I look at the implications of this discussion and it seems to me that the crisis has a kind of seamless quality to it, that you can see that it all comes from the same root of evil, because it all has a similar aspect when you look at what its consequences are. One of the consequences, for instance, of accepting this redefinition of our approach to sexual behavior so that it's no longer subject to moral judgment is that it effaces the line of protection for our children with respect to sexual matters. The reason I say that, it's easy to understand, if all of us are children when it comes to sexual matters, how can we punish the 50 year old children for what they do with the 14 year old children? Meaning to say, if we're all so subject to the whims of passion that we cannot make responsible judgments when it comes to sex, that it's conditioned, and genetic, and 'we just gotta do it,' then we have destroyed the very basis for the distinction between adults and children in sexual matters. How can we enforce a distinction that now has no basis? We will destroy that structure of law essential to protecting the young. And why do we protect them? We're protecting really from exploitation. We're protecting them from a situation in which the superior, the weak the more knowledgeable and experienced can exploit those who are less experienced and less knowledgeable and less in control of their own situation. That, by the way, reflects something that is fundamental to our sense of justice and that relates to that great Declaration principle, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Because it means that the weak should not be exploited by the strong and that power and the mere superiority that one may have due to circumstance, gives one no right whatsoever to abuse the person or life of another human being. And as we can see, in the consequence over this debate over 'civil union,' what it means for family and ultimately for the position of children, I don't think it's any accident that as part of that same principle we have seen people making the argument that since the baby in the womb is wholly in the power of the mother and she has the superior strength and power and without her it cannot survive, she therefore has the right to dispose of it according to her will. In every respect in this society we are abandoning that path which has rejected the notion that might makes right and on which the basis of a better sense of justice erects protections for the weak, protections for the vulnerable, instead of removing those protections. I think therefore, that whether we look at one side or the other, the moral crisis we are faced with is ultimately rooted in the same premise, the same challenge and problem. And that's pretty simple. Are we in fact going to continue to be a society that acknowledges, as our founders did, that our rights come from God and need to be exercised with respect for the authority of God, or are we instead going to enthrone human will and willfulness and in the process redefine all institutions, including the family, so that at their heart there is no longer love, commitment and a sense of responsibility but simply the endless pursuit of our own willful self-gratification. I think that it's essential to the future of the country that we make all these decisions in a way that's consistent with the requirements of decency and responsibility and ultimately the requirements of our respect for the will and authority of the Creator God from whom in the end our claim to rights and freedom flow. I see that this debate along with abortion and other issues is all a part therefore of the same challenge, whether we intend to sustain those institutions and principles and beliefs that give us the character we need to sustain our freedom. I want to thank you all for showing your commitment to that cause. I'm glad I was able to come today and at least play a little bit of a part, I hope a constructive contribution to the debate here. It's not a thing, obviously, of short duration, whether one wins victory or defeat in this current ground, I hope you'll realize that it's going to go on. Somebody said to me in the car on the way here, that in the event that certain things happen in the legislature this effort would die. But I pointed out that this particular effort is kind of like a vampire, it'll get back into the coffin but it will come back. And that means that we have to be vigilant and clear and come together to maintain that constant sense of commitment to our vocation as citizens, and to our willingness to represent that moral truth which is the foundation of our citizenship in all the things that we do, with our vote and with our participation. I wish you God speed in the effort and I thank you for the chance to have been a small part. **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
