When is an oath not an oath? When you swear to uphold the Constitution… except for the inconvenient bits you disagree with. “Madison City Council voted this week to allow city officials to pledge their opposition to the state constitution’s ban on homosexual “marriage” during their swearing-in ceremonies.”
After vowing to uphold the state constitution, officials in more than 500 city positions will be permitted to make a statement that the amendment “besmirches” the constitution, and pledge to work towards its removal.
“I pledge to work to eliminate this section from the constitution, and work to prevent any discriminatory impacts from its application,” the voluntary protest statement reads.
Madison Mayor David J. Cieslewicz supports the decision, defending the move by saying the protest statement would alleviate a “crisis of conscience” over the amendment.
What makes an oath significant is that it’s supposed to bind you to a course of action regardless of other inclinations. A soldier’s oath binds him to fight even when every instinct tells him to run from the fight. A husband’s oath binds him to fidelity to his wife even when his hormones are telling him to bed another woman. But concepts such as honor and sacrifice and, oh yeah, obeying the law apparently don’t apply to liberals.
Recall in Illinois that the governor ordered all pharmacists to dispense abortifacient pills when presented with a valid prescription despite any conscientious objections. Or you may recall a circumstance related to the Wisconsin matter, when former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney ordered all city and town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite any personal reservations. I’m sure these pious liberals were all in favor of the use of coercion to force adherence to their dogma.
But these spineless political hacks in Madison get off easy with their sacrifice-free protest against a democratically approved constitutional amendment. What they are saying is, “I pledge not to represent the people of my state, but I still think I should get my paycheck.”
If they had the courage of their convictions they’d resign their public office rather than make this cost-free pseudo-protest.
Technorati Tags:liberalism, Madison, oath, same-sex marriage, Wisconsin
You’re right, Dom. It’s all smoke and mirrors and playing to their own little egos that tell themselves what great, wonderful compassionate people they are. Madison is an embarrassment like Berkeley and Ann Arbor, et al to our republic and its honored and in this case holy traditions. The marital bond is between only a man and woman, and is sacred, and all the fatuous posturing is not going to change that no matter how homosexual zealots and their liberal allies twist in the wind and rebel against natural law.
“Or you may recall a circumstance related to the Wisconsin matter, when former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney ordered all city and town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite any personal reservations. I’m sure these pious liberals were all in favor of the use of coercion to force adherence to their dogma.”
Once again, Mr. Bettinelli, you are blithely putting Mitt Romney in exactly the same category as a liberal who actually believes in same sex marriage. Does Mr. Romney’s stated opposition to same sex marriage mean absolutely nothing? Is he simply a “pious liberal” who dogmatically believes in same sex marriage, despite saying he doesn’t? I guess in your view Mary Ann Glendon is also a “pious liberal” who dogmatically believes in same sex marriage simply because she also came to believe that Mitt was legally required to enforce the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision. Just because you do not believe he legally had to does not mean that other people who also oppose the court’s ruling could not reasonably come to a different conclusion. And just because he and others concluded differently than you that does not mean they did it because they believe in same sex marriage despite what they say, or that they are automatically “pious” and “dogmatic” liberals who are exactly the same as the vociferous “gay” activists (and I know you love to label people with the term “gay”) and their liberal enablers. Do you recognize any distinctions at all, Mr. Bettinelli, between Mitt and these people in Madison? Is everyone who does not go as far as to resort to civil disobedience (which is what Mitt Romney believed he would be doing by ignoring the court ruling) simply a “liberal” who automatically is deemed to support same sex marriage and thus be anathematized?
“Does Mr. Romney’s stated opposition to same sex marriage mean absolutely nothing?”
Charles, so he says one thing and does another, i.e. forces town clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses?
The SJC ordered the Legislature to do something, not Romney. BTW, the SJC, about a month ago admitted it can’t force the Legislature to do anything so you tell me why we have same-sex marriage here in Massachusetts?
Contraceptive oath-taking.
Imagine, for the moment, office-holders who are pro-life inserting a comparable “amendment” to their oaths of office. Imagine, then, the reaction of the media and the activist advocates who feed them.
LOL Steve – good one.
We sometimes refer to our wonderful capital as the peoples republic of Madison—- where free speech reigns, as long as you agree with the liberals.
Remember, Madison is not just the capitol of Wisconsin…it is also the capitol of the “cost-free pseudo-protest.”