Thursday, June 08, 2006

The Right Man

The Moist-Towelette has a profile of State Representative Daryl Metcalfe in this morning's paper. We learn that, among other things, he is:

up-and-coming darling of the Republican right: a military veteran, a husband of 23 years, a sometimes (he admits) overprotective father, the family breadwinner, a member of the National Rifle Association and a Bible-quoting Christian.

In other words, he's just the sort of guy that the left loves to hate. A few months ago, I had an opportunity to hear him speak about last summer's legislative pay raise. As the leader of the opposition to that measure, he gained quite a bit of notoriety. He wasn't afraid to identify who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. He can unapologetically tell you what's wrong not only with the Democrat governor, but also with the RINO-controlled legislature. (Remember, this is the state that keeps re-electing Arlen Specter to the US Senate.) His positions on all issues are constitutionally sound. He's 43 years old, and would make a fine Governor, Senator, or anything else that he might chose to run for. I like him, and would vote for him if I ever have the opportunity. He is rightly admired by folks on the right.

But is he the "darling" of the Republican right? When we start speaking like the Gabor sisters, or greeting one another like Frenchmen with kisses on each cheek, he will be our "darling". Don't expect that to happen anytime soon. Or ever. Daryl Metcalfe is someone we generally respect and admire, and whom we are happy to support in his political endeavors.

And speaking of guys kissing one another, there is another issue besides the pay raise that has brought Daryl Metcalfe into the spotlight: He is the leading proponent of House Bill 2381, which specifically defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The bill, which will become a constitutional amendment if passed, will ensure that "marriage" between same-sex partners will remain as legitimate as a Tom Thumb wedding.

As far as I am concerned, same-sex marriage shouldn't even be an issue. A lot of people feel uncomfortable with it, not out of sheer bigotry, but because understanding the very concept of same-sex relationships is as difficult as understanding what it's like to breathe without oxygen. It's not natural for us. We can't understand it. We may not celebrate it, but we can tolerate it. But we have a hard time accepting it as something equivalent to the legally sanctioned biological union between one man and one woman known as "marriage". People have plenty of reasons for marrying, but basically it's a spiritual union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. In other words, it is religious in nature.

Having said that, I have no problem with two or more parties entering into a legally binding contract centered around a personal relationship. Just don't define it as "marriage". To do so alters and cheapens the traditional definition of marriage. I hate the fact that this issue has resulted in a proposed constitutional amendment. But there it is. And, for what it's worth, I agree with it.

As the leading proponent of the amendment, Daryl Metcalfe is taking a lot of criticism from same-sex marriage supporters, the Moist Towelette reports. The opposition is calling Metcalfe and the majority in the state legislature "fear-mongering terrorists", wasteful "of taxpayer time and money", damaging to "nontraditional relationships", "self-righteous, Bible-thumping public servants" with "narrow-minded views and beliefs", and worse. It's hard being right. You take a lot of abuse.

Mr. Metcalfe said all he's trying to do is to leave the definition of marriage up to the citizens of Pennsylvania.

He said he thinks it would be approved, because "natural law dictates that the foundational building block of society is the joining together of a man and a woman, which is practiced in
marriage."

Exactly. And in the end, it's not up to "Bible-thumping public servants". They just write the legislation. The bill must pass each house of the state legislature twice, after which the voters of Pennsylvania get to decide whether to amend the Pennsylvania constitution. If it passes and you are unhappy with the outcome, blame the majority of your fellow citizens.

No comments: