Kevin Hall has put me in the awkward position of having to defend The FAMiLY Leader. I say awkward in that while I agree with practically all of their positions on the issues; I have not always been supportive of the strategy they have employed of late to push their agenda. As many of you likely know they recently announced their âMarriage Vowâ that any presidential candidate who wants to be eligible for their endorsement has to sign.
I personally donât have any problems with pledges, especially if itâll be the basis for that particular organization to endorse. With this particular pledge I have a greater issue of the leader pushing it than the pledge itself, but a candidate can choose whether or not to sign. Will some get criticized for not signing? Sure, but again itâs the choice they make, and that is the double-edged sword. So donât whine if you receive criticism over say not signing a prolife pledge. Pledges like this help voters base a candidatesâ convictions on a particular subject, but I also donât think theyâre necessary either if voters do their homework. I also donât have any problems with the content of this particular pledge. The preamble contained wording that was unfortunate howeverâŠ
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than is an African-American baby born after the election of the USAâs first African-American President.
I understand what they were trying to say, but it was poorly worded and they later retracted it. Frankly they deserved the criticism in that regard. Kevin Hall in a couple of pieces at The Iowa Republican takes aim at the part of the pledge where candidates agree to not expand the role of women in forward combat roles. It reads:
Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.
Kevin Hall writes criticizing Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmannâs signing the pledge:
For instance, Bachmann is campaigning to be the first female Commander-in-Chief. However, she signed a pledge promising that she would promptly terminate any military policymakers who place females âin forward combat rolesâ. Does Bachmann believe that women are unfit to be soldiers, but they are perfectly fit to command the entire United States Armed Forces?
He later calls the document sexist because of its position on women serving in forward combat roles.
It isnât sexist. Far from it. It embodies chivalry, a virtue that used to be encouraged in this country. This is not a statement saying that women are not capable soldiers â of course they are! But this statement is reflective of our nationâs policy toward women in combat roles, one it has held since our nationâs inception. It also is born out of a desire to protect our daughters, wives and mothers. Again, that was a trait that was lauded not scorn through most of our nationâs history. Frankly, itâs the civilized position.
Itâs easy to cry out âequal opportunityâ and âsexismâ while our daughters, wives and mothers are not streaming home in body bags. You think public sentiment on the left â and this is a liberal position, might change if that were the case? Also can we really accuse conservative women, many whom hold this view, as sexist? Really?
This is not to say women can not serve honorably as many have in our nationâs military. I donât think itâs inconsistent in the least for a female commander-in-chief to not want to expose women to the horrors of the battlefield, especially in Islamic nations where there is a low opinion of female worth. I believe this position, elevates, not demeans the worth of our female soldiers. It is simply showing gentleness and graciousness to all women. Itâs a manly trait that is rapidly disappearing.
Itâs disappointing to see that chivalry is dead to the point in some circles that the distinction is lost.
