I saw this picture of Cindy McCain and was immediately impressed with her honesty, bravado, and willingness to make her already known position very, very public and in your face. Take that, John!

One could say that Cindy’s husband, Senator John McCain, is not a H8er [hater], but is really a traditionalist with old fashioned values and viewpoints. The problem with that assessment is that he’s demonstrated in other areas that he is far from traditional in his viewpoints.

For instance, as a co-author of the McCain-Feingold legislation, which, today, was ruled un-Constitutional and a violation of free speech (1^st Amendment) rights, he was far from the position of the founding fathers and the majority of Constitutionalists. His position on open borders and uncontrolled immigration is also far from the founders admonishments to keep the nation secure and strong by preserving and improving upon the gifts of liberty they left behind.

The Declaration of Independence provides guidance on the issue of immigration. “to secure these [unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish [the government], and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…” In other words, the individual is more important than the State.

Under the Bush and McCain plans, the consent of the governed were inconsequential to them. In their minds, open borders and amnesty for illegals was right and proper without the consent of the governed. This is no less reprehensible or more justified than pushing through health care by Nancy {Bella} Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid over the objections of the governed. They are the same act – one attempted in the name of conservatism and the other in the name of liberalism. In both case, these politicians claim to know better than the people they are supposed to represent in service what was best for America. To add further insult to injury, both were in favor of a continuation of chain immigration policies which allows for a never ending stream of immigrants related to those already here legally. A brother could bring a brother, who, in turn could bring his family, the spouse of which could then bring her brothers and sisters and they in turn…ad infinitum. However, this privilege is given only to some groups and not to others. This is not exactly the outcome in the thinking of a traditionalist who believes all men are created equal, is it?

Senator McCain has been so pragmatic in his political views and comments that he has been accused of being a RINO (Republican In Name Only), more closely aligned with people like former Republican, Arlen Spector (D-PA). This begs the question, why is John McCain so adamant about opposing gay “marriage”; yet, so willing to walk away from other so called traditional conservative viewpoints and positions? Perhaps he’s simply carrying on the tradition of bigotry and segregation that was responsible for establishing segregated black and Japanese units defending America in World War II?

If so, it is clear that some lessons and traditions taught long ago are best forgotten in a society founded on the principles of individual liberty and support for equality in opportunity to the maximum extent possible given that no two people are born into the same circumstance with the same abilities.

Just as slaves could not become free by willing their skin color to change, or Japanese forced into internment camps could not walk out by willing their features to morph into those of their non-Asian “hosts”, gays cannot simply will their nature away in order to fit into the majority society. Civil rights legislation has worked to improve the lot of blacks, Hispanics and others. Religious protections have reduced, but sadly have not eliminated anti-Semitism. What is blocking full protection of individual rights for gays? Religion and individual prejudice that reduces an entire group of people into something less than man, less than human. Isn’t that the viewpoint that enabled blacks to be taken and held as slaves? That they were not quite human, not quite men, not quite children of God [or nature - if you choose to believe in natural rights]. And some people say their pets are slow learners!

I understand that all religions are opposed to gay marriage, and as religions those viewpoints are protected by the Constitution; practitioners are free to practice their faith without government interference; so, priest, ministers, Rabbi’s and Imams can’t be forced to marry gay couples. But, why are people so offended and surprised when these same people of faith would deny a rape victim the morning after pill to avoid a pregnancy created in the act of a horrible crime? Our founders saw the square as a place that is supposed to welcome all citizens regardless of their race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or other difference. The public square, under the separation of church and state clause, is supposed to respect the rights of all to practice, or not practice, religion regardless of faith by offering a refuge for those with no other place to go.

So, the State has no right to prohibit and activity such as marriage simply because it does not fit a religious model. If an entity, including the government cannot discriminate against gay people in housing, jobs, promotions, etc. because of Constitutional protections, then how can it justify discrimination against gays in marriage, when judges and other State officials have the authority to marry couple of opposing genders? And yet, most States and most federal officials refuse safe harbor and protection because they are unwilling to perform the duty for which they were entrusted – to apply the rules and the laws of man without regard to religion, since religion has so many faces and perspectives.

Is the restriction placed on gay marriage the product of tradition, or is it the product of H8? Look inside your soul or your heart and decide for yourself, but understand that if you choose either, you choose against the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and against the United States Constitution.

“The Founders believed, and the Conservative agrees, in the dignity of the individual, that we, as human beings, have a right to live, life freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given, natural rights.

Like the Founders, the Conservative also recognizes in society a harmony of interests, as Adam Smith put it, and rules of cooperation that have developed through generations of human experience and collective reasoning that promote the betterment of the individual and society. This is characterized as ordered liberty, the social contract, or the civil society.”

From Liberty and Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto, Mark R. Levin, Threshold Editions, 2009al views and comments that he has been accused of being a RINO (Republican In Name Only)

So, the question comes down to this: What best serves ordered liberty or “the civil society”; allowing gays to marry as any ethnic or religious group is allowed to, subject to the same restrictions – monogamy, or openly discriminating against them and their civil rights when science has already proven that their “gayness” is a product of genetics and not one of “free will”. And even here, if one believes in God and that God gave man “free will” to use in a manner that either saves or condemns his soul, who are we as mere mortals, unable to know God’s plan, to suppress that which God has given?

In this context and on this subject matter, Cindy McCain is the true conservative and a hero. She is standing up for power for the individual and limits on the State’s ability to intrude into the private affairs of citizens. Cindy McCain is standing in the shoes of those who created the Constitution and John McCain, is carrying on as a pretend conservative, still supporting the Statist position that the government knows what’s best. He claims to believe in the individual and that individual rights are important, but only when they agree with his prejudiced viewpoints. He is standing in the shoes of King George with the view that order and government comes from the top down; not from the bottom up – not from the people.

You may be asking yourself, what does this have to do with Billerica? My response is that you live here and how you respond will either make Billerica a more tolerant and pleasant place to live or one that tends toward tyrannical and restrictive policies in practice if not in writing.