Who is Margaret Sanger, you ask?

She is the founder of the American Birth Control League, latter renamed Planned Parenthood, which is the largest provider of abortions in the United States, and a leader in the advancement of abortion rights worldwide. The group makes no apologies for its support of abortion on demand. However they do not broadly publicize their historic connections to Sanger and her ideology...and with good reason when one considers her less than admirable motives.

Margaret Sanger was active in the reproductive rights movement in America around the same time the Nazis came to power in Germany with their dreams of building a master race by exterminating the Jews and other “undesirables.” While Sanger rejected the anti-Semitic nature of Nazism she did embrace her own version of eugenics, including the sterilization of those she considered unfit to reproduce and preventing the births of those she saw as a burden on society. She believed in building a superior human race through segregation and controlled breeding.

According to an article written by Sanger entitled "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda," published in the October 1921 issue of the journal, Birth Control Review, “The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.” Sanger envisioned birth control as her own “final solution” for the ills of society. "Eugenics is…the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

She spread this propaganda in public speaking engagements across the country including a 1926 speech at a New Jersey branch of the Ku Klux Klan. And in 1939 her organization began what was called The Negro Project which promoted her style of family planning among blacks in the South. She recruited black ministers from the area whom she hoped would more effectively garner support among locals. In a letter to a fellow activist concerning this program Sanger wrote, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Planned Parenthood attempts to whitewash Margaret Sanger’s statements by claiming she was influenced by the culture of her time and that we must view her work within that context. But when one reads statements like, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race,” as she wrote in a 1922 work entitled Woman, Morality, and Birth Control, or “Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need...We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock,” as she wrote in the April 1933 issue of Birth Control Review, it is difficult to see past the obvious implications. Margaret Sanger founded her organization with the idea of ridding the world of the poor, the physically impaired, the uneducated lower class, and all those she deemed unworthy to breed.

Planned Parenthood is understandably ashamed of their late founder’s despicable agenda. But is their present mission any less despicable? Consider the fact that 78% of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics are located in minority communities. And while blacks make up only 13% of the United States’ population, they compose almost 36% of all abortions. Sure the rhetoric has changed, but the results are the same. Minorities are suffering worst from the scourge of abortion.

Consider also this statement from Planned Parenthood’s website: “Public funds should be made available to subsidize the cost of abortion [and]…sterilization services for those who choose the procedure[s] but cannot afford [them].” In other words, they want us to pay for sterilizing and aborting the poor of our nation. Margaret Sanger would no doubt applaud this policy statement, as she would also be pleased to know that Planned Parenthood receives its own federal subsidies with nearly one third of its funding coming from government grants and contracts.

Margaret Sanger’s goal of a national policy of eugenics may not be written into law, but the reality of legalized abortion, its inherent cheapening of human life, and the taxpayer funding of organizations like Planned Parenthood give to her the next closest thing. Thanks to Roe v. Wade and the culture of death she inspired an unborn child can be written off as an undesired nuisance and a burden on society.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Marriage in our Western culture has until recently been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Even within cultures that practice polygamy, a man can marry multiple women, but the women do not marry one another, nor do men marry men. Marriage has always had a male-to-female connotation. Thus the ongoing debate over “gay marriage” involves a real re-definition of marriage that strikes at the very core meaning of the word.

In our culture we have set the standard for marriage as “one man, one woman” due in large part to our Judeo-Christian heritage. There are many moral and religious reasons in favor of this traditional view. But those who support gay marriage reject many of these arguments as being archaic, overtly religious, and unfair to gays and lesbians who simply want to enjoy the same rights as every heterosexual. I agree that no one should be denied any basic human right based on their sexual orientation. Two consenting adults have every right to enter into a relationship of their choosing regardless of anyone else’s religious objection. However, marriage extends beyond the individual’s right to a personal relationship. Marriage implies an endorsement of that relationship by society. As such, marriage is also a public institution not merely a private affair.

But even so, why should marriage be limited to male-female relationships? What interest should the government have in restricting who marries? Why should society discriminate in this way? To fully answer the charges of the left against a traditional view of marriage we need to fully appreciate why we have an institution of marriage in the first place, why it has always been male-female, and why our government has no authority to change it.

Marriage has two primary purposes: (1) the mutual love and support of the spouses, and (2) to produce children and nurture them into valuable members of society. Granted, not everyone who gets married has children. But then again, not everyone who gets married is really in love either, as our high divorce rate demonstrates. Certainly the dual purpose of marriage is not a guarantee that every couple will live out these purposes in exactly the same way. But historically these two objectives (love and children) have been the dual components of marriage.

The gay marriage debate focuses attention on the first of these two purposes to the exclusion of the second. The argument in favor of gay marriage is framed around the “love” of the two individuals, insisting that society has an obligation to honor their right to love whomever they please. This line of reasoning seems compelling if procreation is left out of the picture. For obvious biological reasons, a same-sex couple cannot reproduce. But if goal of marriage is narrowed to mutual love and support and procreation is discarded, then homosexuals have no impediment to marriage.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the government’s primary interest in regulating marriage lies primarily in its procreative aspect and not exclusively in the emotional attachment of the couple. The government is interested in procreation because it produces the next generation of citizens. And common sense tells us that a male-female relationship stands a better chance of producing children than any other combination. The government regulates marriage because a state has a vested interest in the growth and stability of its population. The government cares about the love and support of the spouses only as it pertains to building a solid home in which stable, well adjusted, and productive citizens are most likely to be nurtured.

When a couple applies for a marriage license questions are asked about residency status, possible family relationship between the prospective spouses, in some places blood tests are administered, and all of these things fulfill the government’s responsibility to maintain a healthy, growing population. So the very nature of our marriage laws and the licensing process demonstrate that procreation is a key component in a legal definition of marriage. But if we redefine marriage so that love becomes the only necessary factor, then the state will be in the messy business of regulating an emotion. The state will have the power to issue a license for love and personal sexual fulfillment. No government should have this authority.

To borrow a slogan from the gay rights movement, “Keep the government out of the bedroom.” We do this by ensuring the traditional definition of marriage remains intact, not because we want to deny homosexuals their right to love, but precisely because love is too sacred to turn over to government regulation. No one’s emotions should fall under governmental jurisdiction.

Originally published in The Capitol News, October 24, 2006

I have no problem calling myself “conservative” even though that particular word draws ridicule from many corners. Conservatives are caricatured and lampooned on television, in the movies, and throughout the pop culture for being narrow-minded, insensitive, and out of touch. Frankly the conservative view is usually misunderstood by its critics and all too often misrepresented by its supporters.

I am also Christian. I certainly have no problem describing myself as such even though that title often garners even harsher criticism than conservatism in our increasingly secular culture. Some believe that religion (Christian or otherwise) is the primary source of evil and oppression in the world. They point to Christianity’s sometimes violent past or the Islamic threat of today and see nothing but the worst in people of faith. Never mind that they are excluding the work of people like Mother Theresa or Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Christianity can be a powerful force for good when it is not distorted or misused. Sadly Christianity is also misunderstood by its critics and all too often misrepresented by its supporters.

So I am a “Conservative Christian,” which means I am doubly hated by the world.

I do not however identify myself as part of the “religious right,” which is so feared by liberals and even some conservatives. I disagree vehemently with those Christians who take it upon themselves to condemn their opponents to the fires of hell or cite biblical passages as proof that God supports certain legislation. I do not mean to suggest that religion should not play a role in politics. My faith plays a vital role in shaping my views. But when we go to vote we should not ask ourselves “What would Jesus do?” Jesus did not endorse political philosophies or run for public office. He gave to Caesar what was Caesar’s and told us to do the same.

The religious right is sometimes accused of trying to establish a theocracy here in the United States along the same lines as the Taliban in Afghanistan. This accusation is ludicrous in my estimation, but it does reflect a real fear among those on the left, especially secular atheists and agnostics, that Christians want to create laws based on theological principles rather than common principles that can be shared in a pluralistic society. And they make a valid point. Our nation may have grown from Christian roots, and has been shaped by faith-filled Christians throughout its history, but one does not have to be Christian to live here nor should anyone be made to feel that way.

So how do we take our Christian beliefs and put them to work in the public arena without infringing on the rights of others who do not believe? I admit it is a delicate balance. To start with it should be noted that holding a sign reading “All gays go to hell!” does not win any points in a policy debate or convert anyone to your way of thinking. Besides that it is downright mean, and it does not reflect the beliefs of most Christians (including me). Also we cannot pass laws that state, “Thou shalt not (fill in the blank) because God said so or else you will suffer the torments of everlasting fire.” Our laws cannot be based on theology.

But laws are based on morality. Even an atheist must admit that we disallow certain actions in our society because we have reached a moral consensus that the act is evil. We all agree that murder should be illegal because it is morally repugnant to everyone including those who do not believe in the Ten Commandments and “Thou shalt not kill.” Theft and rape and drunken driving can all be argued against from a Christian perspective but these are equally wrong in the eyes of an agnostic based on sound logic.

This does not mean that Christianity is unnecessary, that we can come to the same moral conclusions without God. To the contrary, without God we often miss the mark. But what it does mean is that God’s “rules” make logical sense. Faith and reason go hand-in-hand. I do not have to argue a conservative viewpoint relying solely on “God said so” as my defense. If I take the time to examine an issue I can show the non-believer that what God says makes sense in his or her life too. If God gives us commandments so that we can attain goodness, then we should point out the goodness in His laws as a goodness that is real and tangible and a benefit to all of society, Christian and non-Christian alike.

There are atheists who oppose abortion, support the traditional definition of marriage, and champion a whole host of “Christian” ideals. They do so because God’s way makes sense to them even though they do not know it as God’s way. On an individual level, in our day to day lives, I see no problem with trying to convince these souls to discover the whole Truth in Christian Revelation. But as a matter of public policy and in the interest of productive political discourse, Christians would do well to explore the depths of human reason as a means of presenting the Wisdom of God.

Originally published in The Capitol News, December 16, 2006