Prez4Life

via email

Dear Mom and Dad,

I’ve had some strange calls lately. Have you? I suppose for you it’s all part of the campaign experience, but it’s weird for me. Some calls were just to confirm that I’m your daughter. I’ll answer those. But others tried to check details of my life. Like, did I live in Minneapolis in 1990, did I ever go by a different name, what’s my position on abortion, why don’t I have children. Those I hang up on.

I don’t like where this is going. Do you know anything about it?

Sandy

from RightReligionRightPolitics blog

I’m sorry, but should we be surprised at all that Sen. Lincoln is defending Sen. Bob Casey’s endorsement of Obama? We knew Casey’s “pro-life” stand was only skin deep, and that his Party affiliation was going to trump everything else. And along comes Lincoln–the so-called independent–to defend Casey for supporting pro-death Obama. This tells you a lot about the depth of Lincoln’s respect for life.

I’ve said before and I’ll say again, once a DemocRAT, always a DemocRAT.

I’ll say it here first: Don’t be surprised to see Mr. Lincoln pull a Casey on us sometime in this campaign…

Sen. Lincoln responded to recent comments on his position on gay marriage. He’s come under fire from some conservative Catholics because he favors gay marriage and receives communion when he attends Catholic mass. A few critics have demanded that Lincoln voluntarily cease receiving communion or that the Church take action.

After a recent speech in Philadelphia, Lincoln was asked to comment on his position. “My position is that when it comes to government recognition of marriage, nothing precludes two people of the same sex from marrying. I would oppose any action that would obligate religious groups to recognize all government-sanctioned marriages, however. I think it’s as simple as that. Gay couples shouldn’t be prevented from receiving the same benefits as married heterosexual couples.”

“I haven’t always had this position, and I wouldn’t say that I favor gay marriage–in so many words. Years ago, I believed that civil unions, partner benefits, adoption rights, and so on would achieve the same thing. I didn’t see a need to use the language of marriage. In part, I still feel that way personally, but the whole political climate of the country pushed me in this direction.”

“As the right wing began to use anti-gay marriage ballot issues to advance other causes, I changed my mind. I think that all these state initiatives and efforts at the federal level were meant to achieve other ends. I think they tried to exploit bigotry and fear and ignorance in order to raise money and elect candidates. I know some of the people who launched these efforts. They have gay friends and colleagues–gay family members. I’m not sure how they look those people in the face. But sometimes, I believe that the depth of their concern on this issue isn’t matched by their desire to advance other causes–like tax cuts.”

“It’s not all that different from the approach some of them seem to take on abortion. They exploit the issue to achieve other ends, because they know that their friends will always be able to get abortions.”

“Anyway, when I realized this was what was going on, I took a second look at the issue and ended up where I am now. In point of fact, I have never voted in favor of gay marriage. The good people of Minnesota saw to it that I didn’t have an opportunity to vote in Congress on more recent bills. I did vote in favor of traditional marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act years ago, but I think I’d see that differently now.”

So far, no bishops have indicated an interest in singling Lincoln out to be denied communion. An unnamed advisor to a bishop said, “No one is anxious to get into the wafer wars again. This particular stand of Mr. Lincoln’s is disappointing, of course, but I think most bishops would, so far at least, wish that he would make the decision not to receive communion.” He later added, “Of course, Mr. Lincoln really hasn’t popped up on many people’s radar screens so far.”

from the Weekly Wrap

Sen. Thomas Lincoln chimed in, not so much to praise or defend but to commiserate, in the wake of Sen. Bob Casey’s (D-PA) endorsement of Barack Obama this week. By most measures, Sen. Casey is a pro-life Democrat. Obama, of course, is pro-choice. Casey’s endorsement was met with widespread criticism in the pro-life community. Many commentators questioned Casey’s pro-life sincerity.

“I wish, of course, that Sen. Casey had endorsed me for President,” Lincoln quipped a day after Casey’s announcement. “I think he and I may have more in common than he and Sen. Obama, but he obviously didn’t have that choice–or he didn’t feel that he had it. I understand that, having tried to work within the Democratic Party as a prolifer for many years. The Party is what it is on this issue, and it punishes rebels.”

“But should we be surprised that Casey didn’t endorse Clinton?” Lincoln added with a wink, hinting at Bill Clinton’s refusal to let Casey’s father, the late Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey, also a staunch pro-lifer, address the 1992 Democratic Convention.

“I’d like to add that it’s not just the Democratic Party that’s behaving badly here,” Lincoln noted. ”It’s not just the Party that’s monolithic on this. Too much of the pro-life community has only one definition for being pro-life–or maybe I mean one party label. I too am discouraged by Sen. Obama’s stand on life, but I’m encouraged by much of what he says–and Sen. Clinton too. Let’s be clear, I’m not endorsing anyone. But much of what they stand for will improve living conditions for many people in this country, and improved conditions will mean more women willing to bring their babies to term. I don’t know that turning a blind eye to a candidate’s support for war because he may be more anti-abortion than his opponent doesn’t mean you’re necessarily being pro-life. And it certainly doesn’t guarantee an end or even a reduction in abortion. Past performance of pro-war, pro-life politicians hasn’t been very good on the life side.”

Prez4Life is a labor of love–or something like it. Your support can keep it going. Anything is appreciated. Click below to pay safely via PayPal. Contributions are not tax-deductible.

from LeftIsRightNow blog

There’s been a little dustup among the wingnuts over whether or not Sen. Lincoln favors gay marriage. Apparently some Catholic critics want to excommunicate the former Senator for loose lips.

Turns out that Lincoln has a not-so-bad record on gay rights and gay marriage. This isn’t exactly a voting record, however. His one major vote on the issue–on the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s–was to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. But in his defense, most Democrats, including Pres. Clinton, supported it. The more recent attention to gay marriage at the national and state levels has generally come after Lincoln left the Senate.

Gay organizations have told us that Lincoln was never really considered either a friend or foe. He was more or less supportive of gay rights, but wasn’t a leading figure.

But he’s made comments more recently that are generally favorable of gay marriage. In a way, he comes off with what some have called the Cuomo Defense on abortion. Two decades ago, Mario Cuomo famously argued that while he personally opposed abortion, he couldn’t let his personal religious beliefs influence him in the performance of his public duties as an elected official. Lincoln has more or less said that he’s personally opposed to gay marriage (or at best neutral) but doesn’t see that his personal morality should impact secular law.

Not an unreasonable position, Mr. Lincoln. Perhaps you should apply it in other areas as well…

from RightPoliticsRightReligion blog

Well, the newspapers showed another photo of Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln leaving church, presumably after Easter Mass. Apparently, to the MSM these days, it’s only news when nontraditional and dissident Catholics (or the Pope) attend Mass. The rest of us are chopped liver.

I don’t know whether Mr. Lincoln received Holy Communion or not. I’m sure he did. For some of these people, Communion is a political act. But so is acting to undercut the sanctity of marriage, Mr. Lincoln. And it’s more than just a political act, it’s an immoral one.

It’s taken a while for Lincoln’s record on gay marriage to come to light (let’s face it, Lincoln isn’t exactly on the top of everyone’s list to write about), but his record–particularly for someone who calls himself a practicing Catholic–is dismal.

Whenever possible, it appears, he has favored allowing gays to marry. He has spoken to gay organizations in favor of gay marriage. He’s talked to the news media about it. He’s spoken out against legislation to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The Church is absolutely clear on this issue. It recognizes the threat gay marriage poses to traditional marriage and the family. This isn’t a case where Lincoln simply disagrees with a Church teaching. He wants to legitimize–legalize–immorality. That is, he’s not simply privately disagreeing–sinning in silence–but he has taken public action to cause scandal and create public sin.

And he has received Holy Communion in this state of sin. Shouldn’t someone be doing something about this?

In a recent campaign stop, Sen. Thomas Lincoln reacted recent media descriptions of him as a “former Democrat.”

“I am not a former Democrat,” he argued. “I haven’t left the Party and have no plans to do so. I won’t go so far as to say the Party left me, although that’s a fashionable theme among my group.” Lincoln is a prolife Democrat.

“I’m simply a Democrat who’s running for President as an independent. I would govern as a Democrat. In fact, I will likely run the country in a way that most Democrats–the rank and file, if not the power elite–would want.”

From Catholics Unified Newsletter 

It’s been very interesting to follow the independent campaign of former Sen. Thomas Lincoln for president. Or, not so much to follow the campaign as to follow the reaction to it. As many have found before him, the prolife liberal Mr. Lincoln seems to have no natural political home.

A politician with pretty high rankings from anti-abortion groups (for the most part, his only prolife demerits are for his support for campaign finance reform, which these groups oppose because they claim it limits their ability to oppose abortion), Lincoln nonetheless has been a target of many in the prolife world. He’s not sufficiently prolife, they say, because he won’t stake all on an absolute ban on abortion. Lincoln has said that he believes in banning abortion, but he knows that today’s America will not abide one. He believes in reducing demand through other means and restricting supply by working around the edges.

His prolife critics also say he’s insufficiently prolife because he has voted agaisnt some prolife judicial appointees. Lincoln has countered those arguments by pointing to other stands those nominees had taken–on privacy, worker and consumer rights, environmental regulation, and other areas–that he found wanting. In his words, “Give me a prolife judge who wants to make life worth living for all of us.” Hear, hear!

On the other hand, Lincoln’s liberal credentials have not gotten him very far with many of his seemingly natural constituencies. Despite his opposition to Pres. Bush’s tax cuts (he voted against them and plans to eliminate some if elected), opposition to the Iraq War (he voted against its authorization in 2002 and lost reelection), support for labor and support for civil and gay rights, he has been roundly criticized and dismissed as a liberal because of his opposition to abortion rights.

Despite the opposition he’s gotten from both sides, Lincoln has persevered and holds true to his positions. Whatever you think of his politics, you might agree that he was well named. According to reports, Lincoln was named for St. Thomas More, who happens to be the patron of politicians. But more than that patronage, Thomas More is known for his stubborn clinging to principle and faith in the face of opposition from the whole government of England and its King Henry VIII. At the cost of his job, his livelihood, and ultimately, his life, More would not assent to actions he believed were contrary to his faith and therefore to the best interests of his country.

Tom Lincoln’s faith in his politics is equally strong.

Janet Brink, St. Thomas University Law School

After a recent appearance, Sen. Thomas Lincoln was asked about his prolife liberal perspective. In previous talks, he has focused on his liberal credentials as opposed to his prolife stand. This time, he was asked to look at it in reverse.

“I am prolife. I think every abortion is a tragedy. I look forward to the day when all abortions are not just illegal but nonexistent. But I have to go along with President Bush here. I don’t think the country is ready for a ban, so if we want to reduce abortion, we need to look for ways both to make carrying children to term more appealing and less stressful and to reduce unwanted pregnancies. We need to address the demand side of the equation because cutting off supply won’t work at this point in time.”

“But I want to respond to a criticism I’ve heard before of prolifers. That is that if they oppose abortion, why aren’t they out adopting children–or some similar critique. I believe that the right to life is fundamental. There’s no contingency here. It’s more basic than the right to a fair trial. And when it comes to fair trials, we don’t expect people who support them to be responsible for the guilty who go free.”

“The right to liberty is basic. We didn’t demand that the abolitionists take responsibility for freed slaves or come up with a system for caring for them or incorporating them into society. Slavery was an abomination, and the social costs of ending it were a small price to pay by comparison. Why are we treating the right to life so differently?”

“So, I don’t think prolifers should be responsible for children who would be born if abortion were eliminated. But I have to say that I think they should want to be. They should want to care for these children. It’s unrealistic, however, to put this responsibility wholly on individuals, however. It’s something that society as a whole needs to take responsibility for.”

“There’s where too many of my fellow prolifers have come up short, I believe. They stress the immorality of abortion but ignore the immorality of ignoring their brothers and sisters.”

“It’s not just a religious thing–though it’s that too. The Golden Rule comes to mind, as does much of Isaiah and the Gospels. This is simply about how to treat other living human beings. And even more mercenary, it’s about our survival as a society.”

“Unfortunately, we get into arguments about personal liberty and taxes and personal responsibility. You know, you have no right to terminate that life, but you have no claim on me or my resources to help you raise the child. You can’t tax me to provide healthcare or nutrition–that’s all your responsibility. Well, I’d like to suggest that you and I are personally responsible for each other. That’s the bottom line of my campaign.”