by Chris Basten

  In part 1, I spent a great deal of time dispelling the myths of the "pro-family" agenda. Though its proponents have the best of intentions, like all politically-charged movements, they fail to realize that they are just another breed of government force that wishes to control the masses. This is not "compassionate conservatism" or "the good of government." It is just the government in liberty's clothing.

George W. Bush has broadcasted his support for the faith-based initiative and school vouchers and is now starting to support a Federal Marriage Amendment, all in the name of "protecting" families. Ironically, Bush uses a strange play-on-words when he describes his faith-based agenda as funding for the "armies of compassion." Is this the same funding that is used for "armies of compassion" in those countries we choose to occupy, stick guns at, and boss around throughout the world? How compassionate is it to force non-religious taxpayers and families to fund religious schooling? Furthermore, if marriage between a man and a woman needs protection from the guns of government, our priorities are severely messed up.

The government thinks that it has the duty to protect families and so it does the only thing it knows how to do: it invades them. It tells them how to build their homes. It takes one-third to one-half of their income away so that it can help everyone else out and keep government large and in charge. It controls what flows through our newspapers and television sets and then disclaims responsibility by blaming the sources themselves if family well-being is harmed.

The very megaphones for strong families and communities are the exact same preachers of war, taxation, and confiscation of private property. They prod us with accolades of "family-friendly" bills and amendments while forcing families against their will to place their children in the State-indoctrinated institutions we call public education. They tell us who we can and cannot marry. They take away our homes and neighborhoods simply because they find merit in restructuring our communities and businesses for us. They tear families apart with their restrictions on small business development making it impossible to maintain a family-friendly standard of living. They pretend to protect our families by killing the families of those in cultures half a world away.

They force our children to receive questionable inoculations that can make some infants deathly ill. Some vaccinations are showing evidence of promoting such diseases as autism as well. But they are forced upon our children so that they do not get small pox or German measles. Even more grotesque is that it takes away a parent's right to choose the kind of healthcare they want to give their little ones. With the advent of despicable politicians forcing socialized medicine upon us, the health of our families will only become worse because healthcare is already overstretched and already exhausts heavily-regulated resources. The State, not parents, is choosing how healthcare will be handled for families and communities all to satisfy election promises and the bloated lobbyists who support them. It isn't really about the well-being of families but the well-being of government and its supporters.

The "pro-family" constituents hold the reigns to the War on Drugs as well. By forcing drugs to be illegal, prohibition kills many innocent victims who are hurting no one but themselves. Our children are lured into the vast web of drug operations as well because prohibition flourishes underground. By not knowing the concentrations of certain drugs from the street, Russian roulette is played out all across America. Children and teenagers shoot each other over plants and chemicals that the government doesn't approve of. Never mind that they can sniff a whole host of perfectly legal liquids and chemicals available from a hardware store. Per our "pro-family" government, drugs are considered dangerous so we invade other countries that grow marijuana and coca crops by burning down not just crops but entire plots of land and neighborhoods so that families who grow them pay dearly. Like the prohibition on alcohol, the prohibition on drugs has killed millions of family members who were merely curious or ill and chose to put something in their system without hurting anyone else. Again, freedom of choice is abated via our federal forces that don't take it into consideration nor care to.

It is easy for the "pro-family" supporters to blame certain segments of society for the downfall of family units in America but they conveniently never look at the big picture. Such is the case with gay marriage. They look at Europe and see the legalization of homosexual marriage as the reason why so few heterosexual marriages now exist there. Hence, the Federal Marriage Amendment. It apparently never dawned on these "pro-family" lobbyists that Europe is largely socialist and controls every nuance of child-rearing in those countries that are coerced to strongly support the State. In a well-written commentary by Allan Carlson, What Has Government Done to Our Families?, government, in any form, is revealed as the true culprit of family meltdown. After my own personal perusal of this article, I am firmly convinced that the State is the only force strong enough to destroy families.

So while the liberals may be guilty for structuring society into a non-family-friendly environment, "compassionate conservatives" do not fare any better. They are both cut from the same cloth. They both beckon us to rely on God instead of Government and yet use one to further the other and destroy an individual's freedom of choice in the process. They demonize and outlaw what they define as anti-family and ignore the fact that every family should individually choose this for themselves. God may bring many families together but it may tear others apart with petty religious disputes that never solve anything. Some families can control their drug use and others cannot. Some families value education for their children and others favor on-the-job training. Some would rather live in their own homes rather than the government-funded housing projects that surround them. Most families would be able to make their own choices about healthcare if they weren't taxed so heavily and if businesses weren't mandated to provide intolerably expensive benefits that people tend to abuse.

Whatever the case may be, families are responsible for raising individuals, not the government. The less government we have, the more families will be naturally inclined to take on what is their responsibility to their children. While some people make atrocious parents, the government is a more fiendish force that has no business intruding into any aspects of family life. The less power the State has, the more families and individuals will be allowed to take care of themselves. This is the most "pro-family" message I can think of.