My Fellow Republicans: What are we really voting for?

With the election right around the corner, I am sure that most of you right now are as saturated as I am with political ads, marketing, and general hype for November 2012by this point I think we have heard it all. Yet there is a strong view-point that has been lost in the political landscape of this past year, something that I have yet to hear a good explanation of, and to be honest, something that worries me about the party I support. Now to give you a background of the lens in which I view the world: I am a man in my young twenties, a conservative republican, a proud gun-owner, a homeowner, a family man, a religious attendee. I hunt, I fish, I own a truck. I pay taxes, I work in a corporate world, and I value a dollar. I was raised and always looked at the world through perspective, and why I jumped on the Republican train when I was 18. I tend to vote RIGHT based on the Republican Party agreeing on some basic fundamentals that distinguish our party from the rest these are values that I also share, and tend to be strong buzz words during any campaign year. Most of you will recognize these, again, as the staple of the Republican Party; less government involvement, more freedom, less taxes, religion, and better fiscal responsibility. None of those shouldve surprised you, they are touted at almost every rally a Republican Candidate hosts, and I have yet to meet a republican that would disagree with these core values. I would even take it a step further and say most Republicans would rate these values in the order of importance, freedom and less government being first, since it is that freedom that gives us our support of religion and everything else. I find it interesting, then, that most of my republican cohorts are in favor of 2 amendments up for vote in Minnesota that are completely against those values. If you have been living under a rock for the past 6-9 months, I am referring to the marriage and voter ID amendments. Both of these amendments seem to have a lot of political support from a party that tends to DISAGREE with the fundamental principle behind them. Let us first discuss the marriage amendment. The amendment reads that the Government of Minnesota will define marriage as "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman." Most Republicans agree with this amendment. So, when I go to vote on November 6th the Republican Party is asking me to do what exactly? Oh- yes, they want the Government to step into my life and tell me who can marry who. Interesting that most Republicans hate the idea of the Government telling them to do anything, but now we are ok with it? Are you really ready to start giving up your basic rights (your freedom) as a person, to this Government Monster we so-often describe it as? The only semi-logical response I have heard is that we need to support this amendment because we need to preserve the institution of marriage, as if the institution (which holds a 50% success rate) is somehow going to be ripped from their hands. I understand republicans have strong family and religious values, but using that as the crux of the argument causes flawed logic. As far as I read this amendment, it would have absolutely no affect on your own marriage; you can continue to marry women (if you are male) and vise versa. Someone needs to explain to me why I want the Government defining anything for me, let alone this. Even if you believe that being gay is a choice, wouldnt that further support my point that we have a freedom to choose things, more importantly that isnt that a circular argument that protects your freedom of religion? So, just to make sure I understand what you are asking me to support, you are backing an amendment to give the Government the power to remove that choice from meto remove

my freedom? This also being the same Government that republicans want less of each year they run for election. Did I miss the point when our party decided to swing left, if so let me off at the next stop. The second issue I have is with the Voter ID amendment. This amendment is asking us to show proper photo ID to prove who we say we are. On the outside this looks like a good idea; when people vote we want them to be valid votes. I understand, and I supported it until I really looked at the underlying problems with it. I want to ask one simple question, is voting a privilege or a right? If I remember the constitution correctly, voting is an American right that can never be taken away from us. So since voting is a right (cannot be taken away) and the government is requiring photo ID to votewhat happens when someone wants to vote but doesnt have a photo ID? The way I read this law is that the government will be required to issue a photo ID at no cost, did I miss something here FREE government ID? You are supporting an amendment that will be taking MY TAX dollars to pay for an ID for someone to vote (which they should) because they are either too poor or lazy to pay for themselves? If I remember correctly republicans fought tooth-and-nail when Obama suggested mandated government IDs four years ago, how is this different, dont the same arguments apply? As the law currently stands you need to be able to give your SS, address, and name to prove your US citizenship making sure there is only one vote counted per valid person (Social Security Number). So if you want to argue that somehow illegal immigrants or non-US citizens are voting is invalid. There is a possibility of someone voting under a different name, using another persons identity but the photo ID doesnt guarantee this stops. It would make it harder, sure, but there is a trade off. Someone needs to explain to me the added benefit of my tax dollars being used to pay for a mandated ID for the American right to vote. If we look at statistics we can see that the American public already struggles to vote as it isin the last presidential election the percentage was upper 60s. By using deductive reasoning, you want me to believe that even though only 60% of Americans are using their right to vote, there are thousands of people somewhere that are voting multiple times under different names or in different locations? This amendment seems to be trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist. You call yourself a republican and value less government spending and fiscal responsibility and now somehow justify adding this to the budget? Again, please pull the emergency stop and let me off. Both of these amendments boil down to our core beliefs as stated above. Obviously there is a balance between Freedom and Security, it is why governments existswe as citizens trade away some of our freedoms for security. In all cases the benefit of that security meets at a point where it is worth giving up the freedom, like basic economics the demand and supply curves meet at the middle. Why I jumped on the Republican train to begin with is that we tend to value that freedom over security more than others, it is also why I am confused most republicans support both amendments. The fundament problem I have [with these amendments] is that I do not see that the added security being greater than the freedom needed to be sacrificed. I guess on November the 6th we will see which station the Republican train pulls into.