2. When Paul says that he’s supportive of all voluntary associations he doesn’t mean that he’s supporting gay marriage. What he wants is the government to get out of the marriage business and let the people do what they want. Of course that would allow gay people to “marry” (something that’s not avoidable anyways because the culture is bad), but on the other hand there wouldn’t be this big official redefinition of marriage, like we see in more and more states. The same is true for abortion. If you take the authority away from the federal government to decide for all the states whether or not it’s legal, you can fight it on a more local level. Otherwise the next liberal government will just overturn it again.

3. Paul is the only one who takes the economy seriously, the only one who understands the FED and the only one who will really cut spending. All the others will INCREASE spending according to their own published plans! Unfortunately most people are prejudiced and don’t take the time to really listen to what he says. Ron Paul is the only one who’s written books about the crisis we have now long before it happened. People are just not aware of all the things he’s said and written – the problem is with the media.

You ask, “Where is the Republican who can honestly and courageously articulate the benefits of proportionate shared sacrifice for huge long-term gain?” If you replace the word “Republican” with that of “Democrat,” the answer is easy: Barack Obama. Shared sacrifice, imposed by the government, is called socialism, and is not a Republican ideal, nor does it ever result in huge long-term gain. It’s hard to know where you’re going with this, because perhaps you’re not suggesting a government program, maybe just a fatherly word of encouragement and an example. But then why are you criticizing the entire panel of candidates? Some of them have been very generous with their personal charity and have been outstanding examples of men (Santorum, Romney, Huntsman), and women (Bachman), taking care of their families.

At the same time you seem to dislike the emphasis that has been placed on so-called social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Now these are within the proper purview of government (Rom 13:3; Ps 82:3; the many laws dealing with marriage imply a government interest–contra Stewart) and it has been a long tradition in American politics for us to care about a man’s faith, the credibility of his profession of it, and how we expect that faith to be worked out in his stand for the correspondence of our laws with biblical values.

It is the view of many that in no election have the social issues been more important than the one that will take place this November. This is because of the unprecedented and relentless attack taking place on marriage, and the indefatigable efforts of our Christ professing President to destroy it. He’s not alone. There is one Republican candidate who is on board with the agenda, the only one, as it happens, who has gotten positive press in the comments of yourself and others succeeding your blog: Ron Paul.

John Stossel: “Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?”
Ron Paul: “Sure.”

Anonymous Interviewer: “So your position on issues like gay marriage, you would be supportive of that?”
Ron Paul: “I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”

“There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage,” Ron Paul’s Book, Liberty Defined

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage: “Would you support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman?”
Ron Paul: “No.”

Sorry if that wasn’t clear in my first post. Probably I’m just nervous posting here b/c of how much your preaching ministry has served to correct & redefine my own over the last few years! Keep up the good work!

Dr. Murray: Thanks for your response. To clarify, I didn’t say anything about politicians calling the nation to repentance. (As a preacher, I’m calling THEM to repentance.) My comment simply asserted that politicians must THEMSELVES repent, embrace Christ as the “King of Kings”, and openly acknowledge the Scriptures as morally authoritative.

I truly covet your optimism However, I’m not aware of any nation that God has enabled to “get the second table right” while spurning the first table (Rom. 1). In the U.S., we’ve been trying that approach since 1789 and today there isn’t much “second table” left to speak of!