Letter: McNamar a politician, not a statesman
Representative Jay McNamar's statement on how he reached a decision to vote for the forced acceptance of homosexual marriage reveals that he is a politician, not a statesman. McNamar made the following statement: "I said from the very beginning that I would make my decision based on what my constituents told me."
When I read his comments I thought to myself, this is how politicians decide which way to vote on issues, but this is not the way that a statesman would make a decision. Politicians main concern is staying power, and the only way to maintain power is to get re-elected. If your main objective is to get re-elected then you simply put your finger in the air, see which way the wind is blowing, and vote to appease the majority of the electorate. A true statesman articulates his world view to the electorate prior to being elected and when any vote is cast he votes his convictions, regardless how popular or unpopular the decision.
I understand that many citizens call, write, or email their representatives on how they want them to vote on a particular piece of legislation, but if we took the time to learn the candidates world view before the election we wouldn't have to wonder how he/she will vote on a given issue. If elected servants were principled men and women of character they would vote their convictions, not according to the will of the people.
Mr. McNamar's revealed two things about himself in his letter: 1) He is a politician rather than a statesman; according to his own statement he allowed his actions to be swayed by outward pressure rather than an inward conviction. 2) He is a wolf in sheep's clothing; he says that he is a religious man raised on John 3:16, yet he endorsed legalizing and legitimizing a behavior which Jesus (who he claims to follow) calls sinful and detestable.
Being raised on a single verse does not a Christian make, but rather embracing the entirety of Jesus' teachings marks the life of a Christian. A more fitting chapter for Mr. McNamar to have used, considering the context of the debate, would have been Romans 1.