When it comes to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and providing medical care, liberals very easily remind Christians of their Christian duty. It's almost droll: when these issues are raised, you know you're supposed to be doing this and that, aren't you, Christians? Yet mention the right to life or the sanctity of marriage, and Christians are scaling that false wall of separation.
It simply cannot be both ways. If you're going to assert that the Church and Her members live up to the call when you happen to like it then you cannot insist also that the entire call, where it is not exclusively religious, must not be translated into public practice. If feeding the hungry is a moral good despite, perhaps, being a duty which religious practice demands, then so too is defending the unborn. If housing the homeless is a moral good based to a great degree on religious sentiment, then so to is the recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Thus, you cannot demand that Christians leave their duty to their creed at the voting booth curtain. If you expect them to vote for government solutions when the question of worldly poverty arises, then you must expect them to vote their religious duty towards ending abortion. We simply aren't talking about wholly religious issues on things such as poverty and life. We're talking about basic moral questions the answers to which define ourselves as a society. And as moral persons.
Yes, and define ourselves as Christians. If we are expected to be whole Christians then we must live up to that. And society must allow it if it is to be just, civil, moral and, indeed, free.
What those do when they demand we not vote our creed in practical application is nothing short of effrontery. It is insulting and immoral in itself. The left, the libertarians, they don't get that. That's why it's so critical too that, come any election, we vote our creed.