Though Senator Daniel Webster has been the victim of a smear campaign by Alan Grayson (where Grayson claims that Senator Webster wants to remove women’s rights), I prefer Senator Webster’s brand of women’s rights to the opposition.

I must preface this by saying that I am a (sometimes outspoken) woman and have known Senator Webster personally since I was an adolescent.  If all men were as honorable and principled as Daniel Webster, women would have no problem submitting. Truly, his message is to men.  The message is that men should love their wives.

A man in who follows the principles that Senator Webster prescribes loves his wife, takes care of her, does not compare her to pornography, does not abuse her,  respects her, and praises her.  How’s that for women’s rights?

Senator Webster is attacked for his stance on women’s rights issues.  His opponent harps on the issue of abortion, accurately describing Senator Webster’s ban on abortion—even in the instance of rape.  That is true.  The principle that Senator Webster adheres to requires that those in power protect the life of those who cannot protect themselves.  Therefore, protecting the right to life of a person (having a new set of DNA upon conception) is no longer an issue of women’s rights.  Truly, the right to avoid stretch marks and childbirth pales in comparison to the right to live.  However, this is deviating from Senator Webster’s point.  His call is to men.  He calls men to be principled.  If men would follow the principles that Senator Webster teaches, there would be no rape in the first place.

Senator Webster is also attacked because of the covenant marriage bill that he supported.  His opponent said, “[the] bill reduces the institution of marriage to a roach motel: You can check in, but you can’t check out.”  Isn’t that the point?  Why does his opponent expect the constituents to make poor choices when choosing a spouse?  This was another example of Senator Webster knowing his audience.  He was making it available as an option to the people who are choosing to adhere to a set of principles.  One of these principles is not to cite “irreconcilable differences” as a reason to divorce.  He is not advocating that women should be abused.  He’s advocating that people reconcile and become better people.  Again, if men lived by the principles that he teaches, there would be no abusive husbands.  To his opponent, if the women in your constituency are too short-sighted to choose a good husband with whom they are willing to experience that “for better or for worse,” then maybe they shouldn’t choose the covenant marriage option.  How’s that for women’s rights?

I’ve seen news clip after news clip where Representative Grayson attempts to discredit Senator Webster by describing him as a religious fanatic.  While Senator Webster did use Bible references in a speech to people who had asked him to come teach biblical principles specifically, his “radical” and “bizarre” message is “love your wife.”  Whoa, Nelly!  If these are principles that Alan Grayson defines as radical, I’m glad I don’t live at his house!

I have the kind of husband who Senator Webster describes.  While it is my responsibility to choose goodness for him and for our children, it is HIS job to take care of me.  He regularly sacrifices his own comfort to make me happy.  When he makes a “head of the household” decision, he insists on asking for my input first.  I seriously have the better end of this deal!  Because my husband chooses these principles, I am needed, respected and valued.

When a man is good at I Peter 3:7, a woman is happy to be I Peter 3:1-6.  The kind of man who follows these principles inspires (not forces) his wife to submit. We need more men like Daniel Webster (who conducts himself by principle and diplomacy) in our homes and in our government.