October 29, 2008

I mailed in my absentee ballot today, and, as I hinted I would a few weeks ago, I bubbled in “no” for Proposition 8.

Yes or no I could find a Christian minister to support my vote. But on an issue like same-sex marriage, I don’t think it matters whether I believe God is bothered by homosexuality. Proposition 8 has to do with fundamental rights—limiting them, that is. Marriage, despite what we always hear, is not a religious convention. It is a cultural convention. And the words “sanctity of marriage,” to my mind, have more to do with tax breaks and hospital visitation than ordaining a relationship before God.

As an evangelical Christian—as someone who, uncomfortable as it is to sometimes say this, reads in the Bible that homosexuality is a “perversion”—I don’t believe it is the job of government to legislate based on religion. We’ve seen how that works out.

On this I strongly differ with an evangelical leader who I have much respect for: Rick Warren. In an e-mail last week to his congregation, Warren wrote:

“For 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion—not just Christianity—has defined marriage as a contract between men and women,” Warren wrote. “There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population. This is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have publicly opposed the redefinition of marriage to include so-called ‘gay marriage.’ Even some gay leaders, like Al Rantel of KABC oppose watering down the definition of marriage.

Warren concluded: “This will be a close contest, maybe even decided by a few thousand votes. I urge you to VOTE YES on Proposition 8—to preserve the biblical definition of marriage. Don’t forget to vote!”

I’m always skeptical when people emphasize their argument by saying “there is no doubt.” Clearly, on this issue there is doubt, even among like-minded believers. Indeed, among Christians there’s debate regarding whether homosexuality is even, in fact, sin. (See: Episcopal Church.) My understanding of the Bible, courtesy of my evangelical tradition, says it is. But I wouldn’t call this an open-and-shut case. How then should we treat our brothers and sisters?

P.S. I discussed this yesterday with a friend and she had a very different take. Though nto sure how she would vote on Prop. 8, she thought I was foolish to think that allowing same-sex marriage would have no impact on practicing my own beliefs. She pointed to a number of cases in the United States where people refused services to gays or lesbians, citing religious beliefs, and lost (i.e. Doctors in California who referred a lesbian patient to another physician for in vitro fertilization).

“In fact, the court ruled that there can be no religious exemption for refusing services to any homosexual ever. So freedom of conscience/religion is out in California,” she said. “You may say that’s no skin off your evangelical back . . .but I think it’s naive.”

During the past few days, there has been a growing push from a number of blogs to get the Los Angeles Times to release a videotape of Barack Obama honoring Rashid Khalidi, the Mideast scholar, critic of Israel and alleged former mouthpiece of the PLO.

The tape, which contained footage of Obama and others bidding Khalidi farewell when he left Chicago for New York, had been referenced in an April article titled “Allies of Palestinians See a Friend in Obama,” and on it the Times reported, were the goings-on of an evening railing against Israel:

At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.

Bloggers have wanted to see the tape, to know what else Obama said that evening and to what he sat idly by as others said. Was he silent when and if a pro-Palestinian voice, like Khalidi’s, attacked Israel?

“Barack Obama wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so staunchly supports … would he?” Andrew McCarthy asked in a column for NRO. “I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape.”

I considered blogging about this yesterday but I decided that the reason the tape hadn’t been released was likely because the Times had acquired it from a confidential source who didn’t want to be identified, and knew they would if the tape got out. Today, when John McCain’s campaign piled on and demanded the tape be released to the public, I was proven correct.

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” the Time’s editor, Russ Stanton, said in a statement. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

That may seem like a cop out, but it’s not. It’s a legally binding contract. And we know more information because it was entered into than we would if it hadn’t been. This story, indeed, is one the rest of the media missed, and for that the Times shouldn’t be given the same old song and dance.

I’m baffled. Why—oh why—are we supposed to care about the sage wisdom from the mouth of Joe the unlicensed plumber?

Yesterday real-life Mr. Clean said Barack Obama would turn the United States into a socialist nation and would bring about the “death of Israel.” And the media lapped it up. Associated Press filed a wire story picked up around the world, including in Israel:

The Ohio plumber, whose real name is Samuel Wurzelbacher, agreed with a Jewish McCain supporter who asked him during an election rally in Ohio if he believed “a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel.”

“I’ll go ahead and agree with you on that,” Wurzelbacher told the man, retired Florida lawyer Stan Chapman who was visiting Ohio.

Wurzelbacher, who also said he believed Obama would make America a socialist nation, was joined at the rally by Rob Portman, a former Ohio congressman and budget director under President Bush, who said he disagreed with Chapman’s assessment of Obama’s foreign policy.

Shortly after Wurzelbacher’s statement was made, the McCain campaign issued a statement saying “while he’s clearly his own man, so far Joe has offered some penetrating and clear analysis that cuts to the core of many of the concerns that people have with Barack Obama’s statements and policies.”

Penetrating and clear analysis … are you kidding me? I’m sorry, but when did ol’ Joe become an expert on domestic and foreign policy? I really thought he would disappear after it was revealed that he isn’t a licensed plumber and he isn’t even close to making the kind of money that would be more heavily taxed by an Obama administration. Somehow he’s become the populist voice of a floundering campaign.

From CNN.com:

The already-contentious North Carolina Senate race took a brutal turn Wednesday after incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole released a television ad suggesting challenger Kay Hagan is “Godless.”

“A leader of the Godless Americans PAC recently held a secret fundraiser for Kay Hagan,” the 30-second ad says before showing clips from members of the group declaring God and Jesus do not exist.

“Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras. Took godless money,” the ad’s narrator also says. “What did Kay Hagan promise in return?”

The ad ends with an unidentified female voice declaring, “There is no God.”

The Dole campaign says it’s basing its charge on Hagan’s attendance at a fundraiser that was in the home of an advisor to the Godless Americans’ political action committee, a group that promotes rights for atheists.

The implied message, of course, is that atheists have no rights and if you are a politician who pretends they do, godly American will come after you. Well, I’m a God-fearing American and I find this attack despicable. Kind of reminds me of the presidential battle between Jefferson and Adams. No wonder some atheists feel the need to be a bit militant, or at least better organized.

The ad, courtesy of Christianity Today’s politics blog, is after the jump:

I’ve mentioned it before: Jews dominate American politics.

That’s not a tipping of the hat to conspiracy theorists or anti-Semites or one of these. There is nothing wrong with Jewish—or Mormon—over representation in the U.S. capitol. That’s just the way things are.

Jewish lawmakers broke records two years ago when 30 were elected to the House and 13 to the Senate. Thirteen—that’s six-and-half times the proportion of Jews in the general population. And this year Jewish representation looks to be on the up and up.

JTA has a breakdown of some of the more interesting “Jewish races,” including the fight between Minnesota incumbent Norman Coleman and his co-religionist, Al Franken (pictured).