Time's Cover Story, "Unfaithfully Yours," was Woefully Inadequate

This past week's Time Magazine featured a cover story by Caitlin Flanagan called "Unfaithfully Yours: Is There Hope for the American Marriage?" (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908243,00.html)

Well, it kinda riled me up. So I decided to write to Time. Since I'm sure they won't print my letter (especially since it appears the new magazine is already out) I wanted to post it here. Without further ado, here is my letter to Time about Caitlin Flanagan's poorly written article about American Marriage:

I have always adored your magazine, but your recent cover story (Unfaithfully Yours, July 13, 2009) was a big disappointment. I kept reading Caitlin Flanagan’s article expecting to see more depth, but instead she spent the entire article trying to explain why two biological parent homes are the only chance our children have for success, completely ignoring any household configuration which differs from the “nuclear family” ideal and assuming that divorces come only when spouses become “bored.” The truth is that few families adhere strictly to the traditional model nowadays, and the reasons that families become broken are rarely as simple as boredom or infidelity, but often involve abuse (either physical or emotional), neglect, mental illness, and addiction.

The bulk of the article explained how unmarried women who have children are setting their kids up for failure, but there was hardly any discussion about divorced women who escaped abusive spouses. There was plenty of time spent on how damaging single mothers are to kids, but no time explaining the impact of abusive, neglectful, unhappy families on children. Also glaringly omitted is the sociological impact of loving, committed step-fathers who are fully willing to give 70% of their incomes and create a stable home life. It’s quite possible that they don’t have the same impact of the biological father, but that issue is never addressed. It seems that Flanagan assumes that every broken home leaves a woman alone with no possibility of regaining stability with a loving, committed partner.

In addition, there was clearly a missed opportunity with this article. Perhaps one of the most hotly contested, newsworthy topics of the year is same-sex marriage. However, reading Flanagan’s article, you would assume that there is no such thing. If the purpose of the article was to discuss how to “make marriage matter again,” then we should certainly include the impact that a loving, committed, same sex couple has on their children. We should certainly include the impact that a loving, committed step father has on his step-children. We should certainly determine if adopted children and foster children are as likely to fail as children from single-parent homes due the fact that there is NO biological parent. We should certainly do more than talk about how much fun infidelity is, how miserable people should continue making their families miserable for the “sake of the kids,” and how single mothers are ruining their children.

I have come to expect well researched, thorough, multifaceted articles from Time, but this one definitely missed the mark.

Chardon L. Moore

Why Can't We All Just Get Along??? The Politics of Political Segregation

It's always interesting to hear from people who think you're a complete idiot without ever having met you. Let me explain...I've finally joined the "Twitterlution," primarily so that I can instantly get news updates no matter where I am in the world.

In an effort to be a well-rounded liberal, I follow a lot of conservatives. Not so I can make fun of them, but so that I can see what their concerns are...what they care about. I want to know how they view political events. I'm around a lot of liberals and moderate conservatives, so I want to know where the hardliners are coming from.

So what's been happening? Some of them have labeled me the "enemy." Some of them have decided to attack what I've said, one of which surprisingly chose the most nonpartisan statement I've made yet to attack me. I'm pretty sure I've been blocked by a couple, not because I've attacked them, but because they're afraid.

I'm not innocent either. I'd be lying if I said I didn't antagonize a conservative or two (or 200...who knows?) I find I'm much more aggressive when I'm around other liberals or when I'm online. Anonymity has a strange effect on people.

This all got me thinking...Why can't we get along? The truth is that conservatives and liberals of all stripes want the same things from their life and their country: freedom, prosperity, safety, happiness. The only thing that separates us is how we believe these ends can best be achieved.

(**WARNING: Generalizations about Liberals and Conservatives based on core ideology coming up!) Liberals believe that creating a prosperous society for everyone begins with leveling the playing field and helping our fellow man, giving everyone a chance to foster their talents regardless of class, race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc; Conservatives believe that prosperity can only be achieved by allowing people to succeed (0r fail) on their own accord, and that helping the downtrodden will only weaken them by making them reliant on the state. Liberals believe that the best way to ensure a healthy, functional society is to allow people to make their own decisions about their body. Conservatives believe that the best way to ensure a healthy, functional society is to encourage morality through legislation.

See what I mean? We all want the same things, so why do the politically engaged segregate themselves like fans of rival sports teams?

The Sports Analogy (Look Ya'll! I'm Taking a Cue from Palin!)

Diehard sports fans make an interesting analogy to understand why we self-segregate based on political ideology.

Sports fans are very knowledgeable about the sport they love. They know all the rules, they know all the teams, they know all the stadiums and what makes each stadium unique...they're passionate about the sport. They have their favorite teams, sometimes because it's their local team, sometimes it's just because. They also have teams they hate.

So why do they have teams they hate? Doesn't every team play the same sport the fans are passionate about? And why do people like teams from cities/states that they've never even been to? Why do fans hate one another when they have so much in common? If it's not the fans who benefit from team rivalries, then who does?

Easy. The team. If everybody loved every team equally, then there would be fewer ticket sales, fewer merchandise sales, less marketing potential. Do you think the Boston Red Socks would be as popular (or make as much $$) if not for their rivalry with the NY Yankees?

Sports team management exists for the purpose of making MONEY. Money allows them to buy better players, and thus keep the sports franchise ALIVE. They make more money by convincing their fans that they need to show their team spirit to defeat their rivals.

Political parties, on the other hand, exist for the sole purpose of getting their party in office. For political parties, the only way they can stay relevant is to keep their followers in line by vilifying the other side. What would happen if moderate Democrats started to vote for moderate Republicans? It would weaken the party. Republicans and Democrats need us to be against one another so we can unify behind THEIR candidates...and nothing unifies like having an enemy. Don't believe me? Think about how unified we were following 9/11!

So political parties make us hate one another and convince us that their way is the only way to save the country. They tell us what we should believe and we spew their talking points. Instead of thinking about WHY we believe what we say we do; we let them do our thinking for us. We don't research issues like we should, and when we debate it shows...because instead of having an informed discussion, we simply hurl insults at one another.

They win, we lose. Keeping us this divided weakens our country. Bipartisanship in general doesn't benefit either party, which is why you usually only hear about it when one party complains about how unwilling the other party is to work together. They are acting in their own self interest, not ours.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is why I'm an independent. I encourage all of you to think independently too.

And for the love of all that's holy, if you're going to start a debate with me, please come armed. Don't throw around insults and make baseless accusations, bring facts and challenge my MIND. Do YOUR part to elevate political discussion instead of contributing nothing to the argument. If we can't unite in our similarities and understand our differences, then we're doing nothing but pissing each other off with no purpose. If we can't speak TO one another instead of yelling PAST one another, then we're just as bad as Congress...and at only a 12-18% approval rating, that's not a good thing.

Well, whaddaya know? I'm pretty sure I've found something we can all agree on!

From OutImpact.Com: Politicians Putting Penises Where Penises Shouldn't Go

This is certainly a topic I enjoy writing about. I first wrote about this type of thing when I was 16 years old back in 1998...of course, back then, it was wild Bill (oh, how I miss that man!).

I've commented on a lot of Politicians who can't seem to keep it in their pants, but Gov. Mark Sanford's recent indiscretion made me re-evaluate myself. You see, I've been a bit hard on the conservatives lately. That was perfectly fine when they were running my country into the flipping ground, but something about the pathetic state of the current Republican party makes me feel like I'm just kicking someone when they're down.

Additionally, I pride myself on being able to look at both sides of most any issue. Was I giving liberals more leeway than conservatives? If so, does the moral hypocrisy of conservative philanderers really make that double standard okay?

So I went through my old writing, looked at my conclusions at the time, and tried to think about the situation again with an open mind. Here are my conclusions:

President Bill Clinton, Democrat (1998)
Then: Who cares if he got a BJ as long as he did his job? And so what if he lied about it? He just did what any other adulterer would do.
Now: Yeah, that hasn't changed. I don't care where he sticks his cigars OR his penis. Except for some of his global economic policy, he did a pretty decent job as Prez. In the end, I still think the impeachment was excessive...I agree with his decision not to resign from his office.

Jim McGreevy, Democrat (2004)
Then: This is just what happens when you force people to live a lie. If it was "okay" to be gay, then he probably never would have spent so many years in a sham marriage, the stress of which led him to make poor decisions which ultimately sunk his political career.
Now: I still feel sorry for Ex-Gov. McGreevy. In my opinion, he didn't do anything wrong PUBLICLY. His screw up was with his wife and his wife only. Should he have resigned? Probably, but only because his political capital was spent...nobody was listening to him anymore. Did he deserve to have his political career sunk? I don't think so.

Mark Foley, Republican (2006)
Then: The Height of hypocrisy from the "moral" party. Hitting on pages? Pages are young, high-school aged KIDS. This isn't just a case of a closeted homosexual, this is pedophilia.
Now: Even though he came back out of obscurity recently with claims that he was molested by priests when he was young, I still think he's a douchebag. Do you know what that's called in the justice system? A "mitigating factor." And there's tons of people in jail because their mitigating factors don't excuse the crime, they just help explain it. Just because you were diddled by your priest doesn't give you the right to ruin other kids' lives. Should he have resigned? Hell yeah. Screwing a consenting adult outside of the bonds of matrimony is one thing (albeit a really crappy thing)...propositioning kids is illegal, and it's indicative of much deeper and more disturbing issues.

Senator Larry Craig, Republican (2007)
Then: Just another example of what happens when people are forced to live a lie. Ever heard the old adage, "He who smelt it dealt it?" Well, Larry Craig certainly "smelt" plenty of it. He consistently voted against gay rights issues so that no one would ever suspect HE was secretly gay. Serves him right. I love seeing a hypocrite fall from grace.
Now: Ehh, I'm not as proud of this one. My realization that I made a mistake with this one came rather soon after I wrote it. The biggest issue in this case isn't that he propositioned sex in a bathroom with someone who was not his wife, nor is it his hypocrisy. The issue which initially escaped me was this...why the hell are tax dollars paying for a sting operation trying to catch consenting adults having sex??? If Sen. Craig utilized his "wide stance" technique at a bar, his solicitation would have been perfectly legal. And there's no difference really. How sad that cops take time away from trying to catch real criminals to keep adults from screwing each other anonymously in an airport bathroom. He didn't resign, he just decided not to run for re-election. Was this fair? No. As much as I hate his views, I'm not convinced that his extracurricular activities impacted anyone other than his family. If he still did his job, who cares where he sticks his penis?

Governor Eliot Spitzer, Democrat (2008)
Then: Righteous anti-crime Gov. falls from grace in a spectacular way. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, and proves that there is no mightier fall than a crusader taken down by the very thing he crusaded against. This is the last thing the Democratic party needs in an election year.
Now: Thankfully, Spitzer's indiscretions didn't sink Obama's political aspirations. He did fairly well destroying only himself, which is probably why he has a chance at resurrecting his political career someday. Should he have resigned? Yes. He broke the very laws that he built his political career on. That's a deal-breaker for me.

John Edwards, Democrat (2008)
Then: Oh jeez! So all this time I campaigned for him in the freezing cold, all the hours I drove just to hear him speak, all the shots I had at the Myrtle Beach bar with some of his campaign staff while watching the S.C. debates...all that time, and I had a chance all along? I always told people that "If a $400 haircut makes you look THAT good, it's worth every penny." If only I had known I had a chance.
Now: Okay, let me just say that I've always had a crush on John Edwards, but I'm not a homewrecker, so that was totally tongue-in-cheek. That having been said, how low can you go? Cheating on your wife when she's sick? John, say it ain't so. Should this have sunk his political career? I'm not sure. On one hand, much like many conservatives, he campaigned heavily on his family values. But...on another hand, he didn't engage in a lot of the morality politics that many politicians do. And since his only public job at the time was a Vice Presidential/Presidential candidate, I can't really say that the affair caused him to neglect his constituents. Maybe it's just because I have a sweet spot for him, or maybe I am biased as hell, but I still hope ol' Johnny boy pulls through with something in the future.

John Ensign, Republican (2009)
Then: (From Twitter) Sen. Ensign: Everyone makes mistakes, that's forgivable. Hypocrisy? Not so much. Talk about 'ruining marriage,' Ensign's doing a great job. (The "ruining marriage" comment was based on the conservative notion that giving equal rights to gays will ruin marriage.)
Now: When it happened, I thought he should resign, especially since he was one of the loudest voices calling for Bill Clinton's resignation during Lewinsky-gate. However, unlike Spitzer, his whole career wasn't defined by putting people in jail for the same thing he did. I think my initial feeling that he should resign comes more from my dislike of him and his "Promise Keeper's" agenda. Does his hypocrisy alone give me the right to call for his resignation when I don't think people like Bill Clinton should resign? If I'm looking at it objectively, no. That decision is better left up to his constituency. If they feel that he was sufficiently hypocritical, and they feel that this makes him an ineffective public servant, then they'll vote him out of office. Leave that decision to them.

And FINALLY, Governor Mark Sanford, Republican (2009). He campaigned on his family values, but was having affairs all along. Sure, he said he never crossed the line until recently, but that could mean anything depending on what his definition of "sex" is. (Think Bill Clinton's assertion that oral sex isn't sex.) But that alone doesn't mean he should resign. What about his job performance? Well, let's see... he disappeared for a solid week without telling his staff where he was going, without notifying the Lt. Gov., and apparently without taking his Blackberry, since no one heard a peep from him until he got back from his little "vacation." He basically abandoned his state to get himself some trim.

My non-partisan verdict? Not every adulterer is created equal. If you're only guilty of infidelity and hypocrisy, then I don't think they should resign. That decision should be made by their constituents through a free and fair election. But there are three circumstances under which I think public officials should resign:

1. When the affair has completely deprived them of all political capital. If you are no longer capable of doing your job because people won't work with you, then it's as if you've already resigned. Give your constituents a better chance to be represented and step down. (like McGreevy & Craig)


2. When you SERIOUSLY break the law (like Foley) or when you break the very law you based your entire political career on (Spitzer).


3. When you start thinking with your little head instead of your big head, and you seriously neglect your duties to an insanely irresponsible degree. (Sanford, I'm lookin' at you.)

In my opinion, political party doesn't matter, and hypocrisy alone shouldn't be a factor in determining whether someone should resign. But of course, the bottom line is that it's much better to not stick your penis where it shouldn't be to begin with.

Lobbying your Legislator TIP #1: When to call?

You want to call your legislator about a really important issue, and you want your voice heard. But when to call?

For most legislatures, Mondays convene late (5-7pm). This is to allow legislators who have real jobs time to get their weekly business affairs in order before driving to the State Capitol. If you call on Monday, you won't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting in touch with your legislator...and their staff won't be likely to see the legislator until Tuesday. Your message can get lost overnight, so it lessens the likelihood that your concern will be heard.

Unless there's something really pressing going on, you won't ever see a legislature convening on Friday. If they do, you can still be assured that your voice won't be heard...if they're working on Friday or during the weekend, there's something so big on their plates (like a budget or a REALLY important bill) that they won't be able to give any time to anything else. Friday is the worst day to call, because then you get a staff member, and your message won't be passed on until Tuesday when your legislator gets back in town.

Wednesday is another bad day to call. Its typically the busiest committee day, which means more bills on the calendar to be debated both in committee and in chamber. Tons of calls, tons of lobbyist visits, tons of appointments...it's a crazy day. Unless you're calling about a bill that's scheduled to be debated in chamber that day, you're going to get lost in the chaos.

So, bottom line, what are the best days to call? Tuesday and Thursday. There's a lower volume of calls, the staff is less stressed and more likely to be able to accurately record your concern, and you have a better chance of catching an actual legislator!

More to come, stay tuned!

Iran: Why We Can't Play into the Hands of Oppressors

I haven't slept in weeks. If you look at my Twitter feed (please subscribe! http://www.twitter.com/chardonmoore), you'll realize why...Iran is dominating all my time.

Earlier in the revolution, when Iranians still had free access to Twitter and Youtube, I signed up to get Twitter updates on my Blackberry from several good sources before I went to bed. The next day, my phone crashed three times while I tried to read all the news. As a certified information addict, I was hooked.

Neda broke my heart, I'm still praying for PersianKiwi (http://www.twitter.com/persiankiwi) and I've been trying to help out from my armchair as much as possible. Although I certainly encourage all of you to be armchair activists, I realize that we, as a country, have to be very careful about how we proceed.

Why Ahmadinejad Wants Us to Intervene
To Ahmadinejad, and more precisely Khamenei, we are the enemy. We are the "Great Satan," we are the ones to blame for everything. Much like the USA, Iran has been suffering from financial difficulty which threatens to bankrupt the country. For years, Ahmadinejad has been capitalizing on the fears of the common man by blaming western countries for all Iran's failings. Just as we watched G.W. Bush declared Iran was part of an "Axis of Evil," and cringed at Bush's international gaffes (Bring 'em on!), the progressive crowd in Iran was doing the same thing every time Ahmadinejad opened his mouth.

You see, Ahmadinejad is Iran's George W. Bush. He's a big supporter of legislating morality, he panders to the "common man," and his every decision is actually made by an old crusty curmudgeon puppet-master(Supreme Leader Khamenei). Obviously, I'm glossing over a lot of details, but the comparison is still valid and it puts a lot of things into perspective for Americans. Liberals, remember when Bush won his second term, and a website came out called "Sorry Everybody," which was an apology to the world by the 1/2 of America who didn't vote for Dubya? (http://www.sorryeverybody.com/index_old.shtml) That's the way that these young Iranians have been feeling for years.

Ahmadinejad and Khamenei needs western countries like the US to keep their population afraid, just as the GOP needed the middle east to scare people into voting for them. A fearful population is easier to manipulate. An "us vs. them" mentality makes it easier for dictators to flourish. Don't believe me? Look at WWII Germany (Aryans vs. Jews), The Cold War (Russia/China vs. Western Capitalism) and even modern day North Korea (The Dear Leader vs. US). Dictators succeed by controlling how their people see the enemy, convince their population that the enemy is dangerous to their personal well-being, and persuade them into believing that they alone are the only ones with a solution...they are the only ones who can keep you safe.

If we play into the hands of the oppressors by speaking tough and not backing it up with military action (which, lets face it, we can't afford to do right now) then we are undermining the protesters because we are giving fodder to the rumors of CIA/USA involvement in their protests. If the rest of Iran can be convinced that the US was involved in the protests, then it lessens the impact of their fight for their voice...it implies that we're running the show and they're just acting under our orders. If the leaders of Iran admitted that the protests are solely the result of a homegrown uprising, then they would essentially be admitting their failures. By shifting the blame to one of their favorite enemies, then this only serves to strengthen their argument.

The only chance that Iranian leaders have to restore their legitimacy is if they can pawn this whole movement off on USA meddling. Should we intervene in some fashion? Probably soon, but not now.

Predictions
(Keep in mind, these are only predictions. There's a damn good chance I'll be wrong. Also, keep in mind that I'm not talking about what I WANT to happen. I'm looking at this from a Political Scientist's perspective to deduce what may happen in the future. I'm a supporter of the Sea of Green, and I don't want to dishearten them in any way!!!)

• Mousavi will continue to step back from the protests, leaving the protesters to their own devices. As a result, the protesters, who have been predominantly non-violent up to this point, will become increasingly violent. As protesters see their family members and friends suffer violence, they will become hardened and begin to retaliate. We're already seeing this in some of the talk on Twitter.
• Basiji militants will continue to injure, murder, intimidate, and arrest opposition fighters. As more of the organizers and figureheads of the revolution fall, the protests will decrease in number but continue to increase in violence.
• The world, which has been so involved and supportive, will grow tired of the Iranian fight, and news will continue to devote less and less coverage.
• After several weeks, when the government feels that enough people have been arrested/detained/intimidated, they MIGHT agree to a runoff election...but only if they haven't lost the support of their rural/religious voters.
• Ultimately, unless Mousavi is assassinated, there will probably be talks between the opposition and the government about some type of power-sharing arrangement to heal the wounds of the country, similar to the recent agreement reached in Zimbabwe. (Watch to see if Obama jockeys for position as the broker for the power-sharing arrangement.)

Of course, these predictions are contingent upon what Iranians who are not part of the Sea of Green feel. If the average, moderate to religious Iranian buys the government's propaganda, then there's no reason to powershare. The truth is that we really don't know what regular Iranians think, all we can see are the posts from these wonderful, brave, righteous revolutionaries. Iran is a big country...and we don't really know how widespread the unrest is. We know it's massive in large cities, but what about the towns? What about the common man, what does he think? I'll wager to say he isn't twittering about it.

If the Iranian government continues to crack down on the media, then corners the opposition into acting violently in retaliation, then it's quite possible that he'll be able to sway public opinion to his favor. It is vital that Mousavi not back down and leave his supporters without a leader. It is vital to the success of the revolution that Iranian propaganda fail. It is also vital that we not play into the hands of oppressors, so that we can't be used to unify the populace against the American/western menace.

What do you think? Let me know. Leave a comment or DM me on Twitter. I'll be looking forward to hearing from you!

Argument with a Member of Rick Warren's Church from Comments on "Obama's Brilliant Manipulation" Post on OutImpact.Com

Make sure you read my column first for background on the following comments: http://www.outimpact.com/features/politics/wake-up-obamas-brilliant-manipulation-1606

Following are the Comments:

Charlie says:
December 28, 2008 at 9:40 am (Edit)
How does Pastor Rick “prevent” homosexuals from worship at his church?! Don’t look now, Christ-o-phobe.


Chardon Moore says:
December 28, 2008 at 11:01 am (Edit)
From the Saddleback Church’s website:
“Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at [sic] a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church –we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.”

I made a mistake in my column, he does allow them to worship, but they can’t be members. The hope is that gay folks will hear the word of God and be “cured.” But he can’t keep people from joining if they aren’t OUT.


Interestingly enough, the Think Progress blog made an interesting discovery. For some reason, Saddleback Church has taken down all the anti-gay rhetoric. Check out their blog to see the google cache of the site, and then read what it says now: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/22/warren-gay-website/

Charlie says:
December 29, 2008 at 7:02 pm (Edit)
On behalf of Saddleback Church, I accept your apology. Also, you should have kept quoting from that web site for the full context:
“In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a [heterosexual] couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.”
…

“Finally, a word about being judgmental. It’s not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that’s just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are … that’s being judgmental.”


Chardon Moore says:
December 29, 2008 at 8:31 pm (Edit)
Charlie,
I’m actually quite glad that you commented on this column, because it gives me a chance to write about something near and dear to my heart…something that I omitted from this column in an effort to improve its readability. As a lifelong Christian (Baptized at age 7), and the granddaughter of a Baptist Minister, I have become increasingly disturbed at the trend of modern churches towards seclusion, exclusivity, and intolerance.
I did not offer you or your church an apology, and I don’t believe you deserve one. The mistake I made was one of degree…Saddleback Church does not “forbid” gays from worshipping at their church.

However, the word you use, “prevent” (meaning to keep from happening, or to impede) is exactly what your church does in regards to homosexuals.

By refusing to offer them membership, you are singling them out as unworthy to belong. God made us social animals, and as such, we tend to avoid situations where we are made to feel unwelcomed. This is not anywhere in the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you really believe that homosexuality is a sin, you should be actively reaching out to them, not making them feel as though they don’t belong.


And about that…Do you know what Jesus said about homosexuality? Nothing. Read your bible, the whole thing, not just the passages highlighted in Sunday School and Sermons. He does say that he subscribes to the Laws of Moses, which do condemn homosexuality. Leviticus lays out a lot of laws that Jesus subscribed to, including Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination.” Notice that this passage only condemns male homosexuality, and says nothing of lesbianism. Also, notice that Leviticus 18:19 and Leviticus 18:21 condemn being with a woman on her period and masturbation, respectively, yet I don’t see Saddleback Church denying membership to people who have relations when Aunt Flo is visiting or who masturbate. I’ll bet you wouldn’t have many members.

I am not a Christ-o-phobe, dear Charlie. I am afraid of what has been done to Christ’s teachings. I’m afraid of the perversion of his love, and the way so many have forgotten that Jesus Christ is about acceptance and inclusion, not judgment and isolation. Old Testament God, before he sent his son to save the world, did not have a lot of mercy in his repertoire. But that’s why he sent Jesus, he sent his son to bring compassion and love to the world.
Of course, I have my own thoughts, as you have yours. It is not up to me, it’s not up to you, and it’s not up to Pastor Warren to presume to know what God’s plan entails. I guess we will find out who’s right when judgment day comes.



Charlie says:
December 31, 2008 at 12:38 pm (Edit)
I’m glad that you are GLAAD, and I guess we will find out who’s right when judgment day comes.

Chardon Moore says:
December 31, 2008 at 1:33 pm (Edit)
My dear Charlie, I do hope that someday you will join the ranks of allies like me. People who believe that it dosen’t matter who you fall in love with, all that matters is that you are in love.
We are lucky, my friend, in our heterosexuality. We don’t have to worry about being shunned or cast aside by churches like yours simply because of who we love.

I work for the government, and I had a wonderful young man named Gabriel call me the other day. He was bright, and motivated, and articulate. He told me about how his guardian had raised him to hate who he was. He told me that she looked him in the face and said that he was dead to her, based only on her Christian faith and the fact that he could no longer deny that he was a homosexual.

Would Jesus do this? No. But the teachings of people who twist Jesus’s words poisoned this woman’s soul to the degree that she was willing to cast out a child she had raised and professed to love, just because he was gay.


We are lucky that we don’t have to worry about people treating us like animals without even taking the time to understand. We are lucky that we don’t have to have that conversation with our loved ones, not knowing if they would be accepting or would cast us out like a demon.
I’ll pray that someday, my dear Charlie, you will come to realize that love and understanding are what Christianity is supposed to be about, not exclusivity and judgment.

Charlie says:
January 2, 2009 at 6:14 pm (Edit)
“The righteous man judges ALL things …” Of course Jesus Christ loves homosexuals and died on the Cross for all sinners. That doesn’t mean He loves sin; quite the opposite. And, I don’t hate anyone, but I wouldn’t condone “marriage” between an adult brother and his adult sister (even if they were, as you think is all that matters, really “in love” ; )

Chardon Moore says:
January 3, 2009 at 9:01 am (Edit)
Because, of course, the closest approximation to homosexual marriage is incest.
Didn’t you forget to add pedophilia and bestiality too? That’s what Pastor Rick teaches. As I said before, it’s a good thing he doesn’t preach that you’ll go to hell for masturbation or having sex with your wife while she’s menstruating. I’ll bet even you couldn’t be a member, then, oh pious one.

Charlie says:
January 3, 2009 at 3:27 pm (Edit)
You are the one who argued: “all that matters is that you are in love” so it should not make any difference whether that “love” takes the form of incest, pedophilia or even beastiality, right? Christians are not bound to Old Testament ceremonial law anymore. Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins (if you don’t believe me, look it up ; )


Charlie says:
January 4, 2009 at 7:38 am (Edit)
BTW: I already posted, above, that pointing out certain behavior is sin does not equate to being “judgmental”. Nice try though.


Charlie says:
January 4, 2009 at 7:45 am (Edit)
Was Jesus being “judgmental” when he told the adulterous woman “Go and sin no more”? That’s all that Rick Warren and I are saying? I would dare say that he has done more to fight HIV / AIDS around the world than any other American.

Chardon Moore says:
January 6, 2009 at 6:08 pm (Edit)
You wrote: “You are the one who argued: ‘all that matters is that you are in love’ so it should not make any difference whether that ‘love’ takes the form of incest, pedophilia or even bestiality, right? Christians are not bound to Old Testament ceremonial law anymore. Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins (if you don’t believe me, look it up ; )”

It is interesting that you commented about “ceremonial law,” and the fact that Christians are not bound to it. You do realize, of course, that Leviticus is in the Old Testament? And that it is, in fact, a part of that ceremonial law that Christ delivered us from? The Old Testament is the only part of the Bible that calls Homosexuality an “abomination” punishable by death. Do you know what else it says is punishable by death? Adultery. And you can murder your bride by stoning if you find out she’s not a virgin on your wedding night. You can also be stoned to death for having sex during your wife’s cycle.


You can’t have it both ways, Charlie. You either accept Ceremonial Law, ALL of it, or you decide that as a Christian you “are not bound to Old Testament ceremonial law anymore.”

You wrote: “BTW: I already posted, above, that pointing out certain behavior is sin does not equate to being ‘judgmental’. Nice try though.”


No, pointing out behavior does not make you “judgmental.” However, cherry picking sins, and then denying membership based on your opinion about those sins, is judgmental. Preventing membership in a church takes people one step further away from salvation, which in my opinion (and really, our opinions are all we have, as God’s plan is unknown to us) is not what Jesus would have wanted.

Church membership has been denied, in Jesus’ name, for a lot of folks. Many Christian leaders during the civil rights era believed that the Bible condoned segregation. Some churches in rural America still deny membership to African Americans, based only on the color of their skin.
As for gay marriage, there is actually nothing in the Bible that strictly forbids it. But do you know what kind of marriage was strictly forbidden? Interracial marriage.

You wrote: “Was Jesus being ‘judgmental’ when he told the adulterous woman “Go and sin no more”? That’s all that Rick Warren and I are saying? I would dare say that he has done more to fight HIV / AIDS around the world than any other American.”


Firstly, the Bible tells us that God is the only one who can judge us. Since Jesus is one third of the Holy Trinity, your question is about as rational as asking if God is judgmental.

Secondly, your HIV/AIDS comment is a complete non-sequitur, unless you’re prepared to say that most gay people have AIDS, which if you based your opinion on fact instead of what people tell you, you’d know.


Charlie, can I ask you something? Why do you care? Why is gay marriage such a big deal to you? The only kind of marriage that is available to homosexuals today is a spiritual marriage, not a civil marriage. The right that they fight for is not one of spiritual acceptance, but of legal recognition. It is an issue of equality, not an issue of religion. Is it because you don’t want there to be a law on the books that is distasteful to your vision of God?

For argument’s sake (and only that…I am not conceding anything), let’s say that homosexuality is an “abomination.” Well, there are a lot of things that are legal, but are immoral according to the Bible. And there are a lot of things that are illegal, but are deemed acceptable in the Bible.
Prostitution for example. It is stated in the bible that visiting a prostitute is acceptable for men, although not for women. In the book of Corinthians, it is clearly stated that MALE prostitutes shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Female prostitutes are okay. However, I don’t see any mega-churches like yours stumping for the legalization of prostitution, because our society believes that prostitution is immoral.

Why is this so, Charlie? Because our society has changed, and we are not the misogynistic culture we were during Jesus’ life. Churches have accepted this, as they accepted that segregation was no longer a valid biblical principle.

So, since churches have made informed decisions about the validity of bible verses based on the climate at the time the books were written, perhaps it would be good to know what the climate was like in Jesus’ time in regards to homosexuality.


Homosexual behavior in the Roman Empire was not like it is today. It was typically engaged in by the wealthy and most powerful, not in the capacity of loving relationships, but rather as sexual hedonism. Powerful men, who were often married, would have sexual relationships with slaves, with or without their consent. It didn’t matter if the slaves were male or female, just as long as the man in power was acting as the male, not as the female. These relationships were largely accepted by the culture, as long as the person in the female role was either a slave or a non-Roman.

The Romans, as you know, saw Christianity as a threat. The attacks on Christians were brutal and merciless, and Christians were often taken as “slaves” or “prisoners.” As such, they were often the target of Roman guards, soldiers, and politicians for non-consensual relations. The Romans knew that Christians and Jews subscribed to Old Testament Law, so they used sex as a torture tactic.


The other type of homosexual behavior which was prevalent was used by Roman priests and priestesses who worshiped the false Gods of sex and passion, not the Hebrew God. Drunken orgies were the norm in these types of ceremonies.

This is the culture in which the Bible was written…one where homosexuality was either an extravagant indulgence, a polytheistic ritual, or a weapon of violence. This is also the reason that homosexual marriage never came into play…the Biblical view of homosexuality was not one of consensual relationships between consenting adults who want to be partners for life. Likening this type of sadistic, hedonistic behavior to modern day homosexuality is an insult.

So given that Churches have learned that some aspects of the Bible are not applicable in our modern society, including segregation and prostitution, why is it so outlandish to ask that Christian churches like yours re-evaluate their position toward modern day homosexuality? And given that our laws as a nation often conflict with moral teachings in the Bible, is it so wrong to wonder why Christians like you are more likely to lobby for constitutional bans against recognizing two consenting adults as legally married than you are to lobby for recognition of polygamy? (In fact, you often compare homosexuality to polygamy, which is really outlandish since polygamy is acceptable according to the Bible.)


So given everything I’ve said, please help me understand, Charlie, why it’s so important to you that homosexuals not have the right to marry.

Charlie says:
January 7, 2009 at 6:05 pm (Edit)
I am going to answer your questions, even though you refuse to answer mine. I oppose same-sex marriage because the IDEAL to raise healthy children, and therefore future citizens, is one man and one woman, married and faithful to each other, in a stable and nuturing home. I don’t want Saddleback Church to “re-evaluate our position” toward modern day homosexuality anymore than you want your church to re-evalute your position on modern day murder. And, I couldn’t care less that you wonder why fundamentalist Christians are more likely to lobby for constitutional bans against recognizing two consenting adults as legally married than we are to lobby for recognition of polygamy.

For the record, however, I am not cherry-picking anything (as I noted above):

“In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a [heterosexual] couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.”


Yes, I realize that Leviticus is in the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, condemns ALL sex (even LUST) outside of marriage, but it does not “strictly forbid” interracial marriage, per se. Nor does it say that polygamy or female prostitution is acceptable. Both male and female prostitution are illegal in our secular law because of the harm to the individuals and society as a whole. I don’t need the Bible to defend laws against prostitution.


I believe that answers all of your questions, so we will see if you can answer mine now. I will say, in parting, that it is sad that you think it is “outlandish” or an “insult” to simply point out the Truth.

Chardon Moore says:
January 12, 2009 at 2:52 pm (Edit)
Charlie, what questions have I “refused” to answer? You asked how Pastor Rick “prevented” homosexuals from attending. I answered that offering exclusive membership sure seems to be an effective preventative measure. You asked if Jesus was being judgmental, and I answered yes, but with good reason…since he is the son of God and part of the Holy Trinity.

The only thing I can figure you’re referring to is this: “You are the one who argued: ‘all that matters is that you are in love’ so it should not make any difference whether that ‘love’ takes the form of incest, pedophilia or even beastiality, right?” When I read this, I believed it was in the form of a rhetorical question. I apologize if I was mistaken. In an effort to make amends, I will answer it now.


At a superficial level, your comparison can be compelling…if love is all that matters, why is this wrong? However, when you get to the real substance of the issue, it is clear that you’re comparing apples to oranges.

In the cases of beastiality and pedophilia, you’re talking about a non-consensual relationship. At least one of the partners will be unable to provide consent, either due to the fact that they’re an animal or that they’re too young to be able to legally consent. It’s rape. Rape is not love, it is violence. You are comparing acts of violence to a consensual relationship between consenting adults.


Furthermore, if you look at the perpetrator of beastiality or pedophilia, they almost always have some history of abuse or family dysfunction (such as alcoholism or drug abuse in the family, rejection or neglect from parents, overbearing parents that isolate their children, parents that fight constantly, severe financial hardship, etc.) This type of abuse or neglect caused them to develop a desire for sex with an unwilling partner, or a partner who is unable to reject them.
In the case of incest, there are genetic reasons why our culture looks at this as taboo. Biologically we are hardwired to be repulsed by anyone that is too genetically similar when choosing a mate. A recent study involved having individuals smell a number of t-shirts worn by strangers and then by close family members (i.e. mother, brother, son, etc.) Overwhelmingly, they rated strangers clothing as smelling more appealing. Why is this? Pheromones.

Pheromones determine who we are attracted to. When you haven’t seen your wife for a day or two, (I’m assuming that you have a wife, since you’re very concerned with the makeup of families, which I will comment on later) and you finally get to hold her, what’s the first thing you notice? More than her hug, it’s probably her smell. It’s comforting to you, and immediately picks up your mood. You’re reacting to her pheromones.


The role of pheromones is to attract us to individuals who are the best genetic matches for us. The more similar the genetic material, the less likely you are to be attracted. This is to safeguard against genetic mutations which are significantly more prevalent in close relationships. And while the smell of your family members can also be soothing, it causes a different part of your brain to react…one involved with recognizing familiarity and comfort, not sexual compatibility.

Again, abuse is at the root of this type of relationship, which is starkly different from a relationship between consenting adults. Individuals involved in incest have typically endured abuse, or a difficult family life, which caused an unnaturally close bond between siblings as a coping mechanism.


Of course, it bears mention that the relationships you compare to homosexuality are illegal. While there are states and municipalities where homosexual relationships are illegal, you won’t find anyone being arrested for having a consenting homosexual relationship in the privacy of their own home.

So there’s you’re answer.


Now, about your reason for opposing equal rights to marriage: “I oppose same-sex marriage because the IDEAL to raise healthy children, and therefore future citizens, is one man and one woman, married and faithful to each other, in a stable and nurturing home.”

Firstly, marriage does not necessarily lead to children. If you want to oppose something based on that specific reason, then perhaps you should opposed gay adoption instead. It doesn’t make sense that you would oppose something that has nothing to do with the reason you give to oppose it.


But back to the issue…healthy children. Dozens of studies have been performed on children of homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, they find that children raised in these households are just as healthy as children raised in traditional families. (http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html, make sure you scroll to the bottom to read their sources).

The main hurdle that these children face comes not from the fact that they have two Moms or two Dads, but because intolerant people attack them. Children of gay parents are bullied by their peers who are not taught tolerance. I hate to come back to the interracial marriage issue, but it really is quite applicable in a lot of these situations: Children from mixed-race families often complain of the same type of treatment as children of homosexual families.


The most important thing for children isn’t that who their parents are, but how they are treated.
Which brings me to a heartbreaking case I worked on when I was in government. A grandmother was asking for help with Child Protective Services. Her daughter-in-law lived with another man in a one-bedroom apartment with her granddaughter. The Grandmother’s son was in jail for raping her granddaughter. The woman’s daughter-in-law believed that free love applied to everyone, and was also convicted of raping the granddaughter…in fact, it was her idea. However, the daughter-in-law still had custody. Why? Because the only other blood relative, the grandmother, was in a lesbian relationship with her partner of 30 years. The state felt that it was better than this child stay with her rapist than go to a stable home, simply because they were gay.

If you think this case is an isolated incident, then you’re wrong.


I hate to sound like some 1960’s flower child, but a loving and supportive home is the IDEAL, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.

Now, for a biased Bible lesson regarding segregation and interracial marriage:


Please open your Bibles to the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 7, Verse 3: “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”

And now turn in your Bibles to the book of Genesis, Chapter 11, Verses 6-9: “And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”


And for a New Testament example, turn with me to the book of Acts, Chapter 17, Verse 6: “He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings,”

I will give you this: Earlier, when I said the Bible strictly forbids interracial marriage, I should have said expressly. I didn’t clearly represent myself in that manner… what I was trying to say is that it spells out the words, in several passages, that say God opposes it. Of course, I am cherry-picking, just as many anti-segregation pastors did in the civil rights era. I have quoted the same biblical verses they did to justify their position.


In fact, the Bible has been used by horrible men to justify inexcusable acts. Hitler used the Bible to justify his genocide against the Jews. Of course, if you read the Old Testament, the Jews are God’s chosen people. But in the New Testament, they are the murderers of Jesus. During Hitler’s time, and even today, Jews were often decried in churches as unfit, as unworthy, as impure. Because they did not believe in Christ, they were not worthy of salvation. In fact, I’d like to share with you a quote from the Nuremburg Trials (the real ones, not the movie):

“I have written such articles again and again; and in my articles I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the Jews should serve as an example to every race, for they created the racial law for themselves– the law of Moses, which says, “If you come into a foreign land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women.” And that, Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws.. These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When after centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra demonstrated that notwithstanding many Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and civilizations have perished.”–Julius Streicher (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol. 12)


What’s the lesson here? The Bible is often very vague. If you go into the Bible looking for justification for a belief you already hold, then you will no doubt find it.

Charlie, it’s clear I’m not going to change your mind. I haven’t even been trying to. I have, however, quite enjoyed the debate. It’s always important for people to question their own beliefs, and have others question their beliefs, to make sure that they’re not simply following the herd. It’s always important for people to think, research, and study the things they hold to be true. Even reliable sources will be wrong from time to time, so verifying and justifying information is key to being a well informed citizen…and a well informed Christian.


I’m sure that this discussion has only served to bolster your beliefs, Charlie. I’m sure that you feel you are doing God’s work by challenging things you don’t believe are right. My only hope is that in the end, people who believe in your form of Christianity will understand that being tolerant does not require you to understand. I hope that people will realize that this intolerance towards homosexuals does more harm to society than accepting them for who they are. I hope that someday, people will realize that religion and faith are very personal issues, and that deciding who is and is not worthy of fellowship is not man’s task, but God’s.

Obama's Brilliant Manipulation

During his victory speech, Obama said, “…to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too.”

It was a brilliant line, one that was surely dismissed by those for whom it was intended. The Hillary supporters who abstained or voted McCain in protest, or the Palin groupies who want the U.S. of A to be a Christian Theocracy, both believed Obama was an empty suit: a man full of beautiful rhetoric without the substance to back it up. To them, his words were meaningless.
However, he’s been going out of his way to prove that he wasn’t just blowing smoke. First, he lobbied for the redemption of Lieberman, the Democratic Party’s Benedict Arnold. Then, he kept Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense, and named Republicans Ray LaHood and Mary Schapiro to the cabinet (as an aside, YAY NANCY SUTLEY!) There’s been a lot of liberal grumbling over Obama’s attempts to reach across the aisle, but nothing compared to his choice on a Pastor to preside over the inauguration invocation.

There’s little I can say about Pastor Rick Warren that hasn’t already been said. He wrote “A Purpose Driven Life,” which was instrumental in bringing the Atlanta murderer and hostage taker Brian Nichols to justice (Baptist Press, Hostage Reads ‘Purpose Driven Life’ to Alleged Atlanta Killer, March 14, 2005). He is the senior pastor for an evangelical mega-church in California.

He used his considerable clout to lobby for Proposition 8, and believes that homosexuality doesn’t qualify as a human right because it is not natural. He also doesn’t allow gays to worship at his church. I guess he missed that part in the book of Matthew about loving your enemies (Verse 5:44, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”)
Pastor Rick falls in line with the disturbing trend of Christians to cry discrimination whenever someone disagrees with them. He fears that Christians who speak against gay marriage will be prosecuted for “hate-speech.” He calls us “Christ-o-phobes.”

The LGBT community is outraged, and the talking heads are squeezing this juicy story for all it’s worth.

So why isn’t Obama and his staff freaking out about the fervor over Ricky-poo? Simple. Like an abusive husband and his co-dependent wife, Obama knows we’ll be back. What choice do we have?

On the other hand, he’s got a country full of conservatives who still need convincing. This is a center right country, and it’s necessary that he at least diffuse the concerns of the Christian right for him to be an effective president. They’ve seen his attempts to reach across the aisle, and have responded with a collective, “That’s all you’ve got?” They want to see him reach out to Christians, not just Republicans.

Enter Rick Warren. The Obama team is smart, and they know that conservatives of all shades love Pastor Warren. He’s in line with the major conservative Christian views, yet he has crossover appeal because he writes books, believes in global warming, and works to end global hunger, illiteracy, and AIDS.

Of course, there are plenty conservative preachers with crossover appeal, but the Warren pick is especially brilliant. See, just picking the Good Pastor to do his inauguration invocation would not be enough to convince the conservatives he’s sincere. Most would see it as we do—a transparent attempt to garner favor with conservatives. That is why Pastor Warren is such an outstanding choice.

Obama knew that choosing Rick Warren would anger the left. More importantly, it would anger a relatively small section of the left—the gays and their allies. He knew that we would be vocal about our discontent, and would demand that Obama rescind his invitation. He also knew that he would refuse to do so. This refusal gives Obama legitimacy with the conservative right: It shows that he’s willing to stand up to the far left while embracing the far right. Our outrage played right into his well orchestrated plan. We’ve been played, ya’ll.

However, I’m not sure it’s such a bad thing. This move has conservative kook Pat Robertson saying:

“I am remarkably pleased with Obama. I had grave misgivings about him. But so help me, he’s come in forcefully, intelligently. He’s picked a middle of the road Cabinet. And so far, if he continues down this course, he has the makings of a great president.” (Quote from a recent CNN interview with Suzanne Malveaux, transcript courtesy of the Huffington Post. If you’re not hip to Pat Robertson, be sure to check out the Wikipedia page dedicated to his controversies!)

If this move has Pat Robertson convinced Obama’s got what it takes to change this country, then he will certainly come into office with enough political capital to actually CHANGE THIS COUNTRY.

He’s making good on his victory speech promise; he’s trying to be everyone’s president. Here’s hoping he doesn’t screw it up.