Miss California must've said something right...

It seems like attacking Miss California is the hip thing to do these days even in the White House. David Axelrod, the president's senior adviser, played NPR's "Not My Job" and made a caustic remark about Carrie Prejean:

When Axelrod was asked if he had weighed in on the Obama family’s dog choice, "the Rasputin in this kingdom" (as Sagal jokingly refered to him) sassed back, “I was only called in for the final three, and one was Miss California.”

Prejean made an unpopular (at least among liberals) but courageous public stand against gay marriage which may have cost her the Miss America crown, and now even Axelrod is talking trash about her?! The mainstream media and Hollywood types have been attacking her relentlessly since the incident. They cannot fathom a Californian being pro-traditional marriage between a man and a woman. And Axelrod thinks it's appropriate and funny to compare her to a dog?

Shut up, Mr. Axelrod. For your information, she's paying your and NPR's salaries. For you to show such disrespect to a young, intelligent lady and a Christian woman is evidence of your immaturity and prejudice. Mr. Axelrod, please don't try to be a comedian and do a better job at advising the president (he's not doing too hot, y'know).

Are Republicans really anti-gay?

Sen. McCain's daughter, Meghan, writes in support for "A Gayer GOP"... She makes very good points:

The Log Cabin Republicans’ mission "is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians." The group is centered on core Republican values, such as limited government, individual liberty and responsibility, an economy based in free markets, and a strong national defense. And in the spirit of the GOP’s founding beliefs—personal freedom and liberty—they are dedicated to securing full equality for gays and lesbians in America to create a stronger, larger, and more-unified GOP.

What I found most interesting about the Log Cabin Republicans is where and when they got their start: in California, during the late '70s. At the time, much of the progress made in securing equal rights for gays was drawing a backlash. A successful movement to overturn antidiscrimination laws in Dade County, Florida, was led by singer Anita Bryant. States like Arkansas and Oklahoma prohibited gays from teaching jobs. And a California Republican state senator suggested a proposition for voters to keep gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. (At one point, the initiative was leading in polls with more than 60 percent of voters supporting it.) In the end, voters rejected the proposition in November 1978, by a margin of more than a million votes. While several prominent Democrats and Republicans rallied to secure its defeat, one Republican in particular helped turn the tide—former California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan.

She's absolutely correct about those Republican values. Also, bonus on bringing up the tidbit about Reagan's fight for gay rights. But President Bush's eight years have brought about an unexpected split among the GOP: the "social conservatives" no longer identifying with the "political conservatives," the Republican Party we know today. And that's one of the reasons Meghan's father lost to Barack Obama. Disillusioned conservatives punished the GOP by not voting or worse yet, voting for Obama.

Perhaps the Republican's message on gay issues isn't clear enough? The anti-gay backslash stemmed primarily from gay activists' agenda of redefining marriage on a national level. Marriage is an institution established way prior to the gay rights movement. Most Americans don't care what adults do in their own homes and in their own times, but most Americans aren't ready to accept a family with two "married" daddies or mommies. More importantly, gays today enjoy the same civil liberties as everyone else. It's left to the states to determine how they want to treat marriage and that's just fine. The Constitution says nothing about the federal government defining marriage, so it's reasonable that this decision is left to the state legislatures.

I applaud Ms. McCain's effort in turning the GOP into a more gay-friendly political party, but should that be the focus of party leaders? There is comfort in knowing about the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans and gay conservatives. After all, we hardly ever hear about pro-life liberals. Doesn't that clearly illustrate the Republican Party's wider acceptance? Let's hope her efforts do not end up being a distraction to the core GOP agenda.

The Rick Warren controversy

There is a lot of buzz surrounding Obama's inauguration invitation to Rick Warren. Many liberals and gay rights activists are shocked at the announcement and have come out to demand Obama take Warren off the list. However, more recently there have been calls in support of Warren.

My view is that President-elect Obama is doing the right thing, politically. He needs a well-known religious figure in his inauguration program to satisfy the conservatives. After all, that's nearly 50% of the voters, and he cannot be effective in his narrative of unity if he distances himself, a self-proclaimed Christian, from the anti-gay marriage crowd. I think E. J. Dionne best describes both men:

One need not be too pious about any of this. Both Warren and Obama are shrewd leaders who sense where the political winds are blowing.

Yet keep in mind that there are folks who oppose gay marriage but support gay rights, such as a civil union. Many have problems with gay activists attempting to redefine the traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman. And that is understandable and reasonable. If marriage can be redefined at will by a certain group of people, then what prevents the next proposition of legal marriage to be between say, a man and multiple wives (polygamy)? Or a man and his car? Or a male ape and its mate? Where does it end? That's a point Peter Wehner of Commentary brings up.

Rocker Melissa Etheridge also weighs in on The Huffington Post, starting with:

This is a message for my brothers and sisters who have fought so long and so hard for gay rights and liberty. We have spent a long time climbing up this mountain, looking at the impossible, changing a thousand year-old paradigm. We have asked for the right to love the human of our choice, and to be protected equally under the laws of this great country. The road at times has been so bloody, and so horrible, and so disheartening. From being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina, to hateful crimes committed against us, we are battle weary. We watched as our nation took a step in the right direction, against all odds and elected Barack Obama as our next leader. Then we were jerked back into the last century as we watched our rights taken away by prop 8 in California. Still sore and angry we felt another slap in the face as the man we helped get elected seemingly invited a gay-hater to address the world at his inauguration.

Inspirational, no? But wait a minute -- I thought Bush is being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina? Liberals are starting to confuse even me. She writes an article with sincere emotions, but gays already have the right to love another human of their choice and are protected equally under the laws. Think about it.

Oxymoron of the day: furious gay leaders

I thought gay leaders are happy leaders?

Apparently not the homosexual leaders. They are mad at President-elect Obama for inviting Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his Jan. 20 inauguration. Obama thinks it's a decent gesture in a show of unity -- and most would agree. But gay activists think otherwise. Yes, these gay activists accuse others of being narrow-minded, yet they are up in arms about the president-elect having a pastor at the inauguration. Adding salt to the wound is the fact that Warren preaches in California, a state embroiled in a clash between Proposition 8 supporters and opponents.

Lee Stranahan of the Huffington Post wants everyone to give Obama and Warren a break. After all, Joseph Lowery, founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and supporter of gay marriage, is also invited to the inauguration.

Newsweek's cover story on gay marriage

Overall, I applaud Lisa Miller in her effort to rationalize gay marriage with a catchy heading in Newsweek. Gay marriage has always been an explosive and controversial topic, and I seriously think Newsweek featured this story just to stir the pot a bit. This is one of those subjects that nobody from either side of the argument will budge. It's been like that for decades.

But what's now bugging the pro and con crowds of gay marriage is the result of California's vote on Proposition 8. The vote to change the state's constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman removed the right for same-sex couples to marry. As we all know, California is a liberal state and such a ban on gay marriage came as a shock to many. Immediately supporters organized mass protests and other campaigns in hopes to reverse the results.

First, onto Miller's article. She opens with examples from the Bible, the source of reference for many religious conservatives in their anti-gay marriage stance:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Yet she fails to mention God's first creation in His own image: Adam. Knowing Adam's longing for companionship, did He create another man? No, Eve was made to be with Adam. Then God instructed them to be fruitful and multiply. So since Creation, God intended a male and female to form a family, the basic element of human society. (And even if you don't believe Creationism in the Bible and insist that there exists many interpretations, how can you not interpret Genesis as the basis for man-woman marriage?)

Miller reasonably points out Biblical examples of Abraham, Jacob, etc. from the Old Testament. In the case of Abraham (Abram), it wasn't the Lord that encouraged him to sleep with his wife Sarai (Sarah)'s maidservant, Hagar. The Scripture clearly says that it was Sarai's idea. What the author fails to realize is that the Bible records many things and events, many of which are sins and tragedies, but that does not mean they're condoned by God. That's why there's Jesus and the New Testament. He came to wipe the slate clean and allow a fresh start. And in the New Testament Jesus and the Apostles preach several times on marriage and family.

By merely pulling verses from the Scriptures out of context without fully understanding them, Miller presents a weak argument against the anti-gay marriage, religious conservatives. Furthermore, it does nothing to advance the support of gay marriage.

Gay marriage ban passed

It wasn't all doom and gloom for conservatives after all. Voters in "left coast" California backed a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on Tuesday in a state where homosexual unions are legal. The amendment will override the recent state supreme court decision legalizing gay marriages. Maybe this is the best indication that the country is still center-right?