Why Voting Matters: Homophobic America Votes, Do You?

Yesterday, Media Matters posted a story on Pat Robertson's attack on Barney Frank, democratic rep. from Massachusetts including in that attack a false allegation that Frank had been running a male prostitution ring from his home. Frank is a respected representative, openly gay, with a true heart and interest in issues that effect us all.

You can read the entire article here.

Robertson has long been known for his fiery rhetoric and piercing accusations, but perhaps he only holds a candle to Jerry Falwell who manages to blame everything on someone not of his ilk, including the tragedy of 911, and Hurricane Katrina (note that Robertson states he totally agrees with Falwell):

Beliefnet ran a January 2006 article, The Blame Game, seemingly referring to Robertson, Falwell, and Michael Marcavage, the director of Christian group Repent America, as "right-wing nuts". That is certainly a kinder and more civil description that I tend to embrace but I will capitulate.

Of course, we Anglican/Episcopalian types unfortunately have our own similar ilk in the form, for instance, of Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Uganda, and Archbishop Peter Akinola, Anglican Church of Nigeria. Both have used violent and debasing language to describe lgbt folks in general, and both support laws to jail lgbt persons in their respective countries. So, I have to put them in the Robertson/Falwell/Marcavage "box" of "right wing nuts".

In the United States, both Massachusetts and California allow same-sex marriage. Other states will, no doubt, pass similar laws or their courts may find prohibition of same-sex marriage unconstitutional in that state. Interestingly, this article on same-sex divorce points out some of the complications.

But these matters don't seem to tip American belief which has, in the last decade, changed significantly. In California, that change has come quickly. In 2004, for instance, polls on gay marriage seemed to show clear opposition. Now, polls show opinion in favor of same-sex marriage in California, though the margin of pro/con is relatively small.

Groups most likely to support same-sex marriage include those under age 30, liberals, Americans living in the west, and those who never go to church.

This was the conclusion, apparently, of a June 2008 poll done by CBS News which further noted that, "Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals and weekly church attendees are groups that are least likely to support the idea." [emphasis mine]

The more thorough June 12, 2008 Pew Research Center poll, though, has a slightly different take on the issue.

While there is somewhat greater support for gay marriage than four years ago, overwhelming majorities of Republicans (75%) and white evangelical Protestants (81%) oppose allowing gays to marry, and about half in each group strongly opposes gay marriage (48% of Republicans, 54% of white evangelicals). Opinions about gay marriage in both groups are virtually unchanged from July 2004.

And why does it matter? Consider this from the Pew Research Center Poll report:

Strong opponents of gay marriage are far more likely than voters who oppose it less intensely, or those who favor gay marriage, to say it will be a very important factor in their voting decisions. Fully 55% of strong opponents of gay marriage say it is a very important issue, compared with 29% of strong supporters of gay marriage, and even smaller percentages of voters who favor or oppose gay marriage less strongly.

Here, from CNN, are the positions of both Barack Obama and John McCain.

The polling should make clear why both Barack Obama and John McCain, regardless of personal opinion, have taken the positions they have. They will take few positions in opposition to polling data between now and the election with, perhaps, McCain's wild support of the war in Iraq and his opposition to social security being the more obvious exceptions. But then, as we know, McCain changes his own thoughts and pronouncements daily on any issue depending on who he is speaking before. That much is clear.

Two things bother me a lot about this.

First, the secular world doesn't vote as much as the right wing or evangelical world. So, secular world, get out there and vote! Change depends on you.

Second, those of us that are Christian but not "right wing nuts" don't vote as much, either. Shame on us! We have to work all the harder to get people to the polls.

Those of us in TEC, a historically broad, more liberal church in a country where we ARE concerned about both secular and non-secular issues, cannot rest on a single laurel. We must each help to get the vote out to assure civil rights for all, and also continue within our own church to assure that our lgbt brothers and sisters are included equally within our own episcopacy.

We have a lot of work to do.

Don't Bother to Vote: God Will Take Care of it All. Not new, but still weird news

There is probably no other single statement about God that perplexes me more than the entitled statement. It suggests that we are nothing more than God-puppets, not stewards, devoid of free will, not responsible for personal decisions and worse that our political destiny is somehow religiously preordained. Taken to the extreme, I suppose this means that charitable works are not needed either because, after all, poor people are "supposed" to starve to death. Born to starve to death?

Ridiculous? Apparently not.

In the summer of 1990, and for the fist time ever, three soviet ships carrying approximately 800 Soviet navel personnel were welcomed into US waters in San Diego, CA. I was there, specifically, to help educate and leaflet on getting nuclear weapons off the seas. I had no idea, when going, how incredibly remarkable, in so very many ways, this event would be.

On the drive down to San Diego, days ahead of the event, it was clear something was afoot as the area around Camp Pendleton, which lies east and west of the I-5, was busied with military training. Having made the drive hundreds of times on this stretch of road as I commuted to (then) San Diego State University (SDSU), I was familiar with the normal goings-on on this section of the base.

Indeed, Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and by August 7, US troops were on the ground in Saudi Arabia. I'm sure many were there earlier, but this is the official date recorded.

An absolutely incredible thing happened while I was there leafleting prior to August 2. I was leafleting in a coastal park area, and a large group of people was picnicking in the park with a wee little habachi sort of BBQ. I approached them, and they invited me to have a bite. There were several generations of family in the party, all in middle eastern dress. I asked where they were from. They replied they were from Kuwait. The only real reason that this is memorable, today, is because this family was obviously here to avoid what was going on there; meaning I was probably amidst either diplomatic or royal family members without even knowing it.

As an aside, I knew a little about Kuwait as I had been introduced to their culture when living in an apartment in Whittier. I was 17, and it was my first apartment as I had graduated high school early. Most of the apartment building was occupied by Kuwati or other middle eastern families. They were wonderful people, their children just precious. A little one named Amina lived a couple of doors down. She was probably one of the most gorgeous little ones I have ever seen and I still remember he chewing on the leather frame of one of my photos. I suppose she was teething at the time. It probably wasn't healthy for her, but her mom didn't stop her, and neither did I. I kept that frame, teeth marks and all, for many years. It reminded me of her.

I modeled in one of their Middle Eastern fashion shows to benefit a club at Whittier College and had a great time. A friend of my mom's was a professor there in, I believe, middle eastern dance. I was introduced to a heaven of incredible foods (and ways of eating them). I was surrounded by middle eastern music, and middle eastern hospitality.

But back to the story...

While leafleting, I came across one naval man who told me that it didn't matter what we did (making me wonder why he was in the service to begin with!) that God made the decisions, not us, and that God would make everything okay. Well then. I suppose we could all stop voting, just let a dictator take over and allow this given God would set it right?

It was, and is, beyond my comprehension.

Taken to the extreme, I suppose I can just never work, never buy food, never make a house or car payment and voilà, God kicks in and takes over either protecting the refrigerator box I am living in in the Mission District or allowing me to scrounge food for me and the dogs by making it somehow available? THAT is my responsibility in this world? THAT is why I was created? Gads, what a disappointment!

Predestination doesn't figure at all into my theology. Further, I simply cannot explain my life at all in terms of predestination. It makes no sense to me.

The article's one-line conclusion about the relationship between what one believes God's role is in the world and voting is interesting, to say the least:

So while the belief in God in general is not a predictor of voter participation, the researchers say, whether this God is involved in worldly affairs does impact voting patterns.

I wonder how this will figure in the next election given this from the article:

The researchers found that a person who views God as more inactive and less involved in the world is more likely to engage in political activities. Jewish respondents and mainline Protestants, who commonly take this inactive-God view, scored higher on political participation than evangelical and black Protestants. Catholics also scored higher than Protestants.

I can only hope that most in the US don't believe God is active in the world, as strange as that may sound, until at least after the November election.